Gov't programs........ ?

[Grosbeak07]

Why is it no one will address the "Working Poor?". specifically those who can not afford the health care provided Or there Is no health care provided???
what do we for this class of people?

I guess I qualify as that, I'm the bread winner for a family of 4, my youngest has severe learning disabilities and a well documented genetic disorder. I work for a small Museum, which has a staff of 2 people. I work 40 hours per week and make less than $25,000 annually.

When my youngest was born, the complications from her disorder required over a month long stay in the intensive care unit, including time on a heart/lung bypass machine. After that she visited several doctors a week as followups. From the one bill we got, it was costing nearly 8k a day for her care in the hospital. She spent nearly 40 days in the hospital, which easily ran the costs to over $320,000. The only insurance option I have is Medicaid, which thankfully covered it. If I had to pay out of pocket for her care, I would never get out of debt in my life time. I would likely never own a house or ever get a loan again. There was no way I could ever pay for it.

What irks me in this whole debate, is that somehow there is this image of people recieving government health care now are 'freeloaders'. A majority of the people who get these benefits are like me, hard working (Both my wife and I work) and honest. You forget these systems are not easy to keep, I have to report my income each and every month, I have to send them copies of my bank statements and pay stubbs so they can make sure I don't make too much. If I make .01 over, they will drop me like a hot potato and I have to re-apply. Are there people who abuse the system? Absolutely, there are also rich who cheat on their taxes and old ladies who jaywalk. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this country is Medical bills.

I'm in favor of government health care because it saved my daughters life. Without insurance, I'm not sure she would have gotten the care she needed because there would have been no way for the Hospitals to recoup their costs. So today, I am going to her moving up day at her pre-school, a day only made possible by the Federal Government and the State of New York.

[Fenrisulven6]

I'm not making stuff up. The tide of public opinion was flowing as Russert cited. What was Cheney's response? ". . .We don't know."

Your post claimed Cheney lied by saying Iraq was behind 9-11. Now you weasel away from it.

So you are in favor of eliminating 90% of the federal government? including the military?!?!?

Get back to me when you've actually read the constitution.

Or maybe in your Arrogance you assumed that i must have since I have a Heart

You have a Big Heart, esp when you're spending other people's money.

One thing i did learn in my formal education was how to Spot an A!# Ho!@.....

Thats it! Show us how smart you are by beating your fists into the floor. Priceless.

Governments are notoriously slow and inefficient. But i still believe they would be better than what we currently have.

When will you learn that Change can be worse than the status quo?

[Jebin]

To me, the problem with health care in the U.S. is a failure of the free market system we've had, with particular emphasis on the insurance companies.

I just have to chime in to disagree with this comment. The U.S. does not a have a free market system in place because of Medicare/Medicaid. IE Government 'competition'

Hospital's are a business. Businesses in a free market will try to make the most profit possible, so using the simple economic laws of Supply and Demand prices will naturally gravitate towards efficient sustainable pricing. Discerning patients will shop around for the price they are willing to pay.

Currently, the system resembles this:

Hospital: Okay, we have this procedure, it costs $100 to perform. Tack on other expenses of hospital overhead and we can make a 10% profit by charging $200. "Will you pay $200 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Wow, I can afford that."

Insurance Company: "Yes, that is great. A pleasure doing business with you!"

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."


Same Hospital: We can make a 300% profit by charging $700. "Will you pay $700 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Ouch, no, I can't afford that."

Insurance Company: "Are you serious? We'll have to raise our rates for us to remain profitable, but if that's what it costs..."

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."


Same Hospital: We can make a 1000% profit by charging $2000. "Will you pay $2000 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: Crickets chirp as the empty chair spins slowly to a stop.

Insurance Company: "What? There's no way we can afford to remain in business if we pay that. We'll have to come up with an exclusion clause for this procedure..."

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."

Obviously that's an exaggeration, but what sane business owner would not jack prices up if they will be paid regardless? What happens if you take the government 'competition' out of the picture?

Hospital A: We can make a 10% profit by charging $200. "Will you pay $200 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Wow, I can afford that. I'll be sure to come back if I have another problem!"

Insurance Company: "Yes, that is great. A pleasure doing business with you! We'll refer our customers to you."


Hospital B: We can make a 300% profit by charging $700. "Will you pay $700 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "No thanks, I'll keep looking."

Insurance Company: "Only if it's an emergency, otherwise we will refer our customers to Hospital A."


Hospital C: We can make a 1000% profit by charging $2000. "Will you pay $2000 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Ha ha ha ha ha," as the patient walks out the door to find a different hospital.

Insurance Company: "Ha ha ha ha ha," as the man walks out the door to find a different hospital for his customer.


Hospital C goes out of business due to poor management.

Hospital B struggles until it decides to lower prices to be competitive.

Hospital A's business is booming with record 'sales' and demand is starting to out pace supply. To meet demand, Hospital A buys the closed Hospital C building and expands.

That's the kind of Health Care system I would like to see. Take the government out of the industry and the free market corrects itself. Health care expenses go down until demand equals supply. Insurance premiums drop to a much lower level because the Insurance Companies can now afford to undercut competition. The working (poor?) uninsured can now afford insurance if they want, and those that choose to remain uninsured don't have to file bankruptcy after finding out what their medical bill is.

It's not a perfect system, but it is much harder to game a free market business than it is to game the government.

[Duratan99]

If the government provided us with health care. That would just make us lose millions of jobs. Isn't our economy bad enough?

[Mithran]

I just have to chime in to disagree with this comment. The U.S. does not a have a free market system in place because of Medicare/Medicaid. IE Government 'competition'

I don't see what government involvement there is as being so odious that it hampers the 'free market.' To me, it's a question of how much bureaucracy there is in the Health Care Insurance Industry that is devoted to denying claims. That's one of the reasons their overhead is so high.

[Mithran]

If the government provided us with health care. That would just make us lose millions of jobs. Isn't our economy bad enough?

If small business were freed from the onerous expenses of having to provide Health Care, they'd have a lot more money to hire people with.

[Duratan99]

If small business were freed from the onerous expenses of having to provide Health Care, they'd have a lot more money to hire people with.

Not enough to make up for the MILLIONS of Jobs the insurance companies provide people with.

[baddax]

Get back to me when you've actually read the constitution.

This is a STATE given Right.

You have a Big Heart, esp when you're spending other people's money.

Sry i am a tax payer also.

Thats it! Show us how smart you are by beating your fists into the floor. Priceless.

Nonsensical.

When will you learn that Change can be worse than the status quo?

Lean? No.
i agree 100%
the problem is no one has proposed an alternate plan.

1) the system is broke
2) someone needs to fix it.
3) this is the only proposed plan.
why has there not been a counter proposal from the right?!?!? i am open minded and willing to listen. Until they come up with a better option the mouth peices (Rush etc) need to sit down and shut up.

[baddax]

I guess I qualify as that, I'm the bread winner for a family of 4, my youngest has severe learning disabilities and a well documented genetic disorder. I work for a small Museum, which has a staff of 2 people. I work 40 hours per week and make less than $25,000 annually.

When my youngest was born, the complications from her disorder required over a month long stay in the intensive care unit, including time on a heart/lung bypass machine. After that she visited several doctors a week as followups. From the one bill we got, it was costing nearly 8k a day for her care in the hospital. She spent nearly 40 days in the hospital, which easily ran the costs to over $320,000. The only insurance option I have is Medicaid, which thankfully covered it. If I had to pay out of pocket for her care, I would never get out of debt in my life time. I would likely never own a house or ever get a loan again. There was no way I could ever pay for it.

What irks me in this whole debate, is that somehow there is this image of people recieving government health care now are 'freeloaders'. A majority of the people who get these benefits are like me, hard working (Both my wife and I work) and honest. You forget these systems are not easy to keep, I have to report my income each and every month, I have to send them copies of my bank statements and pay stubbs so they can make sure I don't make too much. If I make .01 over, they will drop me like a hot potato and I have to re-apply. Are there people who abuse the system? Absolutely, there are also rich who cheat on their taxes and old ladies who jaywalk. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this country is Medical bills.

I'm in favor of government health care because it saved my daughters life. Without insurance, I'm not sure she would have gotten the care she needed because there would have been no way for the Hospitals to recoup their costs. So today, I am going to her moving up day at her pre-school, a day only made possible by the Federal Government and the State of New York.

Excellent post! Thank you for sharing that....

[Mithran]

Maybe allowing a lie to continue isn't the same to you as lying. It is, to me.

If you'd like more concrete examples, though:

When Sarah Palin writes that President Obama is going to set up "death panels" to decide whether her child with Down syndrome, or elderly parents, are going to live or die, she is spreading a lie. That's a disgrace and she is not alone. A few others liars need to be told to stop it, too.

Senior citizens seem to be a particular target for these liars. A lot of the mythology about health reform is designed to scare them. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was on Fox News last month saying that the president's proposals would be paid for "on the backs of seniors through Medicare cuts." That's a lie. As the Alliance for Retired Americans points out, Medicare will benefit from cost-containment across the entire health care system. Furthermore, President Obama has proposed ending the wasteful overpayments currently given to private Medicare Advantage plans. That reform will help ensure that Medicare resources benefit all Medicare participants, and are not diverted to insurance companies.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) went on the House floor to state that the GOP opponents of health care reform "would not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." The idea that the president and supporters of health insurance reform want to put people to death is an outrageous lie. As the Los Angeles Times noted on August 10, "This has become one of the most misleading, inflammatory claims made in the health care debate, advanced repeatedly by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Republican lawmakers working to stoke fears among seniors."

In fact, as the Times notes, under the proposal, Medicare would start to cover voluntary doctor visits to discuss living wills and advance directives for care, which would be used only if a person becomes seriously ill and unable to make medical decisions. As is currently the practice, advance care decisions would still be made by the individual. There is nothing mandatory or coercive in the proposal, which was proposed initially by Republicans in Congress.

From:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald..._b_257783.html

[baddax]

I just have to chime in to disagree with this comment. The U.S. does not a have a free market system in place because of Medicare/Medicaid. IE Government 'competition'

Hospital's are a business. Businesses in a free market will try to make the most profit possible, so using the simple economic laws of Supply and Demand prices will naturally gravitate towards efficient sustainable pricing. Discerning patients will shop around for the price they are willing to pay.

Currently, the system resembles this:

Hospital: Okay, we have this procedure, it costs $100 to perform. Tack on other expenses of hospital overhead and we can make a 10% profit by charging $200. "Will you pay $200 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Wow, I can afford that."

Insurance Company: "Yes, that is great. A pleasure doing business with you!"

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."


Same Hospital: We can make a 300% profit by charging $700. "Will you pay $700 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Ouch, no, I can't afford that."

Insurance Company: "Are you serious? We'll have to raise our rates for us to remain profitable, but if that's what it costs..."

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."


Same Hospital: We can make a 1000% profit by charging $2000. "Will you pay $2000 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: Crickets chirp as the empty chair spins slowly to a stop.

Insurance Company: "What? There's no way we can afford to remain in business if we pay that. We'll have to come up with an exclusion clause for this procedure..."

Government via Medicare/Medicaid: "Yes."

Obviously that's an exaggeration, but what sane business owner would not jack prices up if they will be paid regardless? What happens if you take the government 'competition' out of the picture?

Hospital A: We can make a 10% profit by charging $200. "Will you pay $200 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Wow, I can afford that. I'll be sure to come back if I have another problem!"

Insurance Company: "Yes, that is great. A pleasure doing business with you! We'll refer our customers to you."


Hospital B: We can make a 300% profit by charging $700. "Will you pay $700 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "No thanks, I'll keep looking."

Insurance Company: "Only if it's an emergency, otherwise we will refer our customers to Hospital A."


Hospital C: We can make a 1000% profit by charging $2000. "Will you pay $2000 for this procedure?"

Uninsured Patient: "Ha ha ha ha ha," as the patient walks out the door to find a different hospital.

Insurance Company: "Ha ha ha ha ha," as the man walks out the door to find a different hospital for his customer.


Hospital C goes out of business due to poor management.

Hospital B struggles until it decides to lower prices to be competitive.

Hospital A's business is booming with record 'sales' and demand is starting to out pace supply. To meet demand, Hospital A buys the closed Hospital C building and expands.

That's the kind of Health Care system I would like to see. Take the government out of the industry and the free market corrects itself. Health care expenses go down until demand equals supply. Insurance premiums drop to a much lower level because the Insurance Companies can now afford to undercut competition. The working (poor?) uninsured can now afford insurance if they want, and those that choose to remain uninsured don't have to file bankruptcy after finding out what their medical bill is.

It's not a perfect system, but it is much harder to game a free market business than it is to game the government.

Insurance companies Cap costs for procedures, the government does (aka medicare) also.

[baddax]

Not enough to make up for the MILLIONS of Jobs the insurance companies provide people with.

Not really they would become government jobs.

[Duratan99]

Not really they would become government jobs.

I highly doubt it. Keep in mind, a lot of these insurance companies also own the hospitals. If the government starts covering health care there are a few problems.

First off, we're already in debt, they can't afford it.

Obviously all the Jobs that will be lost will have a huge impact on the economy. The government isn't going to hire all of those people from the thousands of Insurance company. They've already got people to handle this.

[baddax]

I highly doubt it. Keep in mind, a lot of these insurance companies also own the hospitals. If the government starts covering health care there are a few problems.

First off, we're already in debt, they can't afford it.

Obviously all the Jobs that will be lost will have a huge impact on the economy. The government isn't going to hire all of those people from the thousands of Insurance company. They've already got people to handle this.

This is Darwinism's Survival of the fittest.Obviously IF the government can do it with fewer employees they will (and thus save money). Some will move to government jobs others will be retrained and move to other fields.

[wamjratl1]

It isn't communist, it is unsustainable. There is no way that a country of any shape or size can sustain a free healthcare system for its citizens. European countries are having to CUT benefits to thei citizens because they cannot impose taxes high enough to cover the costs without putting all their citizens out on the street. My step-mom is Canadian and she brings her parents to the US to get health care (and pays for it) because it is impossible to get a bed in a hospital for them. Her mother was told she'd have to wait 18 months to get a hip replacement and she't have to go to Toronto to get it. They're from Vancouver. She was in constant pain and confined to a wheel chair. Tt took 15 days in the US to get all they pre-op exams done and get the surgery. In less than 10 days, she was up and walking again.

Insurance companies don't kill people, they save them. Health care insurance is no more evil than car insurance. You pay the premium as an investment knowing that the return only happens if you require care and knowing that the return on your investment will be exponential to your investment. My uncle blew out his knee last month. He's had two surgeries, a hospital stay and numerous follow ups and will require physical therapy. Grand total to date (w/o the therapy because it hasn't started yet): $60k. What he paid out of pocket: 20% with a cap on out of pocket expenses of $5k. His 20% was $12k, but he only pays $5k. His premiums paid to his employer over the years he worked there: roughly $15 for him and his wife and they've used their benefits the whole time as well.

Without insurance, medical costs would actually go up because more people would be unable to afford their expenses. Do you have $50k lying around doing nothing in case you blow out your knee?

HMOs are evil because they allow non-medical personnel to determine what medical is necessary for a patient. That is my one concession to your argument.

My biggest problem is your assumption that a) medical care itself is a right and b) rights are free. Technically, if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't a right (see "right" to privacy). Allowing a looser interpretation of "rights," the right is to access to medical care. You don't have the right to pick my pocket for your medical care anymore than I have the right to pick yours. No one should be denied medically necessary health care because they can't afford it (and they aren't); however, should someone be able to pay either because they can or because of insurance, they should.

Billing: The reason you pay $7 for a bandaid is because 15 other people went to the hospital and DID NOT pay for their band aids. Hospital prices are high because people who pay their bills (like me) have to make up for the losses hospitals incur when they treat the indigent, as they are required by law to do, and the idiots who just don't pay their bills. Tell people who can to pay their effing bills and ours will go down. Preventative care is available at little or no cost at county and state health departments and using medicare/medicaid. You can walk into any health department and say "I can't afford my baby's immunizations" and they will provide them. They treat AIDS patients for their preventative care. If it is something they can't treat, they HELP you get the medicare/medicaid coverage or state coverage to pay for it.

Doctors fees: You want them to go down, kill all the lawyers. Okay, don't kill them but make it really hard to sue for malpractice and put a cap on damage awards at actual medical costs. No punitive damages. The single largest expense a doctor has is malpractice insurance. Unlike any other business, where HR/personnel are the largest expense, malpractice insurance consumes the bulk of a medical practice's income. Maryland, which requires obscenely high levels of malpractice insurance particularly for obstetricians and gynecologists (the most commonly sued doctors), is now suffering a shortage of OB/GYNs. Most of my friends who live in Maryland have to come to DC or Virginia for for obstetric or gynecological care.

Drugs: Do some research. The cost of developing new drugs runs into the billions. Those are costs not underwritten by any income being generated by the work performed. There is no guarantee that the pharmeceutical research done will produce useable results andin fact, most don't. That's why it is research and not development. The only way to recoup expenses is to charge for the drugs after the fact. Even this wouldn't be that expensive if other countries *cough*Candada*cough* abided by international trade agreements and did not encourage and even fund the reverse engineering of US-developed pharemeceuticals. Then these companies who incurred NONE of the expenses required to discover, develop and test the medications sell it for a profit.

Bill other nations for their citizens's care? That is a huge laugh. Mexico's government has a known policy of telling its citizens point blank to illegally enter the US and use our medical and welfare services because they can't afford it (they could if they'd develop the oil resources they are sitting on top of). Entire hosptials in El Paso have gone out of business treating illegal immigrants and getting NO payment for those services. Those hospitals closing equaled the loss of a thousand beds and a severe strain on the remaining hospitals to provide coverage to US citizens and those illegal immigrants you so blithely advise treating and futilely sending a bill to a government that doesn't repay the debts it already has.

We already pay taxes. We already pay a far to large a percentage of our income in taxes, so much so many people in many areas can't afford their own homes or topay their bills. My family is clearly in the middle middle class income range. Between my boyfriend and I, 46% of our income goes to pay federal (including SS and medicare/medicaid taxes), state and local taxes. You can't just look at what is withheld from a person's paycheck. There are property taxes, which in many areas far exceed the amount someone pays ontheir mortgage in several months. Ours on a townhouse--not even a house with a real yard--is equal to four mortgage payments, about $8000 a year. There are retired and elderly homeowners in this area who've been forced to sell their already paid for homes because the tax rate is a financial burden on them. Essentially, the government forced them into foreclosure. Sales taxes are 5% of everything we buy at the store. On big ticket items like vehicles, it is much more. On average, that sales tax can come to 5% or more of your annual income.

Just how exactly do you propose I keep a roof over my family's head, food on the table and the utilities on if I have to pay still more taxes to cover the expenses of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own wellbeing? would you like me to bleed out a few thousand more dollars. I'm pretty sure I can tap a vein somewhere.

The answer to the US's health care problem does NOT involve screwing up the health care people already have. Obama's plan would force my company to charge me far more than I am already paying for my insurance and the amount of care I receive would go down. I would also have to wait far longer to get it. Medicare and medicaid are so badly run that they are not sufficient; however, no governement run program will. We can do better, but not much. I dare anyone to come up with a federally run welfare program that is cost efficent, works as intended and actually does a good job.

Allow small businesses to form coalitions to purchase health care insurance. Most states prevent this. Insurance is like anything else--if you buy in bulk, it is cheaper. Allow people who can afford their own health care without insurance to forego purchasing it (Massachusetts requires all individuals to buy insurance, whether they want or need it).

Reform the punitive legal system that puts an unfair financial burden on those who practice medicine. Cap lawsuit awards, require that lawsuits actually have merit. Sometimes people die, even if you do everything right. Stop allowing peope to sue over every damned thing. Cap the cost of malpractice insurance. It should still be required because sometimes people do screw up, but it should never force doctors to leave their state to practice elsewhere because it is too costly to stay.

Some insurance reforms are needed. It should be easier to change insurance companies and maintain continuous coverage. it should be easier to purchase. The laws regarding it should be clearer. The example about the two insurance comapnies pointing the responsibility at the other for careis aperfect example. Both parents should not have had coverage on their children. One or the other should have because you can only have one primary carrier. Multiple primary carriers results in no one being responsible for coverage because technically the company is right. As long as some other company is also designated as primary, one company can deny coverage. Unfortunatley, it takes an army of lawyers to figure that out. How on earth can the average person figure it out. Two policies, twice as much coverage, right? I got lucky and many years ago had an employer who told me that and helped its employees wade through that kind of quagmire. Not all employers have those kind of resources.

The solution is not socialized health care. France and Canada are proving that every day.

Brilliant. Absolutely everything I would have said!

Just to add my own story to the mix: A few years ago, I was laid off 10 days after the birth of my first son (the day I went back to work after taking vacation for his birth and homecoming.) We had also bought a house 6 months before that. I received a petty severance and could not find a job in my field quickly enough. After a few months, I started waiting tables, as it was the only employment I could find. I was not eligible for the insurance at that company for until 6 months of employment. Also, I could not afford the $500 or a month for Cobra. My wife was taking time off from work for the baby and her job did not provide insurance (she's a hairdresser so if she's not at work, she's not getting paid.) If you have kids, you know that there are a lot of Dr. visits in the first several months for checkups, immunizations, etc...

Here's the kicker: Because I actually went and found a job, I was ineligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and even PeachCare (a state program supposedly to insure no child is denied health care). If I had simply not worked, we could have gotten free healthcare, but probably would have lost our home and everything else. So essentially I had to work every extra shift I could to pay the $250-$350 bills every time we had to take the baby to the Dr. and keep our house, cars, lights on etc. Hey, that's the breaks: you want something / need something, work for it.

Meanwhile, folks with no jobs (and I'm not talking disabled people who can't work, although there are far fewer of those in reality than on paper) are squirting out babies left and right and paying NOTHING for their medical care while I am working the only job I can find but because I have an income, I am denied any sort of health care plan.

Do I think we should have govt. medical care? No I do not. If I can work my a$$ off to make sure my family has a home and food and medical care, then so can anyone else. And, as others have pointed out, the govt. does a sh***y job managing just about everything. Yes, the system needs reform. There needs to be a way for ABLE, WORKING individuals to get basic healthcare for themselves and their families.

[Jebin]

We have public transportation that hasn't put the car companies out of business.

LOL, this analogy is just as great as the Post Office vs FedEx and UPS that the President used the other day.

I broke my arm, let's go wait for the bus to the hospital so we can wait 8 hours at the backed up socialized hospital and then thank the doctor when he tells me to take an aspirin.

I don't see what government involvement there is as being so odious that it hampers the 'free market.' To me, it's a question of how much bureaucracy there is in the Health Care Insurance Industry that is devoted to denying claims. That's one of the reasons their overhead is so high.

Cause and effect, supply and demand. The Insurance Companies want to profit, but the high cost of procedures limits what they can cover and still profit. The government is willing to pay the high cost of procedures, creating artificial demand which raises the prices further.

Insurance companies Cap costs for procedures, the government does (aka medicare) also.

Yes, by placing a cap the government is dictating the price. If an enterprising physician discovers a way to do the same thing for less, he will still charge the government's 'cap' because his savings turn into pure profits.

You say the Insurance Companies set a cap as well, but that's really not the case. If the government sets a cap at $2000, and the Insurance Company refuses to pay a cap over $1500 what will happen? "Your insurance only covers part of the cost, you'll need to make up the difference." or "I'm sorry, we don't accept your insurance here." The price of the procedure will not go down unless the government stops buying it at that price.

[Duratan99]

This is Darwinism's Survival of the fittest.

This statement alone contradicts your entire argument that the government should provide health care to everyone. You've lost all credibility in my eyes.

[Rickpa]

"Should my tax money go to support the medical of people who refuse to work?"

People without income are already being taken care of by government health, which includes federal Medicaid, and programs in most states. It's people who work for low wages for companies who don't offer insurance, or offer insurance that costs more than their low wages can support that are left out. Also in economic times as we are now experiencing, many people get by working several part time jobs, and insurance isn't offered, or our of price reach.

[baddax]

LOL, this analogy is just as great as the Post Office vs FedEx and UPS that the President used the other day.

I broke my arm, let's go wait for the bus to the hospital so we can wait 8 hours at the backed up socialized hospital and then thank the doctor when he tells me to take an aspirin.

Cause and effect, supply and demand. The Insurance Companies want to profit, but the high cost of procedures limits what they can cover and still profit. The government is willing to pay the high cost of procedures, creating artificial demand which raises the prices further.


Yes, by placing a cap the government is dictating the price. If an enterprising physician discovers a way to do the same thing for less, he will still charge the government's 'cap' because his savings turn into pure profits.

You say the Insurance Companies set a cap as well, but that's really not the case. If the government sets a cap at $2000, and the Insurance Company refuses to pay a cap over $1500 what will happen? "Your insurance only covers part of the cost, you'll need to make up the difference." or "I'm sorry, we don't accept your insurance here." The price of the procedure will not go down unless the government stops buying it at that price.

I assure you the governemt will offer Less than the insurance companies. This is why fewer doctors accept medicare etc than private insurance. The government pays LESS....

[baddax]

This statement alone contradicts your entire argument that the government should provide health care to everyone. You've lost all credibility in my eyes.

I had credibility?!?!?

The difference is Ecomic darwinism (where buisnesses go bankrupt) vs Real Darwinism where People Die.