Single-payer system would solve all woes
Gladys Foster
"The coming clash/Tax hikes for boomers will ignite conflict," t
Second, Social Security, as currently structured, can be expected to continue to be fully funded for several decades, as argued by the Congressional Budget Office and other authorities, and even then would need only minor adjustments to continue full funding.
Third, the health-care system in the United States is indeed broken but could be expanded to cover everyone at much less cost than now if a universal single-payer plan were adopted. Presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich has introduced such a plan in the U.S. House of Representatives.
hey glads before you start dancing in the streets about socialized medicine, single payer, you need to talk to some of the countries that have it and see if your old age illnesses will ever be treated. I for one dont have a problem paying for my insurance as it is MY responsibility to do so and not every other tax payer out there to take care of me.
Social security is a big joke and really needs an over haul. even clinton realized that in 98 and had all the support of his party, in making SS look like the government employees plan with private accounts,but then did nothing. Bush brought back the same plan with private accounts like the federal government has and every democrat told us SS was just fine. If SS is so wonderful have you ever wondered why the elected big wigs have there own 100% pay retirement plan?
kucinich and all of the rest of the far left extremist socalist liberal democrats do want socalized medicine so they can get votes for taking care of everyone and be the mommy and daddy to eveyone who will not take responsibility for themselves.
Guaranteed health care for all Americans would save tax-dollars long term by encouraging preventative medicine and avoiding the inflated cost of emergency room visits by the uninsured.
An ounce of prevention...
Posted by Charles B on April 30, 2007 07:19 AM06:05: "hey glads before you start dancing in the streets about socialized medicine, single payer, you need to talk to some of the countries that have it"
Hey, 06:05, before you criticize the single payer system, you should talk to some of the countries that have it.
There, two very informative posts.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 07:20 AM"Advantages of the Single-Payer Health Coverage:
* Comprehensive Health Coverage for everyone
* Greater choice of provider
* Health decisions made by patient and provider instead of HMOs
* Improved Health Planning
* Health coverage would be portable, not tied to employment.
* Eliminates the high (up to 33 percent) overhead cost of multiple private, for-profit insurances by including coverage for everyone in a single-risk pool (reducing administrative costs to 1-5%).
* Instead of hundreds of insurances with differing requirements (requiring increased office staff), providers would deal with only one form.
* The plan would be financed with a progressive tax, at less per-capita cost.
* Companies would avoid hassles of managing health care, and become more competitive without annual inflationary health costs.
* Consumers would pay less for goods and services that are inflated by businesses’ high health costs - e.g., currently $1,500 is added to the cost of each U.S.-made automobile due to health costs.
* U.S. Consumers , who now spend twice as much per capita as consumers in other developed countries (with poorer outcomes), would save as administrative health costs are reduced.
* Single-risk-pool coverage would permit negotiation of lower, bulk rates for medications.
* Increased U.S. life expectancy: Similar socioeconomic single-payer European countries enjoy average two-year longer life expectancies.
* The over-45 million uninsured Americans and 50 million more underinsured would have access to preventative care, without having to resort to delayed, crisis Emergency Room care. at 4 to 5 times higher cost.
* Lessening demands on the nation’s emergency rooms for primary care would stem the tide of closures of overburdened emergency rooms.
* Retirees would not face loss of health coverage by employers.
* Eliminates the profit motive that places priority on stockholders’ profits, and creates a perverse incentive to deny health coverage to the ill or high-risk."
I suppose when a pick-pocket buys a loaf of bread he could be called a 'single payer'. But, let's not forget how the pick-pocket gets his money.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 08:07 AMTruth-
Great post. But how will all those insurance company CEO's get by? How will they pay their country club dues?
We should be thinking of the million-dollar a year CEO's here, not the people.
/snark
Posted by Tbone on April 30, 2007 08:19 AMAny way you look at it and anything you call it, it's Big Government medicine. People in favor of such a "solution" to the problems of the US health care industry point to Canada and the WELFARE states of Europe as shining examples of how well this works.
WELL, IT DOESN'T!
On June 5th 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada call the system "DANGEROUS and DEADLY," striking down key laws and turning the country's vaunted health care system on it head. The ruling aptly symbolizes the declining enthusiasm for socialized medicine (single-payer)even in socialist nations. Dennis Kucinich (far left)should take note.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice John Major agreed to hear cases from citizens concerning the"single payer" system. One man living in Quebec who had waited for over a year for a hip replacement, wanted to purchase private medical insurance and appealed to the court. The bench,decided that the province of Quebec had no right to RESTRICT THE FREEDOM of a person to purchase health care or health insurance. In doing so, the court struck down two Quebec laws, overturning a 30 year ban on private medicine in that province. One of the justice's John Major wrote:
"The evidence in these cases show that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
According to statistics- Canada: Approximately 1.2 million Canadians lack a family doctor and are looking for one. Others seek more urgent care. Toronto was shaken recently when the media reported that a retired hockey legend was FORCED to wait more than a month for life saving chemotherapy because of bed shortages at the largest cancer hospital in Canada. Canadians experience long waits for practically any diagnostic test, surgical procedure, or specialist consultation.
A small town in Canada with only one doctor serves the whole town and can only see 50 patients a year holds an annual lottery to choose the "lucky" 50 people who can be treated.
U.S. health care may have it's woes, but the siren song of socialized medicine offers no solution!!!! Indeed, even the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that SOCIALISM(SINGLE-PAYER) FOR HEALTH CARE IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR AN EARLY GRAVE.
Posted by A Citizen on April 30, 2007 09:06 AMMost people that use the emergency rooms for their health care are illegal aliens and that is a FACT!!!
Posted by on April 30, 2007 09:13 AMThanks to A Citizen for a civil, intelligent and thoughtful post. I need to do more research to be able to comment.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 09:16 AMCharles, if someone else is paying the freight, what's to prevent people from dropping in on the doctor every other day?
And won't this prevent an employer, seeking to attract and keep the best employees, from offering a better deal?
Not to mention preventing an employee, seeking a better a health plan, from exercising his iniatitive and changing jobs?
Or preventing someone from taking his own calculated risk and saving a few bucks by declining his employer's health coverage?
An ounce of prevention, indeed....
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 09:18 AMAnd those millions of Americans (13-17%)who currently don't have insurance, how long do they have to wait for a hip replacement? Or maybe they're just invisible or don't count. Eh, Citizen? And please tone down your rhetoric. I think we can make decisions about these issues without the scary infomercials.
An excellent letter from Ms. Foster of Centennial.
By cutting out the middleman (insurance cos. and the like), it seems we as a society could save an enormous amount on health care.
Of course, the middleman is a huge industry, with lots of dollars, and he will fight any proposals tooth and nail that would cut him out of the equation. He does, and will, pay enormous amounts to lobbyists and think tanks to oppose such measures.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 09:24 AMPrima facie, what's to prevent people, now, from dropping in on the doctor every other day? Or are you suggesting that only poor people without insurance do this? In any case, multiple doctor visits are not going to break the bank.
A single-payer system would eliminate employer involvement in health care so employers and employees would not be tempted to make employment decisions based on health care issues. Eliminating the employer is one of the advantages of such a system. Employer administration too is part of the middleman costs paid today.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 09:33 AMI one thing to say about single payer political BULL. Canada has this system and my family comes here for anything but a cold. How would you like some Polotician tell you that you can not get medical care if you are so old, only have so long to live and the cost is too much so too bad. Well that happened to my Aunt who had cancer she was too old and the stats show she only might live another year anyway. so we brought her here and payed ourselves and she lived another 7 years and she did not die of cancer. So social medical programs are plain BULL.
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on April 30, 2007 09:41 AMAlso wanted to mention: I would think employers (unlike insurance cos) would be more than glad to be out of the health care equation, as it costs them a great deal of time and money to deal with this stuff. I'm surprised more do not weigh in on this.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 09:43 AMPeople in countries with universal health care (and that would be every other developed nation on earth) do typically visit their provider more often than Americans. And yet those systems cost less. Go figure.
Maybe it's for the same reason that a police force costs less than each of us arranging for our own private protection force.
Maybe it's because gramma was right: an ounce of prevention costs less than a pound of cure.
And makes for stronger global competitiveness as well. Imagine business owners not having to worry about whether their insurance costs are going to go up 4 percent or 14 percent next year.
High health care costs have "created a competitive gap that's driving investment decisions away from the U.S.," Ford Motors Vice Chairman Allan Gilmour said in a 2004 speech at an auto industry conference. "If we cannot get our arms around this issue as a nation, our manufacturing base and many of our other businesses are in danger," he said.
Why do people defend this?
Anderson, I'm saying people who don't pay for something have no incentive to control their own costs.
And more employers are cutting back on health benefits. For some, it'll be to their detriment. If my employer cuts back too much or someone comes along with a better deal, they'll lose a valuable employee. On the other hand, offer me more and I'll be more inclined to stay and make the company better.
Health care is a commodity on which people must place their own value. An employer can offer insurance as compensation, or I can buy what I need, when I need it.
Uncle Sam doesn't buy my house, clothe my children, put food in my fridge. He needn't pay my doctor, either.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 09:59 AMMy first observation is that looking at Canada by itself, without looking also at the United States, does not provide a sound basis for judging which has the better system.
For example, A Citizen refers to 1.2 million Candians looking for a family physician. He does not say that any of these people lack the medical care they need. What about the forty-five million uninsured in the United States?
A Citizen gives a couple of anecdotal examples one of a legendary retired hockey player who had to wait more than a month for chemo, and the other of a small town which has only one doctor who sees "can see" only fifty patients a year.
Of course, it's difficult to comment on those ancedotes because A Citizen doe not provide a means for finding out what "the rest of the story" might be. But while it is most unlikely that a legendary sports figure in the United States would have an undue wait for medical service, does anyone doubt that there are many, probably millions, of poor people in the United States who go completely without medical services or who wait a long time before they can affored it?
As to the Supreme Court case A Citizen cites, that was not about whether Quebec could legally deny its citizens the right to get private health insurance, something not affordable by the "lower" class economically. Three of the seven justices said the Quebec could do so, and a majority of four said "no". But the court refused to take a look at similar provisions which are in effect in other provinces. It likewise made clear that it was not trying to undo Canada's single payer program.
The court's opinion was described this way at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012787
"Most provinces, she said, allow their citizens some access to private care, with important conditions. Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island all allow doctors to set their fees and function outside medicare, but don't permit private insurance to cover any services offered under the public plan. Ontario and Manitoba also outlaw private insurance, but will refund amounts paid by patients to doctors who opt out of the public plan. Nova Scotia allows private insurance for private services."
It is clear that the court did not want to take a course of action that would lead to the system in the United States:
From the foregoing website:
"And advocates of pure public care have long argued that allowing more privately insured services would put Canada on a slippery slope to a U.S.-style system dominated by private care. But the judges reached quite a different conclusion, by turning instead to Europe. "The evidence on the experience of other Western democracies," McLachlin and Major wrote, "refutes the government's theoretical contention that a prohibition on private insurance is linked to maintaining quality public health care."
As my friend Bugs Bunny used to say, "that's all folks" (for now).
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 10:04 AMI'm also saying people who pay for something tend to take as much as they can get, whether they need it or not.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 10:04 AMFrom Marcia Angell, MD Editor-in-Chief
New England Journal of Medicine:
"Are we in a health care crisis?"
"We certainly are in a health care crisis. If we had set out to design the worst system that we could imagine, we couldn't have imagined on as bad as we have. Here's a system in which we spend over twice what the next most expensive country spends on health care -- that's Switzerland. We spend roughly $4500 for every American, whether they have insurance or not. Switzerland spends maybe $2500 for every citizen. Canada spends maybe $2,000. Great Britain, poor little Great Britain, spends about $1,000 for every British citizen. And what do we get for it? What do we get for that $4500? Well, we certainly don't get our money's worth. We have roughly 43 million people with no insurance whatsoever, and among the rest of us, many of us are underinsured. That is, we have shrinking packages. This might be covered, but that won't be covered."
"Our life expectancy is shorter. Our infant mortality is higher. Our childhood immunization rate is lower. And look at how often we get to see the doctor, how long we get to stay in the hospital. Canadians see their doctors far more often than we do. Americans really can't afford to go see their doctor. There's always some co-payment, some deductible, or they have to pay out of pocket, or something isn't covered. But in Canada, where everybody is covered for everything, they go to the doctor much more often. When they are hospitalized, their hospital stays are longer. If they're having a baby, they get to stay four or five days. Japan has very long hospital stays. Ah, it's almost a rest cure. People in Japan who are hospitalized might lie around the hospital for a week or two just to take a rest. So we're really not getting our money's worth. It's going to all sorts of things, but not to doctors and patients."
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw/m_angell.htm
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 10:07 AMWrong if you dont pay for it you will use it a lot more cause there is no cost to you. look at the ER's that are used as dr's offices by all the illigals.
government cant run itself let alone get into the medical business.
"And won't this prevent an employer, seeking to attract and keep the best employees, from offering a better deal?"
Employers by and large are looking for ways to cut down on how much they have to pay for health care.
"Or preventing someone from taking his own calculated risk and saving a few bucks by declining his employer's health coverage?"
Experience shows that what happens to people who go without health care end up costing the system the most money when their gamble ends up, as it most often does, losing.
"Charles, if someone else is paying the freight, what's to prevent people from dropping in on the doctor every other day?"
I don't know what prevents them but something apparently does since this hasn't been a significant problem. The great majority of people go to the doctor too seldom rather than too often. I myself would favor requiring some kind of modest copay by patients.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 10:16 AM"Anderson, I'm saying people who don't pay for something have no incentive to control their own costs."
Prima Facie, I don't know about you, but I have no inclination to go to the doctor, if I'm not hurting. Besides, office visits are not high cost care. Hospitalizations and testing are. As someone else pointed out, health care costs are less in other industrialized nations with universal health care. Or maybe you just don't believe that?
"Uncle Sam doesn't buy my house, clothe my children, put food in my fridge. He needn't pay my doctor, either."
He does, however, provide for your water, power, maintain roads, and a host of other things we tend to take for granted. Govt's role in health care is appropriate because it's something everyone needs, and the private sector can't do it effectively or efficiently.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 10:22 AMIn Holland, they have a system where everyone has access to health care. If you make above a certain level of income, then you pay part of the costs. A private component of health care exists for those who want it and can afford it.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 10:27 AMDo you really want someone like George Bush, Nancy Peolosi or the supreme court deciding what and when you can medical treatment for?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 10:28 AManderson and Truth,
What's the downside to a 'single payer' government run health care system? Even if the system is as good as you say it is, surely there's some kind of trade-off, right? Taxes would higher. Anything else?
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 10:30 AMOf course, I dropped a word at 10:14. Meant to type:
I'm also saying people who DON'T pay for something tend to take as much as they can get, whether they need it or not.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 10:40 AMSome possible downsides:
--people in insurance industry would lose their jobs (not an insignificant consideration);
--some people might have to wait longer to see a doctor (although this isn't certain);
--there's bound to be confusion and complaints in change (but then health care is a confusing mess for many of us already--in the long run it should be simpler since we don't have middlemen);
--could affect doctor compensation (and some will argue brain drain as a result although I'm not buying it).
--taxes will be higher in the short run, but we should save long term, as health care costs go down.
"He does, however, provide for your water, power, maintain roads, and a host of other things we tend to take for granted."
No, Anderson, the government has had a hand in creating the infrastructure for such things. But I'm paying someone every month for the water, power and roads. And the government made the builder of the houses on my street foot the bill for those water pipes, electrical lines and roads.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 10:50 AManderson,
Other than the loss of jobs in the insurance industry and the temporary confusion involved with switching to a new system, it doesn't seem like you see any definite downsides.
You say some people "might" have to wait longer. Doctor's compensation "could" be affected although you don't believe that. You say taxes would temporarily be higher, but eventually we'd save money because of the supposed efficiency of a government run health care system.
So, it doesn't seem like you're acknowledging any real definite downsides.
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 11:00 AMJohn, I just think it's a better idea long overdue. As to waits and doctor's comp, it seems it would depend on how the system is designed. It would be an enoromous undertaking. I would not exclude the availability of private healthcare, as they apparently do in Canada. I don't know how to fairly compensate the doctor's--their role in the health care system is the one I understand the least.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 11:07 AM
From what I understand, it's specialists that would take the brunt of an income hit, and I can understand their concern. It''s not a minor detail to be shrugged off, even if you are a proponent of a single-payer system (which I am). As with every major undertaking, there needs to be close scrutiny on the details to be hammered out.
But for the average physican, a simplified system would probably drastically reduce admin overhead, mitigating at least to some degree an income decrease.
As for long wait times, I have done some research that shows, contrary to the propoganda put out by opponents of a single payer system. not a heck of a lot of Canadians are actually coming here for specialist procedures. If anything, more Americans are crossing the Canadian border to get cheaper prescription refills.
anderson,
Other than the loss of jobs in the insurance industry and the temporary confusion involved with switching to a new system, it doesn't seem like you see any definite downsides.
You say some people "might" have to wait longer. Doctor's compensation "could" be affected although you don't believe that. You say taxes would temporarily be higher, but eventually we'd save money because of the supposed efficiency of a government run health care system.
So, it doesn't seem like you're acknowledging any real definite downsides.
John II, he did you the courtesy of answering your question and provided FIVE possible downsides. How you can look at his answer and then (uncourteously) deduce he didn't acknowledge any is beyond me, unless you are interpreting his likewise "possible" counterpoints as completely disqualifying the downsides.
This is a common tactic you use on these boards, though. Asking someone to extend you a courtesy you rarely, if ever, give in kind and then slam them for it.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 11:56 AMmytwosense,
I didn't slam anderson. I don't see how I "uncourtesly" treated anderson.
Of the five downsides he provided, only one was a definite downside. Everything else was 'could' or 'might' or something to the effect of 'it will all work out in the end'. In other words, he was offering the possibility that aside from the demise of the insurance industry, there 'might' not be any downside to the government running our health care.
Now, if I'm supposed to consider the 'single payer' plan, I want some sort of acknowledgment of what the negative effects the plan will be. Using words like 'might' and 'could' leaves open the possibility that there may not be any real downside.
"This is a common tactic you use on these boards, though. Asking someone to extend you a courtesy you rarely, if ever, give in kind and then slam them for it."
I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 12:17 PMWe don't control our borders or have a handle on illegal aliens and illegal immigration , why in hell even talk about socialized medicine.
Posted by Cobalt on April 30, 2007 12:31 PMWhy talk about apples, when you are looking at oranges?
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 12:34 PMYou're making assumptions on what he meant. How do you know he used the words "might" and "could" because he doesn't definitively know if those items would turn out to be downsides? Some of this is a nebulous grey area, that's why the topic is being debated.
At any rate, you didn't offer some thoughtful counterpoints to his, you just nitpicked his post on the basis of semantics.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 12:37 PM
typo correction: meant to say "How do you know he *didn't use* the words "might" and "could" because he doesn't definitively know if those items would turn out to be downsides..."
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 12:40 PM"I want some sort of acknowledgment of what the negative effects the plan will be."
Well, we don't know for we don't have "a" plan. Only proposals for how it might work. Your insistance on wanting black and white or definitive answers to a very complex subject is probably why mytwosense said what he did to you.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 12:41 PMmytwosense,
I asked anderson a question, he answered, and I commented on his answer; what's the problem?
Anderson could have asked me a question and I would have answered him. He didn't ask me anything so how could I return the courtesy?
As for his answers, I believe he does know that patients will experience longer wait times. How can anyone argue otherwise? So, he should have simply said "Waiting times will increase but I believe it's worth it."
Would you ever let President Bush get away with something like that? If Mr. Bush was asked what the downside of a war with Iraq would be and he responded, "Some people might die.", you, anderson, Truth, Old Grouch, Sharon B. would all scream foul.
People will die in war and waiting times will increase in a government run health care system.
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 12:50 PMHealth care is a commodity on which people must place their own value. An employer can offer insurance as compensation, or I can buy what I need, when I need it.
Two of the main problems with depending on employer-provided health insurance is that a) so many people are tied to a job they loathe because they are dependent on the healthcare it provides and b) Countless employers are getting squeezed from ever-increasing rises in premiums on their employee healthcare plans.
And you can't just buy insurance when you need it. If you aren't employed, you darn sure can't, and you can't specify to an HMO, "Hey, I decided to pay in full cash out of pocket my medical expenses this month - so can I get a break on my premium next month?"
Uncle Sam doesn't buy my house, clothe my children, put food in my fridge. He needn't pay my doctor, either.
Nor would Uncle Sam be paying for your health care under a single payer system. YOU would be, with your taxes. Wouldn't you like to see the taxes you are paying now actually go towards paying your health care?
We could actually look at what works, what doesn't with other single payer systems and tailor our own to better fit with our richer economy. Surely there could be some different levels in single-payer care, from no premiums to a low monthly premium or even, as another poster pointed out, modest co-pays.
As it with private healthcare now, none of our taxes are used to pay directly for our own healthcare, we're paying high premiums and often high co-pays, and that's all dependent on where/if you are employed.
With Medicaid, it's usually completely free with no co-pays, even though many on it could probably afford at least a small co-pay or a premium of say, $50 - $100 a month.
Surely there is somewhere in the middle we could meet on implementing a single payer system in this country???
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 12:55 PManderson,
"Well, we don't know for we don't have "a" plan.
We don't really have to understand the details of the plan to know that certain principles will always hold true. Government run health care creates virtually unlimited demand while supply still remains finite at a fixed cost. So, knowing the law of supply and demand, how can waiting times not be increased?
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 01:05 PM"Wouldn't you like to see the taxes you are paying now actually go towards paying your health care? "
No. My tax burden is already too high. And I'm not under the illusion that putting the government in the health-care business would come from the general fund.
A better "solution" -- use of that word implies there is a problem that needs solving, which I don't -- is for people to carry their own weight. If your employer doesn't provide you with incentive to work hard by offering a health plan, move to an employer who does. Or -- and this will probably shock you -- pay for it yourself. We did that at one, believe it or not.
You pay for your house, your food, your car, your plasma TV. Why not your doctor? This will make people better consumer, looking for the best value for their buck and using market forces to drive down costs.
Handing over seven percent of the national economy to the same outfit that gave us $800 screwdrivers is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 01:06 PMWe already have a failing example of socialized medicine in our country, and it exists for a very small portion of our population. It is our VA and military system. It is a failure and an embarressment. Unlike a lot of my brother and sisters who are/haved served, I am lucky enough to be able to pay for my service related maladys myself. Make no mistake about it, it is socialized medicine, it is a failure, and if our government can't effeciently run a program for a very small sampling of our population, how can we expect them to run a program for 300,000,000 people without privatization.
Posted by Mike S. on April 30, 2007 01:11 PMWhen the federal government gets out of matters where it doesn't belong -- health care, education, welfare -- and citizens keep more of what they earn, they'll be able to pay for more of what they want.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 01:14 PMBoils down to the old, old, old sayings - and ways of looking at things: Them as has, gets. And keeps! Them as don't have . . . .?
Ah! Ta hell with 'em. Why don't they have? Or get for themselves? Damned Socialists anyway!
How about the fact - one very easily provable from almost any newspaper file - that it's NOT always the Doctor - not even USUALLY, the Doctor - who prevents someone getting health care now? Do you prefer being diagnosed by, and treated according to, the ideas of your insurance agent? But, that's what happens here in the United States with our system.
Oh! Of course! I forgot! That's just good old "capitalism/free-enterprise". Nothing at all like Canada, or someplace else. After all, a corporation big shot is always a better judge of what is needed than some bleding heart liberal pill pedler; the corporation man has to watch out for the "bottom line". And that's far more important than ideas, or trials, or experiments and advances in "care" any time.
So, other nations have at least something workable - and fixable where necessary. While we keep on arguing about side issues; and get further and further away from even an attempt to solve the real problems.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 01:19 PMOr -- and this will probably shock you -- pay for it yourself. We did that at one, believe it or not.
Yeah, those were the good old days, weren't they? When people could actually AFFORD to pay for their medical care.
If your employer doesn't provide you with incentive to work hard by offering a health plan, move to an employer who does.
Forgot about that powerful bargaining chip! Oh wait - also forgot that jobs are being outsourced overseas in droves. Maybe one reason why is because employers are getting crunched on ever-increasing health care premiums!
Posted by mytwosenseq on April 30, 2007 01:28 PMYou want to see what government run health care IS in the United States? Look at the VA. My husband had an emergency appointment for a hernia and waited 9 months. They then spent ten minutes with him and said that if it wasn't enflamed or infected they would do nothing. That's a denialof health care under a government plan.
Want another example?
The govenment has taken over and will provide all childhood imunizations at low or no cost. They are available on certain days for about 3 hours a day;two or three days a week.
I am in a good health care situation with insurance with an HMO but with extremely high deductables.
DON''T let the govenrment mess up health care.
I was a cab driver in Denver for 12 years. I spent many a night taking people home from the emergency room who had minor illnesses, imaginary problems and simple problems. I wondered why they would go to the ER and have such a long wait for a cold or a sprain and was bluntly told that if they go to the clinic they have to make an appointment and pay their own way and sometimes there is a co-payment but the ER is "free". Most of the people I took home had called an ambulance. The ride home was paid by the Social Services department. NO COST = NO CARE ABOUT ABUSING THE SYSTEM!
I still see it every day. I have had two heart attacks in the past year and am practically immobilized to conserve energy and health.(Come on triple transplant) Three times in the past six months I have gone to the ER and usually was moved to the front of the line for tests etc. I didn't watch the TV I listened to the voices around me.
I heard doctors telling people that they were fine and there was a minor sprain that required ice, a bad cold, and a lack of medication because the patient "forgot" to take it. In most of thewe cases the people offered a medicaid card or number to pay with. And I am only talking about the ones who spoke English which was the majority twice.
A final example from the real world:
My step-son is on full disability with final stage AIDS. He has been given medication where the daily dose costs almost three hundred dollars. They gave him a three month supply. He took it for two weeks and then stopped. You and I paid for the unused pills. He didn't care. Now he is on a new medication and will most likely take if for no longer than a month before stopping with two months worth of pills sitting on a shelf.
The problem is twofold:
People who get something for free overuse it. No matter what it is or where or even who they are. I call it the "IT'S FREE!" syndrome. Ask anyone who has an inbound 800 number. They get many more calls than they did previously but they pay for it. Some find it a good deal, others don't. But their customers pay that bill.
The second half of the problem is that once the government intervenes in something people tend to lean on it and let go of individual measures. Look at Social Security. Most of us know it won't be a good deal but how many know it was originally proposed as an add-on for individual retirement plans and savings. Now many, not all, think it is their old age support. Also look at how the program has been stuffed with other expenses like SSI, Survivor benefits, Medicare, and disability, which is what my son abuses.
Government run health care is doomed to fail for simple reasons, not complex ones.
Right now people don't pay their own health care bills. If they have insurance the company pays, if not they usually stiff the government. Here are a few questions to demonstrate why health care costs are so high:
How much does your doctor charge for a routine offfice visit?
How much does any prescription drug you take regularly cost?
Do you know which testing lab you doctor uses?
What is your co-pay, if you have insurance, for a hospital stay?
What is you maximum co-pay per year?
The last time your doctor suggested a treatment or test what alternatives were there in places to take it or tests to determine what he wanted to know?
I ask because I once made all the mistakes of not knowing these answers and then spent six months without insurance or medication and I am a type II diabetic.
Want a real health care reform? One that works and will not ration care or put the govenment in charge of decisions?
Give every citizen a govenment insurance plan if they are below a certain level of income. Offer the plan to others at a reduced cost based on a sliding scale based on income. Give individuals the right to deduct health care costs and insurance expenses from their income tax with no minimum floor. Encourage employers to set up HSA plans for employees while the government sets up a 2500 dollar plan for every person who gets the "free" insurance. After 7 years any amounts in the HSA account are deductable by the patient who can use the cash for anything. Usually the floor would be 7 X 1500 for 10,500 in the account and only an amount over that could be deducted. That gives the incentive to both manage and monitor health care costs. Those who won't or merely don't are those who would do the same under any government plan but the majority of peole would manage quite well with a high deductable insurance plan backed up the a MSA, HSA plan. If we do go to a single payer system I might have to pay less but I doubt I would still be alive as the incentive will be to "move them out" rather than "figure it out" and my heart attack would have happened at home. Had I not been in ICU the treatment would have been too slow and the probablity is death with that delay.
So label me selfish. I like being alive and I don't trust the government to do anything right except fight wars and now we have a bunch of people... Never mind... Off Subject.
Just remember the last time you saw a government project cost LESS than the estimate and also remember where the government gets its money.
Posted by momma y on April 30, 2007 01:28 PMTo those that do not think about anywhere else I have lived in Germany, Japan , Korea and they are all the same. Some person desides your fate. No is what I say to this and always will. I pay for insurance and my family is taken care of if you leave it up to the Government it will end up the same way BROKE with the same people that broke it trying to fix it. And personally I do not want to pay for anyone else.
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on April 30, 2007 01:38 PMAnderson and Truth are poster boys for socialism. No thanks!!!!!!!! I want to be free to choose my own course in life not be told by the government what I can and cannot do.
Socialism makes Zombies out of people. . If you watch Anderson/Truth posts carefully you will notice.. they just love the illegal aliens,(left) argue for socialistic medicine,(far left)believe in light sentences for criminals, (far left) argue for strict gun control(Democrats) and will stoop to name calling when you ask them any tough questions. They will never answer if it is not to their advantage.
Anderson IS Truth...Truth is Anderson!
T, do you mean that you don't want to live in a Brave New World?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 01:48 PMT, you are one sick cookie. You should vomit in the toilet, not on the forum. Some time, when you have nothing better to do, try posting with your brain instead of your anger.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 02:05 PMYou take Iraq, for example. And the billions of dollars wasted using private contractors there. There are times when private companies should be in charge and there are times when they should not. Under single pay, private doctors and clinics will be in charge of the treatment. But you won't face a situation in which you ask for a second opinion, and the doctor says, OK, let's ask our CPA. CPA have practiced very little medicine.
momma y says a good deal about government operated health care, such as in the VA. Single pay does not involve that at all. The providers will still be in private practice.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 02:13 PM
prima facie: "Handing over seven percent of the national economy to the same outfit that gave us $800 screwdrivers is a recipe for disaster."
Not to worry. Halliburton won't be involved.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 02:18 PMT, does T stand for troll? Near as I can tell, you don't have anything to contribute here other than to criticize others. You make up my positions out of thin air; I've never said anything here about criminal sentences or greater gun control. You bait us with stupid questions, and then if you don't get a pre-determined response, say you weren't answered. So, say something useful, or get off the pot.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 02:40 PMAll those ragging on the VA, no, it's not an embarrassment. I've been treated there and had no complaints about the care. My father was treated there a long time, and for serious health stuff, and I never heard him complain. Any shortcomings can probably be attributed to a lack of funding--as they've continued to be squeezed. So it really has little to do with universal health care.
I can see one of biggest barriers to change of the U.S. health care system, and why I'm not optimistic, is this ideological opposition to government. It fairly screams out of several posts here. Mamma Y talks about people going to emergency instead of the clinic--a situation that would likely change in a single payer scenario. And in any case, god forbid that anyone would seek medical care than did not "deserve" it.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 02:49 PMAfter all, a corporation big shot is always a better judge of what is needed than some bleding heart liberal pill pedler; the corporation man has to watch out for the "bottom line". And that's far more important than ideas, or trials, or experiments and advances in "care" any time.
Old Grouch, you hit the nail on the head about the mindsets of certain people. I will never understand this blind unwavering faith in "market forces," or this absolute rigidity against any type of solution that is remotely collective - from public education to social security to health care (except for "fighting wars," that is. That's ok to be collective on.)
They will never acknowledge gross injustices committed by corporations, they will never acknowledge gross incompetence committed by corporations.
They will never acknowledge that the government is created for the people, and governed by the people, and without it, we would be governed by corporations for profit, and governed by profit.
There is no middle for them. They have cast their allegiance, and that's that. These people blindly follow an agenda that is actually against their own economic best interests. It's truly mindboggling to see how quickly they would lead us all off of a cliff.
Notice how not ONE of them ever says anything negative about the insurance industry. NEVER. No, once it's again it's the people - frivolous Americans and their frivolous lawsuits. Or, they are lazy Americans who won't work. Or too stupid to be able to pay for their medical care out of pocket, or too stupid to take control of their health care.
Always, always it's the citizens they put down. Never, ever the Goliath insurance industry who has all of us by the balls. Never, ever the skyrocketing medical costs. It's the people. We're stupid, lazy, greedy, and incompetent.
And they call US anti-Americans!
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 02:52 PMTwosense, I think we've seen a growth of think tanks in the last couple of decades, who make it their business to preach an anti-government ideology. And ideology's a powerful thing. The Denver newspapers even have regular columnists (Andrews and Kopel) with positions with think tanks. I mean, these guys are paid to espouse a certain view. Andrews column is not unlike reading mimeographed talked points.
As you say, it gets people to act in ways that are actually contrary to their own interests. The state of health care as it is these days, you'd think people would pining for change. But nooo. Just suck it up and pay out the a__ if you really get sick. And meanwhile don't anyone even think about getting anything they don't deserve--like seeing a doctor. Mamma Y's post was classic.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 03:07 PMMytwosense, you said
"They will never acknowledge gross injustices committed by corporations, they will never acknowledge gross incompetence committed by corporations.
They will never acknowledge that the government is created for the people, and governed by the people, and without it, we would be governed by corporations for profit, and governed by profit. "
Show me a company that has murdered as many people as any government and then I will agree with you. Communism has only killed 100 million people so far, maybe if we give it another try we can kill off some more and then our healthcare will cost less.
Posted by John on April 30, 2007 03:36 PMmomma y says a good deal about government operated health care, such as in the VA. Single pay does not involve that at all. The providers will still be in private practice.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 02:13 PM
and can charge what ever they want and the govenement will still give them what they say the can have. who does the single pay system involve duhth? its a socalist health care program that eveyone loses out on. it will cost more as everyone will go more becuse its free, unless you pay taxes like the ones you hate truth cause we make money and refuse to give it to freeloaders like you. if we have single payer health care we should have a flat tax so eveyone pays the same to get the same. oops that will piss off the socalist liberal left.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 03:44 PMHere we see the same claim made over and over, that a government health care system "will cost more", never addressing the fact that the private sector middleman takes out, what 17%, 25% of every health care dollar? No explanation. No argument to the contrary. No acknowledgement of the potentional cost savings. Just safe and secure in their knowledge that "guv'ment" is a baad idea. Which reminds me of the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. Or something like that.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 04:34 PMJohn: "Show me a company that has murdered as many people as any government and then I will agree with you. Communism has only killed 100 million people so far, maybe if we give it another try we can kill off some more and then our healthcare will cost less."
Surprisingly, John turns out to be a pacifist. Or maybe not. Maybe he thinks that private armies are the way to go. Or there is a third possibility. Maybe he just didn't take the time to think through what he was saying. My vote is for number three. For instance, he refers to communism. Of course, our government has never been like the Stalinist government. Someone should let John in on the good news.
I'm reminded of these water sprinklers with the head off. They just spout everywhere. So too with posters who don't use their heads.
Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 04:43 PMJust to clarify, John is not John II
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 05:10 PManderson,
"Here we see the same claim made over and over, that a government health care system "will cost more", never addressing the fact that the private sector middleman takes out, what 17%, 25% of every health care dollar? No explanation. No argument to the contrary. No acknowledgement of the potentional cost savings."
We should simplify everything this way. Why do we need so many car companies with all their big CEO salaries and wasteful marketing budgets?
Let's just have one government run car company. Imagine all the money we could save.
Then we could work on combining all those annoying software companies with their expensive licensing contracts and stock options. We should trim off all that non-essential stuff and have one giant government run software company.
Image how efficient we could be! It may sound expensive now, but all that efficiency would pay off in the end.
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 05:20 PMSomehow I get the impression that what John II would really like is for some corporation to move into the
White House, kick out the elected officials, and take over the government.
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'til it's FREE!
Posted by clyde on April 30, 2007 05:37 PMMany people mistakenly assume that government-mandated "universal health care" will result in better quality care for lower costs. As it turns out, the exact opposite is true.
A recent article entitled "Universal Health Care's Dirty Little Secrets" shows that these systems don't result in better care, but rather in rationing and worse care.
From the article, "What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care. Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that 'access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.'"
www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-care10_107apr10,0,3243449.story
John II, large corporations frequently consolidate for the sake of efficiency. Do you not read the business papers? Nonetheless, I answered the question you're raising earlier: health care is a public need, not satisfied by the private sector. That's why it's different than the car industry. Let me add something else: the purposes of the public and the private sector are different. Therefore, their methods are not always the same.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 05:45 PMAnyone who thinks that single-payer systems like Canada provide superior health care should watch this eye opening 5-minute video about the problems faced by Ontario man Lindsay McCreith when he developed a brain tumor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
(Fortunately, he was able to get proper treatment in Buffalo, NY.)
Nor is Mr. McCreith's case unusual. According to New York neurologist Dr. Lawrence Huntoon:
http://haciendapub.com/article49.html
"Indeed, 'universal coverage,' nationalized health care, or socialized medicine, regardless of what you choose to call it, is not the same as medical care. All of the citizens of Canada, for instance, have 'universal coverage.' What they often don't have, however, is the medical care that they need when they need it. That is why we see Canadians crossing the border into the United States in droves to obtain the health care that they can't get when they need it in their own country. Their government rations access to health care and thus attempts to control costs by making MRI scans, radiation oncology, bypass surgeries and many other health services largely unavailable to their own people."
A system of "universal mandatory" health care, as advocated by many members of the 208 Commission, would be a disaster for Colorado.
Posted by Paul Hsieh, MD on April 30, 2007 05:46 PMHere we go again. More single-minded opinions, long on claims of woe, short on reasoning. Rhetoric out the ying yang. A "disaster". Oh my! I know, I know, all the rest of the industrialized world has got it wrong. Did we fail to let them know how wrong they were? Cause I haven't see any of those democratic countries voting out their universal coverage lately.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 05:55 PMHere's an idea: How about all the people who are willing to pay for someone else's health care form one big foundation with their own money. Anyone who cannot afford to go to the doctor will have the foundation pick up the tab.
People can voluntarily fund this foundation as often as they wish. It's the best of both worlds: Those who want to pay for others can do so and those who choose to pay for themselves can do so as well.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 06:38 PMPaul Hsieh, since you're trotting out your youtube video and single quote from a fancy New York City doctor again, I'll ask you the same question I did before on another thread (that you never answered):
Prove that Canadians are coming in here in "droves" to seek medical care, and please prove that the healthcare services you named are "largely unavailable" to Canadians.
I would like to see neutral data sources respected by a real journal of medicine, too - in other words, something a little more substantial than a youtube video.
Surely you can provide this...unless the drastic statements you're quoting are propoganda???
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 06:41 PMHere's an idea: How about all the people who are willing to pay for someone else's health care form one big foundation with their own money. Anyone who cannot afford to go to the doctor will have the foundation pick up the tab.
Some interesting similarities between your suggestion and today's HMO. People who are visiting the doctor maybe once a year for a sinus infection are paying exhorbitant monthly premiums, while someone who is truly ill with a disease costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is often paying the same monthly premium.
At least with a single payer system, across the board we'd likely all be paying a heck of a lot less.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 06:46 PMI'm still waiting to hear an argument as to why single-payer would not save us all a ton of money. About every third post asserts as an article of faith that costs will rise and that someone will somehow get something they don't "deserve"--like seeing a doctor.
Posted by anderson on April 30, 2007 06:46 PMThe Canadian man came here for treatment and Canada paid for it.
We often hear of people coming here but not who paid the bills.
Health conditions are managed with medicine better in Canada. We are better at exotic treatment and surgery.
Somewhere, there is a way to use all the best of each system.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 06:59 PManderson,
Who is going to pay for your 15-20 million beloved illegal alien's health care under amnesty? Them and their 5th grade educations? No-Struggling over burdened middle class Americans. It's being done as we speak. I agree with Cobalt. Why do we consider such programs when we do not control our borders and allow illegal aliens free reign to dictate federal immigration policy. It isn't apples to oranges as you wish to present illegal immigration and social ills, it is a parallel thread. Nah, no socialization.
If anyone wants more facts and figures on Canadians' waiting times for medical care in their own country, and their coming to the US, here's more information:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070213-095004-2637r.htm
"Socialized medicine anyone?"
By Walter Williams, February 14, 2007
...The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
Canadians face significant waits for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's nine weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was eight weeks.
Despite the long waits Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act.
...According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" Feb. 22, 2000, "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.
Posted by Paul Hsieh, MD on April 30, 2007 07:26 PMThanks everyone for you contributions to this great thread. I've learned a lot.
Posted by Charles B on April 30, 2007 07:27 PMThanks for that info Dr. Hsieh.
Those waiting times were in a largely homogenous country of 30 million people.
Can anyone imagine the mess we'd have here in our diverse country of 300,000,000 people?
I'm surprised there are so many socialists in Colorado. Part of the reason I left California was to escape socialism. What's going on here? I thought this was a red state?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 07:54 PMThe website cited by Dr. Hsieh certainly is sobering and certainly raises legitimate questions about the Canadian health care system. One factor that also need to be considered is the fact that health care costs in Canada are reported to be about on-third those in the United States, raising the question about how much better the Canadian system would perform if it spent three times as much as it does.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html
"August 21, 2003
The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said."
"The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that."
It is interesting to note the degree of satisfaction expressed by Canadians and Americans in their respective health care systems.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf
"When asked about their satisfaction with health care services in general, more Americans than Canadians reported that they were “very satisfied” (53% vs. 44%). Canadians were more likely to indicate that they were “somewhat satisfied” (43% vs. 37%). These differences remained when Canadians were compared with insured Americans.
Canadians were in fact more similar to uninsured Americans regarding satisfaction with care. The only significant difference between Canadians and uninsured Americans was the proportion reporting that they were “very dissatisfied” with their health care services: 9% of uninsured Americans and 3% of Canadians said they were very dissatisfied. (Table 7)
When asked specifically about satisfaction with physician services, insured Americans were more likely than Canadians to report that they were “very satisfied” (68% vs. 64%)."
Truth,
We are all aware that America spends more per capita on health care than Canada. What does that mean? Are America and Canada comparable in the size and diversity of their populations? No. Let's compare America to a nation that rivals her size, diversity and strength. Is there such a nation?
Posted by John II on April 30, 2007 09:35 PMAlthough supporters of "universal coverage" and "single payer" plans say that they reduce costs, whenever it has been implemented the exact opposite has occurred. Costs have risen, and states have to decide if they want to respond by rationing services, raising taxes, or stop making the program "universal".
In Tennessee, their universal coverage program is called TennCare and its been around for over 12 years. Here's a good discussion of the economic disaster that resulted by family practice Dr. Sidney Smith. In this case, costs skyrocketed, patients got worse care, and many doctors refused to treat TennCare patients (since they would lose money on each one):
"The Price of Seduction"
http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/price-of-seduction-kerry-plan-for.html
In Massachusetts, their plan has been around for only a year and the costs started rising faster than expected:
"Intensive Care for Romney Care"
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14237
Hence, the Massachusetts government is thinking of backing off on the "universal" component, in order to avoid a political backlash:
"Health plan may exempt 20% of the uninsured"
Maine's version of universal coverage is called Dirigo. According to this recent NY Times article, their costs are also skyrocketing:
"As Health Plan Falters, Maine Explores Changes"
One supporter of the Maine plan was quite explicit as to what needed to be done:
"This program needs healthy people who don't get subsidized so it can prosper." In other words, their program needs a massive redistribution of wealth from one group of people to another in order to remain viable. Sounds a lot like "socialized medicine" to me.
Posted by Paul Hsieh, MD on April 30, 2007 09:54 PM"I'm still waiting to hear an argument as to why single-payer would not save us all a ton of money."
Let's see, Anderson, we're currently not paying for socialized medicine. If at some point we get Hillarycare or Kerrycare, we will be paying for it.
Is that too hard to understand?
Don't get sucked into the fantasy that free health care will appear out of nowhere. Someone must pay for it, and it won't be the health-care fairy.
Posted by prima facie on April 30, 2007 11:51 PMprima facie,
Anderson and Mytwosense are making the argument that since you already pay for other people's health care via insurance premiums, it should be no big deal to consummate the process by simply cutting out the insurance altogether and substitute it with the government.
Insurance companies have marketing costs, CEO costs and administrative costs among others. If we remove insurance companies from the picture, we also remove some of those costs.
This is true.
But, they fail to explore other realities of a 'single payer' system: (a) it is only a single payer in the sense that the payer, the government, steals from the many, the middle-class, to pay for the health care of the poor. (b) the government will effect a virtually infinite demand while supply remains limited at an unchanging cost thereby causing shortages. (c) that the number of illegal immigrants in this country will effectively overload many hospitals, especially in the Western states. (d) the middle-class would be doubly taxed; they would have to pay for the health care of the poor yet because of the waiting times and poor quality this system will cause, they will still resort to paying for their own health care outside of taxes.
The evidence for point (d) can be seen in the Denver Public School system. Most students of the DPS are poor Mexican immigrants. Most Denver middle-class parents have pulled their kids from the DPS and have enrolled them in private schools. This means the middle-class is not only paying for public education but is also paying for their own kid's private education. The middle-class is taxed for supporting the poor while taxed for supporting themselves as well.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 12:41 AMJohn II, would you mind citing the source from which you copied that statement?
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 06:13 AMThe source from which John II copied his statement states:
"it is only a single payer in the sense that the payer, the government, steals from the many, the middle-class, to pay for the health care of the poor."
Perhaps that is the crux of the controversy. To what extent should the government provide benefits to the poor for which the poor cannot pay since the money to pay for such benefits will have to come from the middle class and the rich?
Is the health of poor people in this country of sufficient importance to the nation so that it is appropriate for the government to, in effect, subsidize their health care?
For example, is medicare justified? Is medicaid? What about social security? What about the various children's programs under No Child Left Behind? What about programs to aid the homeless or the aged who have insufficient means?
There are many people, such as John II, who do not believe in helping the poor, who do not believe that the health of the poor in this country is important enough to help them with the cost of health care. There are many people, such as John II, who believe that if the government takes money from me and uses it to provide benefits for someone else, the government is stealing money from me. Why should I have to pay for roads to be used by someone else? Or for environmental measures that are for someone else's environment? Can a government survive without doing that? Of course not.
That basic concept which John II endorses, that the government has no right to use tax money from me to benefit someone else is a call for anarchy, for no government.
Of course, it is a fringe extremist position. Most of the people who have such views are hold up somewhere in the mountains. There isn't a politician or statesman alive today who would endorse John II's basic premise.
What do you think would happen to the health care system in the United States if it began receiving only one-third of the money it now receives? Is collapse too strong a word? How many hospitals would close, and how many doctors would quit practicing? How many people would die for lack of medical care?
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 06:34 AMMister Truth:
When someone tells you that we don't need to know the details of a plan, because we already know all the bad things that will happen with ANY plan, project, or idea that HE knows all about and is criticizing, you shouldn't expect him to cite sources.
Just bow down to the superior wisdom of the ages.
Oh. And be sure to remember, it is all the fault of poor Mexican immigrants, since they're responsible for everything that goes wrong everywhere else too.
Posted by Diogenes on May 1, 2007 06:42 AMTruth,
"John II, would you mind citing the source from which you copied that statement?"
I copied nothing.
"Perhaps that is the crux of the controversy. To what extent should the government provide benefits to the poor for which the poor cannot pay since the money to pay for such benefits will have to come from the middle class and the rich?"
Thank you for acknowledging that this 'single payer' system is not for the benefit of the middle-class but simply another wealth redistribution mechanism that punishes the them.
I wish anderson and mytwosense would be as honest as yourself about what this is really all about.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 06:55 AMWay back Anderson/Truth you called me a Troll. Now that was a true sign of your stiflling,socialistic,mindset.
My name is Anderson/Truth I am one of big governments sheep. I need someone to herd me toward big government education, big government medicine, big government meddling in my life from cradle to grave.
I don't want to think for myself. I need big government to make all of my decisions for me. I am sitting on the pot and I need big government to tell me when it is time to get off the pot.
Gladys,
Your minor adjustments for Social security include raising the retirement age and increasing taxes that employees pay. I'm self employed and the burden is currently 12.4%, I'm sure you are one of those who feels it should be 15 or 20%? And for those of us who will have paid the most into the system we will not only not get near the return or any return at all that the so called "Baby Boomers" will get but we also have fully fund our own retirement all the while paying into this bogus system. Your note about the CBO is flat out wrong, in fact just last week they said 2017 is the drop dead year for Social security - where do you get decades? As for socialized medicine - I would bet that at least half of our current doctors in this country would move out of country or find new careers if we went down the taxpayer funded health care road. Why do you think so many doctors already refuse to work with with medicare patients? They don't get fair market value for their work and it takes them 90 days minimum to get paid for that service. You think by socializing medicine this will get better? My wife, who is naturalized from Russia can teach you a real life lesson about socialized medicine, how about zero treatment for cancers, including no ambulance rides or hospital visits if you have been diagnosed with the disease. No comfort medications for those who have it and being sent home to die rather than treatment. She could fill you in on all of the details as this happened to her Father. Get a clue.
T: "Way back Anderson/Truth you called me a Troll. Now that was a true sign of your stiflling,socialistic,mindset."
No, T, I did not call you a Troll, ever. However, I now call you a Liar.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 08:21 AMJohn II, you say you authored that post and did not copy it. I thought otherwise on the basis of the usual quality of your posts. However, since you did not copy it, I owe you an apology and commend you for putting thought and effort, and leaving out acrimony, in that post.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 08:25 AMTruth,
Apology accepted. Thank you. Although, I think most of my posts display thought and effort.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 08:32 AMThere are many people, such as John II, who do not believe in helping the poor
Well, in all fairness to John II, I believe his stance is the poor should be helped through private charity efforts, not through our taxes, or a combination of the two. I could be wrong, but that is what I have surmised based on specific discussions with him in the past regarding taxes and private charity.
There are many people, such as John II, who believe that if the government takes money from me and uses it to provide benefits for someone else, the government is stealing money from me.
Ok, that does seem to be his position. And that would come down to an ideological view about taxes and government, which I think both conservatives and liberals share in some sense. Many liberals are outraged that our taxes are being used to support an occupation in Iraq, for example.
I can only speak for myself personally in terms of how I feel about a single-payer system paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it. My feeling is that a single-payer system would drastically reduce healthcare costs for all, and so it would be a good deal for me. Plus, I would be happy to know that those who don't have access to healthcare now do. There are some issues I consider public needs, and therefore, a "We're in this together" mindset makes sense to me.
No, it would not be a free lunch. For example, Kucinich's plan would call for a 5% payroll tax and adding some taxes back on to the richest in this country that have been cut during the Bush administration. I am not sure if I would be on board for that, not out of any concern for the rich, but just so we could address the concerns of people who have issues with taxation. I do not think we should ignore their concerns, they make up a sizeable portion of the citizens of this country.
Personally, I think we should re-arrange our spending priorities to allocate more towards healthcare, and then assess either modest co-pays or small monthly payments. I am not asking for a "free" system, I think in many cases for people who use Medicaid, they can't afford a full HMO type of premium and co-pays, but they can certainly afford to pay something, and actually, gladly would - but Medicaid as it stands right now doesn't require that.
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 08:48 AMTruth/Anderson, Cool it! Big government didn't give you permission to call me a liar!
Now get back with the other sheep and stay there!!
Much could be saved within the existing system if there was a mandate to use the exact same form/format by all medical personnel and insurance companies, and that only one bill were allowed for any single visit. I'm one of those anal folks that actually reads all the bills and tracks them on a spreadsheet. The bills for my daughters cancer treatment were a nightmare to track. The doctors association sent one bill and the hospital sent another. They used different formats, procedure codes (none of which were in plain english), and worst of all, different tracking numbers. Then too the insurance companies explanation of benefits covered it based on the date they were submitted. Also, under a third tracking code. The hospital, without any rhyme or reason I could tell, would sometimes write off our part of the bill that even the insurance company said we had to pay. You called the same 1-800 number to get to the doctor and hospital billing department but they were two separate departments so to track one event required three phone calls. If you don't keep track of it all (like many folks don't) then you can end up paying more than your fair share as I did catch some errors. Second, we collectively need to change our thinking. Examples have been provided above about waste within the free system and it does exist. My Mom was given a months worth of very expensive medication which she only used for a few days before the doctor changed it because it wasn't working. The medical community (providers and suppliers) need to change in order to make smaller samples available for use to ensure something works first before charging the insurance company $1500 for a tube of medication (yes, that was the price) that then goes unused. Then too, we as American's need to recognize that death is inevitable. It's documented that the most dollars spent on us are in the last months of our lives because we refuse to accept we will die. If we changed our outlook on death to be more accepting then maybe we'd have a better quality at the end instead of being hooked up to tubes and machines for weeks and months. When Dad was dying of cancer the doctor gave him the choice of radiation and chemo (which he took) because he was told there was a twenty percent chance that it might work. Since then I've come to realize that with lung cancer you can postpone it but you can't stop it. Furthermore, twenty percent chance was over the entire population and not within context to an old man whose cancer was quite advanced. We could have had an extra week of meaningful time had he not been so debilitated by the chemo. He'd still have died but we could have talked more. That is our fault as Americans for never giving up. It can be a good thing at times but in the end it can be a bad thing too......and expensive.
Posted by Karen on May 1, 2007 09:13 AMKaren, you raise a very good point regarding healthcare money spent to keep people who are pretty much terminal alive a little bit longer.
We have made many advances in medical technology that make this possible. To the individual, that's a wonderful thing, to society as a whole, it places a burden on population and additional healthcare expenditures.
However, let's face it. A lot of us would opt to hang on for as long as possible. I just don't see how this is an issue that could be "fixed" and I certainly don't want to see a government or private system mandate on the issue. Not that you're suggesting that, I'm just saying.
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 09:28 AMA problem I run into, people I know go to the ER because they don`t have a doctor and can`t pay $70.00 for each office visit, even if they had one. Some have called clilnics to become a patient only to be told they need a new patient visit at $240.00 to set them up. For a family of 4 who has just moved into the area that is an enormous amount of money.
I can see the doctors point though, it is hard to take a complete medical history and give a one time treatment all in 15 minutes.
And for the patient to pay $240.00 for a visit when they are not sick looks like gouging to them.
The ER rooms and indigent care have become de facto socialism, taking care of people who could go to free or reduced clinics, but those have long waiting times. One woman waited a week for a visit and treatment for a yeast infection that resisted supermarked drugs.
If Students on student loans knew they could work off some of the debt at free clinics that would help everybody.
A final question today: if the people around you are sick, no matter who or what they are, do you want them treated or contageous?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 09:53 AMKaren,
Thanks for your comments. You are right. We hold on too tight.
It is a vulgar but still a useful help towards contempt of death, to pass in review those who have tenaciously stuck to life. What more then have they gained than those who have died early? Certainly they lie in their tombs somewhere at last, Cadicianus, Fabius, Julianus, Lepidus, or any one else like them, who have carried out many to be buried, and then were carried out themselves. Altogether the interval is small [between birth and death]; and consider with how much trouble, and in company with what sort of people, and in what a feeble body this interval is laboriously passed. Do not then consider life a thing of any value. For look to the immensity of time behind thee, and to the time which is before thee, another boundless space. In this infinity then what is the difference between him who lives three days and him who lives three generations? -- Marcus Aurelius AntoninusPosted by John II on May 1, 2007 10:00 AM
Some excellent arguments from mytwosense and Truth and a real life account of some or the problems with our current health care system from Karen.
John II, I don't think we're going to find common ground here, cause when read rhetorical arguments like taxation = stealing, as you made, then I figure you're not really interested in supporting any health care safety net, or change, for you're opposed to any govt involvement in anything. Also, back to something mentioned earlier, I don't accept your assertion that waits "would" occur. It depends in part on the supply of doctors and other medical personnel--which is one of many things that needs to be considered and planned for in such a scheme. But alas you're simply opposed to the idea in principle.
Finally, your insinuation that immigration is a burden on our health care system overall, (and not just the border) is essentially incorrect (read up on it--the Bell report for example), and suggests your view is colored by more than than just an ideological opposition to government. But, as we know, the politically powerless make easy punching bags.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 10:21 AMGood point by Sharon B. too, about something Mamma Y mentioned earlier. What we have is different social policies, working at odds with eachother. The clinic, as a private system, says that all things considered, we want our money first. The hospital ER, relects a social policy that we can't simply refuse to treat people.
De facto, the public health care system is absorbing a lot of costs. Costs are shifting from private to public. Which is an excellent reason to make our primary system public. In a public health care system we wouldn't even have this scenario where someone who needs health care is torn between saving and going to the clinic, or going to emergency because they can't wait (people do agonize over these types of decisions). Nor we would be wasting more costly ER resources on non-emergency health care problems. In other words, a public system could give us more efficient use of our total resources.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 10:31 AM"A final question today: if the people around you are sick, no matter who or what they are, do you want them treated or contageous?"
According to some, this would depend on who you are, or (if a child) who your parents are (read extreme sarcasm). And let's go beyond contagiousness, is it good public policy for people to untreated period? It tends to render them unproductive. And small problems can lead to big ones (birth defects, just for one) that become a real burden on our health resources.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 10:39 AManderson,
"I don't think we're going to find common ground here, cause when read rhetorical arguments like taxation = stealing, as you made, then I figure you're not really interested in supporting any health care safety net, or change, for you're opposed to any govt involvement in anything."
It was never assumed that we would find common ground.
Explain to me how the tyranny of the majority can decide to take money from the minority and disperse it amongst themselves is not stealing?
I am not opposed to taxation. I believe there are many things taxes should be used for. But, I do not want to be forced to pay for your doctor's visit. Plain and simple.
This does not mean I wish to abandon the poor or less fortunate. It simply means that I will voluntarily donate my money where I see fit. I give a good portion of my money to various charities. But, I would not come to you and demand that because I favor a certain cause, you must also part with your money for that same cause.
There are a lot of liberals in this country. If they feel the health care of the poor is a worthy cause, then I would encourage them to part with their money and form some sort of medical care foundation. That would be the truly noble thing to do. The ignoble thing to do is to demand that other people should part with their money for the same cause.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 10:41 AM"Explain to me how the tyranny of the majority can decide to take money from the minority and disperse it amongst themselves is not stealing?"
Your question begs the answer.
I tend to assume that a civil discussion, means the participants are seeking some common ground (or, as one might say, common good). My mistake.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 10:46 AManderson,
"I tend to assume that a civil discussion, means the participants are seeking some common ground (or, as one might say, common good). My mistake."
In some cases, agreement is a possibility. In other cases, it is perfectly fine for both sides to cogently expound their thoughts and leave the conversation with a much clearer view of the other's reasoning. Both of these outcomes satisfy the demands of civil discussion.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 10:54 AMHey John II. You speak of health care for the poor or less fortunate, but most of us are talking about health care for the middle class. They are the ones who pay the taxes for programs they are not poor enough to get.
Either we discuss health care from a practical or philosophical view point, but we all seem to mix up the two sides.
The most practical method would be one in which more health care and treatment is available to the most people . This is similiar, but not exactly like, public education.
A good many elderly people say they don`t want to pay for someone elses childrens education but they want the benefit of an educated populace. They never see the irony.
With health care, people say they don`t want to pay for others care, and by omission, they seem to be saying that they do not care if others are healthy. No irony here, just personal opinion.
Capitalism requires a lot of workers and for our system to prevail, we need healthy people who are not subject to the whims of insurance companies. People who lose health care between jobs and fall to devastating illness, may end up homeless, thus causing us another problem.
It is nice to have the back up of charity and wonderful that people help each other when they can or when they want to. That is a nice personal philosophy, but won`t run a countries education or health programs.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 11:37 AMGood post, Sharon B.
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 11:53 AMThank you . And for overlooking my spelling, mytwocents.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 11:59 AMSharon B.,
"You speak of health care for the poor or less fortunate, but most of us are talking about health care for the middle class. They are the ones who pay the taxes for programs they are not poor enough to get."
But, as I've outlined in an earlier post, the middle-class will still wind up paying for their own health care in addition to paying the necessary taxes for the 'single payer' system. So, as Truth also pointed out, this really is a system for the poor, not the middle-class.
"A good many elderly people say they don`t want to pay for someone elses childrens education but they want the benefit of an educated populace. They never see the irony."
Of course, we all want an educated society. The real question is what's the best way to do it. Those "elderly people" are simply expressing that old-world mentality of personal responsibility. Why should I have to pay to teach your kid how to read and write when you, the parent, you should doing that yourself?
"With health care, people say they don`t want to pay for others care, and by omission, they seem to be saying that they do not care if others are healthy. No irony here, just personal opinion."
I don't want to pay for your health care Sharon B. I think you should pay for your own and stop trying to take money from my wallet. There are people who need help and I try to help them. Do you? Go find a homeless person and give him $1000 to see a doctor.
Why can't liberals form their own health care charity? There seems to be tons of liberals in this country. Imagine if instead of buying Volvos, VW's, Apple computers, tattoos, nose rings, Starbucks, and music, they donated that money to a national liberal charity to provide health care for the poor. Hollywood alone could fund this charity with hundreds of millions of dollars. Why can't liberals do this?
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 12:25 PMJohn II, your call to "individualism" is the classic expression of "liberalism" so I don't know why you place "liberals" opposite you (unless of course the world is made up of only two types of people) or where you get your stereotypes. Nonetheless, if we were to pull the plug on all the government you decry (e.g., public education, social security, public health care, social services), things would get pretty nasty in a hurry and most people (maybe not even you) would stand for it.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 12:50 PMHi Sharon,
You are certainly something of a glutton for punishment in some ways. But that's one of the things I really like about you to begin with; so take heart.
"The world according to John II" will always be "The world according to John II".
There is a vast difference between selfishness - however cloaked in the smoke screen of "charity" by way of handouts- and enlightened self-interest, where the common good is quite often what's best for the individual as well.
But, for him, only "ignoble" people - or "liberals", which is one of his buzz words for the same thing - would propose that there might be a difference at all, much less one of immense proportions in reality.
And don't dare suggest trying a plan that HE has already pronounced as having inherent "evils and ills" that "we all know will happen", because HE says so.
Those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 1, 2007 12:56 PManderson,
"...your call to "individualism" is the classic expression of "liberalism" so I don't know why you place "liberals" opposite you..."
What an odd thing to say from an individual who wants to force me to pay for his health care.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 12:57 PMJohn II: "There are people who need help and I try to help them. Do you? Go find a homeless person and give him $1000 to see a doctor."
A very childish statement. Let's not get into the business of comparing how much different posters help those in need.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 01:00 PMOld Grouch,
""The world according to John II" will always be "The world according to John II"."
The world according to Old Grouch will always be The world according to Old Grouch.
Those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 01:01 PMTruth,
"A very childish statement. Let's not get into the business of comparing how much different posters help those in need."
My point is, if you feel strongly enough about paying for someone else's health care, do it. What's stopping Sharon B. or anyone else from doing it?
59,028,111 people voted for John Kerry in 2004. Presumably, most if not all are in favor a 'single payer' health care system.
If those nearly 60 million people each donated to a national health care charity, the total would come to $118,056,222,000. That's $118 billion. Imagine all the poor people that could be helped with that money. Obviously, $2000 would be an average donation; some would donate less, others more. I'm sure the Hollywood millionaires would contribute a much larger portion as well for a little recognition.
I've often seen the argument from the left that if conservatives believe in the Iraq War, they should volunteer to go fight. That's a tough argument to refute.
But, an equally difficult argument to refute could be made for health care. If liberals feel that this issue is important, why do we not see a $120 billion health care charity for America's poor?
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 01:20 PMcorrection: If those nearly 60 million people each donated $2000 to a national health care charity,
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 01:23 PMAfter looking over big gov's resume, his experience on running a bureaucracy may be lengthy but the results so far have been dismal.
Lets get the feds to figure out how to clean up and run their other red tape departments first before we give them even more money to play with.
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 01:32 PMHere's a three day music concert most likely attended by all liberals. Here's a quote from one of the singers:
""This current administration is no exception. They should be tried and hung and shot,"
Here's another quote from one of the 180,000 attendees:
"They changed my life. They made me a liberal,"
180,000 liberals chose to spend their money on a concert instead of donating to America's sick and poor. At $249 for a three day pass, $44,820,000 could have been raised for a national health care charity.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 01:36 PMJohn II, as I see it, the basic problem is that you live in a country that simply does not agree with your philosophy, but that you simply refuse to accept that fact and you act as though your philosophy is "our" (that is, the American people's) philosophy.
Thus, you say that using tax money to pay medical bills for the poor is stealing. What you fail to grasp is that that position is not written in the stars, it is simply a product of your particular philosophy, a philosophy that the American people do not embrace.
Perhaps some day you can convince the American people to adopt your particular philosophy. If so, then you can argue that under your philosophy that practice is stealing. But you should have the common sense to realize that the practice is not stealing under the philosophy that has been in play for many years in America.
Actually Truth, most people in the USA don't believe with the socialists philosophy. You are a minority.
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 01:53 PMTruth,
"...as I see it, the basic problem is that you live in a country that simply does not agree with your philosophy, but that you simply refuse to accept that fact and you act as though your philosophy is "our" (that is, the American people's) philosophy."
There are plenty of conservatives who share my views. Whether or not it is a majority view is irrelevant.
There is something to be feared though, when the tyranny of the majority can oppress those in the minority. You seem to justify the theft of my funds by the majority as an acceptable behavior simply because the majority is the thief.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 02:01 PMTruth is right, and he didn't use "majority" as the standard, John. Our history shows that the American people have time and time again repudiated your political philosphy.
Also, John, you never responded to my or Old Grouch's comment or about your use of the term "liberal". Does it mean anything? Or is it just a catch phrase for someone you oppose? Does "conservative" mean anything. Or is it just a blanket for anything you favor? I ask because you use these terms so freely. So I wonder if they have a specific meaning for you or are they just a "with us or against us" sort of argument. Why don't you talk about people, rather than opponents? Using stereotypes (concert goers, etc) is usually a weak form of argument.
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 02:15 PManderson,
"Our history shows that the American people have time and time again repudiated your political philosphy."
That still does not make it right. Democracy (even our form of democracy) has a tendency to vote itself into a socialist form of government. The reason for this is simple: those with less far outnumber those with more. In other words, the tyranny of the majority oppresses the minority. This will not go on forever. There will be a breaking point.
"you never responded to my or Old Grouch's comment or about your use of the term "liberal". Does it mean anything?"
I didn't think that needed a response. Liberalism represents a form of policy that I strongly disagree with. Liberalism and socialism are interchangeable terms to me. I'm a conservative hence my views are almost the exact opposite of liberalism. Did this really need to be explained to you?
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 02:33 PM"That still does not make it right."
No, in an absolute sense, it doesn't make it right.
"Democracy (even our form of democracy) has a tendency to vote itself into a socialist form of government. The reason for this is simple: those with less far outnumber those with more. In other words, the tyranny of the majority oppresses the minority."
Perhaps you think Demoracy's not so good of an idea after all.
"I didn't think that needed a response. Liberalism represents a form of policy that I strongly disagree with. Liberalism and socialism are interchangeable terms to me. I'm a conservative hence my views are almost the exact opposite of liberalism. Did this really need to be explained to you?"
Yes. You've sort of confirmed my idea that you like to think of things in absolute terms and, as a dichotomy (example: asserting that liberalism and socialism are the same thing)
I used to think that way, back in the day when I was enamored of Ayn Rand, and her point of view--which is a lot like yours.
The solutions we are told from the conservatives that will drive down healthcare costs are to pay for healthcare ourselves through HSA accounts, and to wipe out malpractice litigation (even though malpractice costs account for about 2% of overall healthcare spending in this country).
Let's get into a serious conversation about how those solutions will truly drive down costs. We've got two major industries reaping huge profits from healthcare - the insurance industry and hospitals. Both industries are ever-consolidating, increasing their power even more. Yet you mention any kind of anti-trust legislation, and the conservatives go nuts. You mention regulating prices, they scream that's government interference. (It's ok to chop away at Americans' access to the courts, though. For the sake of industry, the conservatives are willing to sacrifice that particular "individual freedom."
Alright, suggestions from the right please on how healthcare costs can be driven down to the point one could actually pay a good share of them out of an HSA account?
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 02:52 PMJohn II. Well, that went nicely, as I sometimes say. Another posterI once said "you don`t know me from an ant".
I post an opinion, you post an attack
The country pretty much ran as John II likes durring the Victorian Era.
OG posting directly to John II is like bear baiting, and I should stop, but he has been so personally nasty to me that the temptation to let him make a fool of himself is just overwhelming.
If this is sin, well, burn me.
As Daffy Duck would say "What a maroon".
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 02:57 PM"Perhaps you think Demoracy's not so good of an idea after all"
Not in the sense of a true democracy where the majority will always rule. But a democratic republic puts the necessary safeguards in place.
Posted by on May 1, 2007 02:59 PMSharon - That was Bugs, not Daffy.
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 03:00 PMSharon B.,
"I post an opinion, you post an attack"
Where did I attack you?
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 03:09 PMWhether you think of democracy in its purest sense (the majority rules), or in the sense contemplated by the founders of these United States (a representative government of the people), the people have expressed their will on such matters. So, no matter how much people criticize social security, or call it theft, or misrepresent what it stands for or how it works, it still stands, and there's no real movement to get rid of it. Bush floated the balloon and it went nowhere (although his constinuency, er, I mean, large financial cos. are still holding out hope!)
Posted by anderson on May 1, 2007 03:09 PM'I post an opinion, you post an attack
Yep, that's what he did to Anderson about halfway through this thread...after soliciting the opinion from him first!
Anyway, Sharon B., like Old Grouch I admire your pluck! Keep on posting, I enjoy reading what you have to say.
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 03:10 PMI think you should pay for your own and stop trying to take money from my wallet.
John II, that's what you said to Sharon B. and I would qualify it as an attack. I would also qualify what you said the other day about my comment regarding my boyfriend who likes Home Depot "no wonder your posts remind me of Sharon B" as an attack on her (and me).
I would also consider your implications in earlier posts that I wasn't being "honest" an attack on my character.
I am sure you will refute this as usual, as getting your say is awfully important to you, even at the expense of cutting down others. Well ,you can re-state your words, re-state what you "meant" all you want, those on both sides of the debate can clearly see through your tactics as mean and small. That's why I am about *this close* to just not answering your questions anymore or even acknowledging you. You sidetrack what could otherwise be productive exchanges of ideas.
mytwosense,
"Alright, suggestions from the right please on how healthcare costs can be driven down to the point one could actually pay a good share of them out of an HSA account?"
Didn't we just have this discussion a few days ago? You seemed much more agreeable when your crew was absent from the conversation.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 03:18 PMSharon,
That's all part of being a "conservative" of that particular stripe. You are a woman; and you are actually offering opinions about political and national affairs and topics.
In the "country according to John II", women have no place in the public eye, much less disagreeing with a man, who is always a "superior being" in John II's "conservative" world. Really the pre-Victorian era, when women weren't allowed to own property, much less think for themselves.
Thus, your position of wanting to work out some way to extend benefits - whether health care, or whatever - by way of a different form of distribution than present, will always be seen as "stealing" from him in some way.
As you say, it resembles "bear baiting" in some ways. And, insofar as really getting any indication of willingness to view anything in other light than his own, it is both pointless and useless.
Or as has been said: The only difference between a rut and the grave is the length.
At least "the country according to Old Grouch" is wide open to the winds of change, and an actual evaluation of ideas, which I hope it always shall continue to be.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 1, 2007 03:28 PMmytwosense,
You're way too sensitive. Refuting an argument is not an "attack".
"You sidetrack what could otherwise be productive exchanges of ideas. "
I'm sure I do sidetrack an exchange of liberal ideas. In fact, if I wasn't here, most of these threads would be dominated by far left liberals like Old Grouch, Sharon B., Truth, Bango Skank, Mytwosense, anderson and Charles B.
Maybe you shouldn't play with the big boys, mytwosense, if you can't handle it.
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 03:29 PMJohn, we had *a* discussion about HSA accounts with no definitive conclusion. Besides, you weren't the only one I was asking to chime in on this topic, but I admire your, um, assumption I consider you the sole conservative authority on this board.
Maybe you shouldn't play with the big boys, mytwosense, if you can't handle it.
-laughs-
Hey, at least I don't get all pissy and outraged when someone calls me J2 instead of John II...
Posted by on May 1, 2007 03:40 PMJohn II, I have not tried to touch your wallet. If there is something going on in your pocket, believe me it is not my hand.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 04:12 PMKW, right you are it was Bugs!
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 04:27 PMJohn II: "You seem to justify the theft of my funds by the majority as an acceptable behavior simply because the majority is the thief."
John II continues to see himself as the moral compass of the nation and to see his pronouncements of what is right and what is wrong as gospel. He simply refuses to acknowledge that the people of the United States, and not John II, are the ones who decide what the moral compass of the country is.
Where is it written that when the government uses tax money to aid the poor it is stealing? The only place I know of is in John II's posts.
His particular philosophy sees it as stealing when the government aids the poor. That is not the philosophy of the American people and hopefully never will be. All political parties of any substance believe in the use of taxes to aid the disadvantaged, although there is much debate over how much aid should be given and in what way.
John II claims that a lot of conservatives believe the government is stealing in administering social security, medicare, medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc. He does not, and cannot, cite any support for that statement. By way of contrast, the Libertarian Party, the only nationally prominent group which espouses the philosophy of John II with respect to such programs, got about 1% of the vote in 2006. And even the Libertarian Party does not claim that the government is stealing; what it claims is that the government policies are wrong.
He apparently is trying to conflate those who think that too much money is going into such programs with his position that no money should go into them. If that is what he is doing, that strikes me as less than honest.
John seems to be saying that the government can only use taxes for that which 100% of the people agree. Or maybe it's worse than that. Maybe he is saying that the government can use taxes only for that which John II agrees. It's difficult, really, to know what John II is saying.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 05:36 PMActually, the problem with this thread is that John II is in hog heaven. Maybe not a problem, just a condition of life. But it is clear he is enjoying himself no end. Me, I'm as serious as sin, although I reserve the right to define sin for myself rather than have John II define it for me.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 05:42 PMWhat is interesting is that John II fancies himself as protecting conservatism against all comers. The problem is his is not a conservative philosophy. It is more like the Libertarian attitude about taxes to help the disadvantaged, and it is not too far from an anarchical approach; certainly, John II wants to limit the role of government in a way in which no government is limited and in a way that only libertarians and anarchists would advocate.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 09:33 PMTruth,
"John II wants to limit the role of government in a way in which no government is limited and in a way that only libertarians and anarchists would advocate."
And you base this assumption on what? Because I don't want to pay for your doctor visits, I am somehow in favor of anarchy?
I believe taxes are important. We need taxes to pay for roads, bridges, military defense, military offense, and I'm even for using taxes to temporarily fund the unemployed.
But, at some point, there has to be a line that government should not cross. It's bad enough I have to pay for your retirement, your kid's education, and your kid's college tuition,; but now I have to pay your doctor's bill as well? I don't think so. Nice try.
I'm all for reform of the health care system to increase the amount of health care professionals and reduce medical costs. But, I do not want anyone telling me I must pay for someone else's health care in addition to my own.
No one has commented on my suggestion of a national liberals health care charity. There was nearly 60 million people who voted for John Kerry in 2004. If each of those 60 million donated an average amount of $2000, this charity foundation would have $120 billion. That could pay for the health care of a lot of poor people in America.
You libs are very quick to force others to pay for your causes. How about setting an example first?
Posted by John II on May 1, 2007 10:01 PMNo one has commented on my suggestion of a national liberals health care charity. There was nearly 60 million people who voted for John Kerry in 2004. If each of those 60 million donated an average amount of $2000, this charity foundation would have $120 billion. That could pay for the health care of a lot of poor people in America.
You libs are very quick to force others to pay for your causes. How about setting an example first?
Well, people could turn around and say the same thing about supporting a military occupation in Iraq...those who want it should set up a foundation to support it. Those who want to see more mass transit systems and less highways could say they are being robbed to pay for people who prefer to drive themselves.
When you use this kind of argument, you're getting into very subjective territory. You said yourself you're all for some forms of taxes, but others might not be in agreement with you on those taxes you said you support.
This country has a long history of determining general public needs, then pooling together via our taxes and paying for those needs, such as education, mass transportation, a military, Social Security, and healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare). You may not like it, but it's been a mainstay of our nation for centuries - not necessarily all the programs I mentioned, but the general concept.
At the same time, we're not a socialist country. Likewise, we have a long history of letting private industry play a major role in and greatly profit from many of those functions I named above. In the case of health insurance (actually, all insurance), industry has run amok and is exploiting consumers to the point that hardworking middle-class people are having a hell of a time keeping insurance. Employers are being forced to cut staff, or outsource them overseas because the cost of healthcare benefits is seriously cutting into their budgets. We gave industry their run in healthcare - a very long run, in fact - and they have just gone too far in taking advantage of it.
When people talk about HSA accounts as the solution, it seems to discount that there are two major industries reaping huge profits from healthcare - insurance providers and hospitals - and just encouraging people to start paying for their own healthcare through HSAs is not enough of a solution. Countless people would die, go untreated, etc., while waiting for prices to significantly drop, IF they ever did, because I don't see how two powerful industries that are ever-consolidating and making billions of dollars off the present system are going to support people paying for their own healthcare without putting up a hell of a fight.
Single-payer health care seems to be an issue in your mind solely about helping the poor, which for whatever reason, really rankles you.
But single payer healthcare is about driving costs back to manageable levels for all Americans, from employees to employers. Yes, some poor people will benefit. I don't see that as a negative, but that's an ideological difference I guess you and I will always have. Single payer is about people taking power over their healthcare back, instead of depending on their employers and a huge profit machine for it. The government IS the people. We elect the government, and we vote out the government. We don't have a damn say in our insurance if we are getting it through our employers, and even if we had more of a choice of employer plans, we still don't have much choice over exhorbitant prescription and healthcare costs. What's more, if we lose our jobs, we're screwed, nor do we get anything back from the tens of thousands spent on insuring our families. Talk about pissing your money away, insurance is one of the worst economical ideas we ever came up with. It's a legalized protection racket, as a poster said in another thread.
Now, neither single payer or our present system will ever fix the fact that some people pay more for healthcare and get less healthcare than others. Some people simply don't get sick or injured that often, yet they are paying the same exhorbitant health insurance premiums as someone who might be getting tens of thousands of dollars of healthcare a year.
If you don't use healthcare services that much, under the current insurance system, it's like going out to a restaurant and equally splitting the bill with five other people who all ordered a lavish five course dinner, and you just ordered an appetizer. Not just a one time thing, but every single time you go out to dinner with them.
At least with single payer, you'd be paying far less to do so each time, then under the current insurance system in this country.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 07:40 AMmytwosense,
"Well, people could turn around and say the same thing about supporting a military occupation in Iraq...those who want it should set up a foundation to support it."
What a weak answer to my question. A health care charity for the poor in America is a reasonable solution. But, it means you would have to give money without forcing others to do so.
"Single-payer health care seems to be an issue in your mind solely about helping the poor, which for whatever reason, really rankles you."
What rankles is me is people like you telling me that a single payer system would be cheaper for everyone. It will not. It will be more expensive for me. My tax bill this year was atrocious. Now, you want to tax me to pay for someone else's healthcare. And on top of that, I'll still have to pay for my own health care because of the waiting times and lower quality. So, let's be honest about what this system would be: a handout to the poor via wealth redistribution.
"Talk about pissing your money away, insurance is one of the worst economical ideas we ever came up with. It's a legalized protection racket, as a poster said in another thread."
What a foolish thing to say. You should look into why our economy is as strong as it is. Insurance is a huge benefit to the economy.
"If you don't use healthcare services that much, under the current insurance system, it's like going out to a restaurant and equally splitting the bill with five other people who all ordered a lavish five course dinner, and you just ordered an appetizer. Not just a one time thing, but every single time you go out to dinner with them."
Good analogy. Under a single payer system, one person stands up, checks our bill, then adds on the bill of every other diner in the restaurant, and says, "Ok, John II, your dry steak came to $35, so give me $2000 and I'll pay the waiter. Oh, and Mr. Martinez over there says 'Gracias'"
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 08:37 AM
John II, you are opposed to social security, medicaid, medicare, using government funds for education or child care, or children's health and welfare, and I presume to all the entitlement programs.
Why do you go on contending that yours is the conservative position? No conservative that I know of has come anywhere close to advocating what you advocate.
Do you disagree that your position is basically the libertarian position, the position that got about 1% of the vote in 2006?
You say: "The reason for this is simple: those with less far outnumber those with more. In other words, the tyranny of the majority oppresses the minority."
Do you really believe that? That poor people in the United States wield more power than the rich? To me, it is an utterly absurd statement. And the middle class. If you tell that to Lou Dobbs be prepared to duck.
You say: "Explain to me how the tyranny of the majority can decide to take money from the minority and disperse it amongst themselves is not stealing?"
It's called democratic government, or, if you prefer, the republic form of government. It is here that to me you come close to anarchy. If the government can't take your funds in taxes and use it to benefit others, then there really can be no government. I think it is fair to say that there is not a single government in the world that subscribes to the limitations you think should be imposed on governments. I also doubt that there was ever a time in American history when the government did not use funds in some way to benefit the disadvantaged. Quite true that the government in the last seventy-five years or so has enormously increased the amount of money for this purpose but that is because in the last seventy-five years that is what the American people have wanted. What elite rich in the United States can yu point to who espouse a philosophy such as yours.
Are there rich, and middle class, and perhaps even some of the poorer class, who think the government is spending too much on entitlements? You bet. That is the general conservative position.
But that is grossly different from your position that the government should not be spending anything on entitlements. You are not a conservative. You are a libertarian. You are certainly entitled to a libertarian view, but I don't think you are entitled to pass your view off as a conservative position.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 08:46 AMA health care charity for the poor in America is a reasonable solution.
For what? Significantly driving down insurance costs for the working middle class? Or overall hospital and pharmaceutical prices?
I'm willing to hear your carefully laid out points on how and why - that is, if you have any.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 08:48 AMThis is an interesting article on who makes up the uninsured: http://www.merck.com/merckhelps/uninsured/america.html
Seventy percent of the uninsured actually work, and most are American citizens.
And according to this article, the numbers aren't adding up that illegal immigrants are largely responsible for driving up healthcare costs. "Mr. Martinez" may have cooked your steak, John II, but I don't think he was a guest at your dinner.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 09:03 AMCorrection to my last post: illegal immigrants aren't largely responsible for adding to the numbers of uninsured.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 09:04 AMI knew we would get the "Blame it on the Mexicans"bit in here somewhere. Even indirectly as at 08:37 AM. When every other argument fails, there's always a "Mr. Martnez" there to be the fall guy.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 09:14 AMBut of course, Don't you DARE to even whisper the word "racist" in response to postings such as the last one from John II, or any of the rest of the "conservatives" who wind up with "Mr. Martinez" as their whipping boy.
Truth,
You are so right. These are the people who give true conservatives such a bad name. They should be better called total reactionaries. But that would "insult" them; and we can't have that. Now can we?
After all, THEY "own the rights" to the snide, the slam, and the critique of everyone else's "morals and character" when there be disagreement with THEM. And they use posting after posting, after posting after . . . to prove it, too.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 09:31 AMmytwosense,
"Seventy percent of the uninsured actually work, and most are American citizens.And according to this article, the numbers aren't adding up that illegal immigrants aren't largely responsible for driving up health care costs."
When did I ever argue that the uninsured do not work? You have a bad habit of introducing irrelevant information to make your case.
As for illegal immigrants, there's two scenarios to consider here: (1) illegals are affecting many hospitals now, see King Drew in LA. (2) the problem will be considerably worse when health care is 'free' for illegal immigrants.
Are you denying that illegal immigrants will flood to doctors when their medical care is free?
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:49 AMIt's good to know that some people have a good understanding of this issue (twosense's consistently excellent arguments, for example, from which I've learned a lot)--especially in the face of the ideological screeching going on as in the two letters published in the Denver Post yesterday (with no countervailing view).
John II: "What rankles is me is people like you telling me that a single payer system would be cheaper for everyone. It will not. It will be more expensive for me."
You must not get sick then. Moreoever, we see it's all about you, John. You know, this government belongs to me as much as it does you. By it's nature, government exists so that humans can live together peacefully in a society, and share some of our resources. If you don't want to participate, perhaps you should move to a remote mountain cabin. That way you won't be burdened by the constraints of society. If you don't want to mail in a tax check, that's okay. We won't tell. We know how it pains you to do anything that doesn't directly benefit you, and then only those things you recognize and acknowledge.
"And on top of that, I'll still have to pay for my own health care because of the waiting times and lower quality."
Sheer speculation, ideologically driven.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 09:50 AM
anderson,
"Sheer speculation, ideologically driven."
And where do you derive your sagacious predictions of health care Utopia? Is it not a combination of sheer speculation (wishful thinking) and your own ideology (socialism)?
"You must not get sick then."
I do. And I don't ask you for money when I do.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:58 AMWhen did I ever argue that the uninsured do not work? You have a bad habit of introducing irrelevant information to make your case.
Apologies for that, I should have prefaced why I put that post up. It wasn't to accuse you of arguing the uninsured don't work, but rather, to address the fact that if we can insure everyone, including the presently uninsured, it's not a matter of giving everyone a free lunch on someone else's dime. All working people will finally be able to have access to healthcare.
Yeah, so will non-working people. But not all non-working people are necessarily lazy leeches, either. Many are elderly, or infirm, or in between jobs.
Anyway, I realize that whole point does digress from your original premise that you don't want to help the poor through your taxes. But I think the more accurate way of looking at a single payer system isn't through those lens. It's about helping the uninsured get health care. Most uninsured are considered living at the poverty level, yes, but the stats seem to show the majority do work.
As for illegal immigrants, there's two scenarios to consider here: (1) illegals are affecting many hospitals now, see King Drew in LA. (2) the problem will be considerably worse when health care is 'free' for illegal immigrants.
From what I understand, illegal immigrants getting medical care is not one of the primary factors driving outlandish prescription costs, insurance premiums, and hospital fees. Unless you can prove otherwise?
I haven't even addressed this question at all in this thread, so why are you asking me if I'm denying it? Is that where you're steering the debate now? Is your premise now that illegal immigrants are the main factor driving exhorbitant healthcare costs in this country? Please clarify as I'm honestly confused on where you're coming from at this point, and also, if this has anything to do with an alternative solution for this country you think would be better than single-payer. Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 10:17 AMAre you denying that illegal immigrants will flood to doctors when their medical care is free?
"And where do you derive your sagacious predictions of health care Utopia?"
John, well, we've covered this ground before. You're evidently unwilling to establish any common ground (cause this is about you, not us) or deal with any of the ambiguity inherent in complex policy issues (insisting that it "will" do this or that). Your frequent rhetorical exaggerations ("tyranny of the majority") are way old and have taken on an insincere quality. So, it's kind of worthless to go round and round. You can just conclude I'm a liberal or a socialist, or whatever label you want to slap on me to substitute for argument. I'm okay with that.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 10:23 AM"Are you denying that illegal immigrants will flood to doctors when their medical care is free?"
I'll disagree. Generally, immigrants (undocumented and otherwise) use far fewer public resources than citizen counterparts. That's been studied and documented, and you could have even got there applying some common sense. So if health care were "free" (and no one has established that scenario--again John resorts to rhetoric), we can expect that immigrants will use less.
The whole question, of course is somewhat misleading and misplaced (unless perhaps the questioner's goal is just to sow fear and loathing). It's against the law for undocumented immigrants to obtain any federal benefits, and most state benefits (emergency healthcare excepted). So, to the extent we were to adopt universal health care, as it stands now, undocumented persons are excluded.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 10:37 AMmytwosense,
Let's clarify something before moving on because I think we're talking past each other here. You said:
"From what I understand, illegal immigrants getting medical care is not one of the primary factors driving outlandish prescription costs, insurance premiums, and hospital fees. Unless you can prove otherwise?"
I agree with that statement. Although, some hospitals do close because they are overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. The big news story in LA a few years ago was the closing of the King-Drew Emergency Center.
My argument is not what is happening now, which is what you keep asking me to address, but what will happen when health care is free for the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Let's not ignore the proverbial pink elephant in the room. And let us also refrain from accusations of racism.
"I haven't even addressed this question at all in this thread, so why are you asking me if I'm denying it?"
It is precisely because you are not addressing it that I'm asking you about it. I'm asking you what will happen and you're telling me what is happening with regards to the millions of illegal immigrants. But, what is happening now is irrelevant because we do not have a 'free' health care system now.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 10:40 AM
I mentioned several times before that doctor office visits are not high cost health care. Although John hasn't bother to disagree, he and others continually present this scary scenario of people flooding into doctor's offices. Of course, being who they are (the great unwashed), it is undoubtedly undeserved. Again, this is not what's costing or will cost. And in fact, which has also been pointed out, it will likely keep people out of emergency rooms (which IS high cost health care). Gotta love those scary scenarios, though. Accurate or not, people tend to take them to heart--especially if they've heard the same message over and over.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 10:56 AManderson,
"So if health care were "free" (and no one has established that scenario--again John resorts to rhetoric), we can expect that immigrants will use less."
Read this.
"What is unseen is their free medical care that has degraded and
closed some of Americas finest emergency medical facilities, and
caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing
their doors. Anchor babies born to illegal aliens instantly qualify
as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in
Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income
and Disability Income."
"High-technology EDs have degenerated into free medical
offices. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed
because half their services became unpaid. Another 24 California
hospitals verge on closure. Even ambulances from Mexico come to
American EDs with indigents because the drivers know that
EMTALA requires accepting patients who come
That geographic limit has figured in many lawsuits."
My argument is not what is happening now, which is what you keep asking me to address, but what will happen when health care is free for the millions of illegal immigrants in this country.
Unless you would be on board for a single payer system as long as there were no illegal immigrants benefiting from it, I'm not sure why this is a point you even care about. Because then you would just be arguing a point that is personally irrelevant for you.
At any rate, if we had a single-payer system that did not include coverage for illegal immigrants, I don't see how they're going to get more access to care than they're getting now. I honestly don't. Since you feel they will, please clarify.
mytwosense,
"Unless you would be on board for a single payer system as long as there were no illegal immigrants benefiting from it, I'm not sure why this is a point you even care about."
Is that what you're suggesting? You would want to ban illegal immigrants from receiving free health care? Now that is surprising to hear from you. How would you enforce that policy? National ID's?
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 11:05 AMJohn, thanks for taking this heretofore civil discussion to the bottom, by posting drivel from some hate-monger. The author is a rank liar, needling people to anger. Of course it has nothing to do with racism, as that ended in 1964 or so (per the official White People's Manual on Racism in the U.S., 2006 edition). Undocumented immigrants dont' get, can't get Disability. The author doesn't state that directly, but that's what he insinuates. Child are seldom disabled, so he's talking out his a__ by suggesting they are increasing costs that way. There are no "open border advocates" in Congress or in any movement such of any weight in this country so talk of such is merely scary rhetoric by those who have no respect for truth or civility. The hosps in LA are only one small slice of the larger picture. But fear mongers everywhere rely on showing you only part of the picture to make their point. Finally, you ignore the hospital-clinic divide that I've mentioned at least three times already.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 11:17 AM"Is that what you're suggesting? You would want to ban illegal immigrants from receiving free health care?" "How would you enforce that policy? National ID's?"
How do they enforce it now? Duh.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 11:22 AMNo, what I am suggesting is in the second sentence of that quote which you purposely left out: that you're arguing an irrelevant point.
At any rate, I am beginning to suspect it's too much to hope you can stick to a topic at hand, even the ones you bring up. It's true I questioned why you were bringing up the illegal immigrant issue, but then I did follow up with my opinion - plus asked you to provide a counterpoint.
I'm trying mightily to discourse with you on the points you feel are important to this debate, but it's impossible when you flit right on to another as soon as it pops into your mind.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 11:25 AMmytwosense,
Is it possible that we can make adjustments to the health care system without completely changing it?
We both agree the costs are rising. Let us, briefly, apply the laws of economics to health care.
Would you agree that an increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply causes prices to rise and the availability of a given product to diminish?
Can we agree that the main problem with health care is that the price is too high?
If we give away a product (health care) to anyone who wants it, while the supply of the product still remains limited, do we not have a situation where demand is infinite and supply is limited?
What is concomitant to unlimited demand and limited supply? Higher costs (taxes)? Shortages(waiting times)?
Can we agree that monopolies offer lower quality than competitive environments?
What do you think will happen when doctors no longer compete by improving their services and lowering their costs?
Is there a way to increase supply (doctors) while adjusting the way demand pays for services (insurance) without converting to a single payer system?
Can we increase the use of pre-tax dollars to allow a more responsible use of demand?
Can we offer incentives to increase the amount of supply (doctors)?
Can we increase the supply (doctors) by loosening the licensing requirements to open a clinic?
Can we increase the supply (doctors) by limiting the risk of malpractice lawsuits?
Can we increase the supply (doctors) by lowering the cost of doing business (taxes)?
Can we increase the supply (doctors) by subsidizing student loans for health care students?
Can we reduce demand by enforcing immigration laws?
I'm much more in favor of making gradual adjustments than a complete overhaul.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 11:35 AMmytwosense,
"No, what I am suggesting is in the second sentence of that quote which you purposely left out: that you're arguing an irrelevant point."
What are you doing? Are you joking with me? If illegal immigrants will have access to free health care, then why would my argument be irrelevant?
You're now arguing on both sides. Either illegal immigrants have access to free health care thereby establishing the relevancy of my question, or illegal immigrants will not have access which only then makes my argument irrelevant.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 11:41 AMBefore I answer your questions, let's get on the same page about why healthcare costs are rising.
Please tell me what you believe the main reasons are, because I will need those reasons to make the connection between the supply and demand issues your questions are asking.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 11:43 AMIf illegal immigrants will have access to free health care, then why would my argument be irrelevant?
I think you know exactly what I mean, but you're willfully ignoring it. I'll spell it out for you: you wouldn't be on board for single payer whether illegal immigrants were covered or not. So, you're just bringing up the issue to express your derision towards illegal immigrants. As with your comment about "Mr. Martinez."
Because you CANNOT prove a case that illegal immigrants are a primary factor driving healthcare costs or that they make up a majority of the uninsured. So, you're only bringing it up to be a hater, not because you give a damn how it would affect a single payer system. The point serves two purposes for you: it's a red herring to distract from a focused debate on single payer and it gives you yet another opportunity to express your anger with illegal immigrants.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 11:54 AMmytwosense,
"you wouldn't be on board for single payer whether illegal immigrants were covered or not."
One of the reasons I'm against single payer is because I feel it will be abused by illegal immigrants. That does not make me a "hater".
I wanted to hear your thoughts on how illegal immigration would affect a single payer system.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 11:58 AMmytwosense,
"Because you CANNOT prove a case that illegal immigrants are a primary factor driving healthcare costs or that they make up a majority of the uninsured."
Again, you make a point that no one contends with. When did I ever say it was the "primary" factor driving health care costs? I didn't. Are you dishonest or just dumb?
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 12:18 PMAs usual, we have managed to skid around the matter of "Mr. Martinez", except for the continuing assertion that care, under a single pay system, will - somehow - be "free". And of course, that since it "will be" free, the "Mr. Martinezes" will derive the most benefits.
Both assertions are not founded in fact. But that's no bar to their use when John II wants to use them. He's asserted. That's that.
Ever try to pick up quicksilver - mercury - with your fingers?
Good luck! You;ll have just as much success in getting "on the same page" with the man.
Way back, in his first posting, he asserted - as one of the "downsides" that "Taxes would be higher". No evidence, of course.
He then went on to ask for "downsides"; but when he got an answer, he quibbled over whether or not it was an answer, because the words "could", or "might", were used. And when called on his lack of response, he again asserted: ". . . waiting times WILL be longer". He coupled this with "In war people WILL die", as if there were a genuine connection.
And on. And on. And on. But, he's never going to give in. He's always "right". And you - or anyone else who attempts debate with him - is always "wrong". (Or "ignoble", "immoral" and such, when he runs out of illogical twists and turns.)
Sharon B., has likened it to "bear baiting". And she's right. In a way, that's what makes it so much fun. (Although I must add that the PETA would call it "cruelty" - or such like - to the "bear" in the case.)
But, that aside. Have at it! One and all!
Livens up a lot of otherwise zero response space on the website anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 12:26 PMYou know , I'm sitting here at my PC with a word doc up typing out answers to your myriad of economic supply and demand questions in a spirit of goodwiill...and then I see this:
Are you dishonest or just dumb?
The hell with you, buddy. You're not worth any more effort or patience on my part to discuss the weather with, much less a topic of important national interest.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 12:28 PMmytwosense,
It's a valid question when you keep misquoting my position.
I am crystal clear in my writing. You may not like what I write, but you should have no problems understanding my position.
When I have to repeat myself or clarify positions, it is more likely a failure on your part than mine.
At 10:40am today, I agreed with you that illegal immigration was not the primary cause of high medical costs.
So, why then at 11:54am today, would you write:
"Because you CANNOT prove a case that illegal immigrants are a primary factor driving healthcare costs or that they make up a majority of the uninsured."
What am I supposed to think when you do that?
Old Grouch,
"But, he's never going to give in. He's always "right". And you - or anyone else who attempts debate with him - is always "wrong".
Are you saying the mytwosense, anderson, Truth, TBone, Charles B., Sharon B., and yourself are not arguing that you are all right?
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 12:59 PMJohn II recognizes that his position is too weak for him to reply to my post at 08:46AM. So he tries to pick out side issues where he can engage in obfuscation.
As I have demonstrated, John II's position is not the conservative position that he falsely asserts it to be, but John II avoids dealing with that like the plague.
There is no conservative that I know of, and apparently no conservative that John II know so, that comes anywhere close to advocating what he advocates.
John II has taken the position at times that the government is not entitled to take his tax money and use it for the benefit of other than him. That would render a government practically powerless; thus, he advocates a position close to anarchy.
John II claims that if the government uses his tax money to benefit the poor, or to fund retirement for others besides himself, or to fund education, it is stealing from him. I don't think that even the Libertarian Party, or the typical libertarian, has that view which is so contrary to what is well established in America.
In a prior thread, I listed the various programs that I considered that liberals had been instrumental in having the government adopt. My recollection is that John II was opposed to all of them, though he can correct me if am remembering wrong.
Those programs were, in part:
Food and drug laws
usury laws
industrial safety laws
antitrust laws
child labor laws
deceptive advertising laws
consumer protection laws
security fraud laws
corporate malfeasance laws
wage and hour laws
environmental protection laws
We can add to that:
social security laws
medicare laws
medicaid laws
No Child Left Behind
Laws funding education, whether at the elementary, middle school, high school or college level
Student loan laws
Any kind of welfare law
Laws funding preschool programs for children
Laws funding special education
Head Start
The Federal Preschool Program
Student Financial Aid laws
Of course, there are others. I invite John II to make any corrections.
A conservative? Hardly. A libertarian? Absolutely. An anarchist? No, but a close kin to one.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 02:24 PMThe basic problem is that what John II wants is grossly out of step with what the American people want, and John II wants to deny the American people what they want and substitute for it what he wants.
He apparently wants to completely redo the government so as to eliminate majority rule, or at least all but a very small part of it.
He apparently is not satisfied with the present Bill of Rights and thinks there should be some kind of provision prohibiting the government from using tax money for anything but what? He mentions roads, birdges, and the military.
I may be misinterpreting John II, so I invite him to make any corrections that are appropriate.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 02:29 PMTruth,
"He apparently is not satisfied with the present Bill of Rights and thinks there should be some kind of provision prohibiting the government from using tax money for anything but what?"
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say I need to pay for your health care?
In the Constitution, article one, section eight states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The section then goes on to enumerate the types of uses for taxes. No where does it say the government must provide health care for it's entire population.
I may be out of step with what the American people want, but I'm perfectly in step with the American Constitution.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 03:16 PM"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to *** provide for the *** general Welfare of the United States".
Most people, you excluded apparently, think that the general welfare of the United States is served by the various programs which you oppose.
"Where in the Bill of Rights does it say I need to pay for your health care?"
It is a bill of rights, not a bill of obligations. One of the rights is not the right to have your taxes spent only to benefit only you.
Truth,
"Most people, you excluded apparently, think that the general welfare of the United States is served by the various programs which you oppose."
Are we still talking about universal health care?
"It is a bill of rights, not a bill of obligations. One of the rights is not the right to have your taxes spent only to benefit only you."
Really? Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights says that?
Relax, Truth. It was a trick question. It's not in the Bill of Rights.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 05:09 PM"It is a bill of rights, not a bill of obligations. One of the rights is not the right to have your taxes spent only to benefit only you."
Really? Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights says that?"
I say "one of the rights is not" and you ask which one is. But I acknowledge that my working is poor. Revised: none of the Bill of Rights say that your taxes must be spent only to benefit you.
"Are we still talking about universal health care?"
Yes, if the United States were to enact universal health care, the general welfare clause would be the constitutional authority for that, just as it is for the other programs, and just as it is for those roads and bridges you mentioned.
Do you acknowledge that you are a libertarian rather than a conservative?
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere near your position that using taxes to fund health care programs constitutes stealing from you?
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere close to advocating that we should get rid of medicare?
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere close to advocating that the government should cease spending money for educational programs?
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 05:18 PMTruth,
"Revised: none of the Bill of Rights say that your taxes must be spent only to benefit you."
I never argued otherwise.
"if the United States were to enact universal health care, the general welfare clause would be the constitutional authority for that, just as it is for the other programs, and just as it is for those roads and bridges you mentioned."
This would not fall under the "general Welfare" clause. Section eight explicitly enumerates the types of things taxes can be raised for. Roads and bridges fall under the following:
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
and
"...for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
There is no justification in the Constitution for a national health care system. Read Article I, Section Eight.
As for your questions:
Do you acknowledge that you are a libertarian rather than a conservative? No
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere near your position that using taxes to fund health care programs constitutes stealing from you? No
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere close to advocating that we should get rid of medicare? No
Do you acknowledge that no conservative has come anywhere close to advocating that the government should cease spending money for educational programs? No
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 05:48 PMAnderson - can you cite one example where U.S. government beaurecracy has been an efficient way to spend money?
Government and efficiency are oxymorons.
You seem to be just a moron, thinking that turning over healthcare to the government would save money. But typical leftist thinking.
I don't have the answer. If I did I could probably get rich as a consultant. But I do know that single payer national healthcare is NOT the answer.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 08:03 PM8:03,
But, you don't understand. The left cares about the poor. They really care. They won't donate to charity, but that shouldn't matter. They feel for the poor so therefore their solutions can defy the laws of economics.
You just don't get it, 8:03. If only you felt like the left does, economics would bend to your feeling as well.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 08:30 PMAre you an adolescent? Or someone who never grew up? Do you typically try to make your views known by insulting someone first, or have you just been listening to a lot of talk radio lately and think it's cool? Are you really unable to think of any instances of government efficiency, or are you just trying to bait me with a stupid question? You see, I can be just as juvenile as you want to be. It's catchy.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 08:32 PMJohn II, the remainder of your goodwill (to use an accounting concept) expired at around 10:38 this morning. I think your employment of the term "economics", as if it's something only you understand, is rather grandiose.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 08:40 PMSome excellent letters in the Denver Post today regarding the issue of health care, of the high quality of argument I've seen on this thread.
http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_5794169
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 08:46 PMGreat, John II. Now how about telling us about those conservatives who advocate what you do? What, you don't know of any? My, what a surprise.
As for your interpretation of the general welfare clause, you need to take that up with the Supreme Court. It has a different view of it than you do. My, what a surprise.
Here I was giving you the chance to resurrect yourself, to restore your integrity, and you flat blew it. My, what a surprise.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 08:57 PManderson,
At exactly 8:40 PM today, the second day of May, 2007 A.D., anderson managed to say....nothing.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:04 PMTruth,
You said:
"As for your interpretation of the general welfare clause, you need to take that up with the Supreme Court. It has a different view of it than you do."
And now, a quote from the Father of the Constitution, Mr. James Madison:
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
And how about another from Mr. Thomas Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Now, tell me Truth, are you in agreement with Messrs. Madison and Jefferson?
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:20 PMAnd just for for the hell of it, how about a quote from John Stuart Mill:
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:36 PM
Are Madison and Jefferson on the Supreme Court or did I miss something? Are they the arbiters of what the Constitution means, or does that belong to the people of the United States? Perhaps we could hold a seance and seek their opinion on these important questions.
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 09:37 PMOk, so the Constitutions general welfare means structures, not programs. Surely we can go beyond that and create a health care solution that helps the general welfare by picking and choosing from all the suggestions offered.
The left cares about the poor but they won`t donate to charity. John II , I think that is a universal statement like, every, all, never etc.
Most of the posters use qualifiers like many, some , a few and you use the universals. That may be one reason for the posting mishaps that I see.
Also the Constitution is a great start ,but not the end ,of our civilization. We can go beyond it.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 2, 2007 09:38 PMExcellent! So, we finally come down to the truth. The Consitution matters not!
anderson and Sharon B. have determined that we can go "beyond it" and that unless we can "hold a seance" to seek the opinion of the Founding Fathers, we can not trust what they have already written and committed to posterity.
At least you two are honest. Not only does Sharon B. feel that humans are just a bunch of animals but that we can "go beyond" our own Constitution.
Well done!
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 09:52 PMI think we should go back to living as we did in 1787. That way we can ensure we'll be in line with the constution. We made still debate about what it means, even then, but I'm sure we'll be a lot closer.
Honesty matters not? John, when are you going to argue honestly, instead of making rhetorical arguments at every turn and twisting the statements of others to serve your own purpose? Can't? Skipped that lesson in school? Don't want to?
Posted by anderson on May 2, 2007 09:59 PMSharon B.,
"The left cares about the poor but they won`t donate to charity. John II , I think that is a universal statement like, every, all, never etc."
Yes, I purposely used a universal statement to drive home the fact that liberals donate less to charity than conservatives.
Nearly 60 million people voted for John Kerry in 2004. If each of those people donated an average amount of $2000 to a health care charity for the poor, $120 billion would be raised.
If liberals donated to a health care charity as often as they complain about America's health care, every poor person in America would have adequate health care.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 10:02 PManderson,
"John, when are you going to argue honestly, instead of making rhetorical arguments at every turn and twisting the statements of others to serve your own purpose?"
Tell me anderson, what have I twisted?
Perhaps, you are just frustrated because you discovered the Constitution and the Founding fathers do not support your grandiose and Utopian plans for a national health care system.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 10:06 PMJohn II , it might also help if we printed out letters so we can refer to them as we write.
Any biology teacher will tell you humans are animals. The word "JUST" was added by you. Caps and quotations used to drive home a fact.
They won`t donate to charity is a universal, they donate less has a qualifier. Now which did you mean?
The Constitution is a great start, but not the end of our civilization, we can go beyond it. Or " the Constitution matters not!"
Do you see the difference?
Only you mentioned not trusting the FF. Only you mentioned a seance. Is this how you argue, with nonsence and made up quotes?
If we can`t use our Constitution as a base and go beyond it . when we need to, then we really are "Just" animals and are actually worshiping the document.
Makes us look like Planet of the Apes for real.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 12:06 AMThe Constitution is a great start, but not the end of our civilization, we can go beyond it. Or " the Constitution matters not!"
Do you see the difference?
He sees the difference, Sharon B., but as someone who takes the tactics of an intellectual lightweight into every debate, he doesn't care. So don't waste your time trying to explain what is perfectly clear to a fifth grader. There are actually people out there who can hold an opposing position and fairly, respectfully support it.
And it's interesting that only now we suddenly see John II as a vigorous upholder - and interpreter - of the Constitution. Interesting his sudden defense of the Constitution comes well after his stance that illegal immigrants would be a problem for single-payer healthcare. I would have thought based on his, er, passionate delivery, this would have been the first thing he wrote when the thread opened.
mytwosense,
Are you agreeing with Sharon B. that we need to "go beyond" the Constitution?
Also, what's the point of bringing up illegal immigrants again?
I originally argued against a national health care system on the basis of why it would not work and why I should not be forced to pay for it. That was my unchanging position from the beginning.
When Truth began pressing me as to why I feel I shouldn't be forced to pay for it, I argued from a Constitutional perspective.
So, you may feel I'm an "intellectual lightweight" but that is also irrelevant because you haven't refuted the arguments I have put forth.
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 11:05 AMmytwosense,
After reviewing the comments, I also found this quote from Truth which triggered a debate on Consitutional grounds:
"He apparently is not satisfied with the present Bill of Rights and thinks there should be some kind of provision prohibiting the government from using tax money for anything but what?"Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 11:15 AM
Every time we ammend the Constitution, we in effect, "go beyond It"
I did ask you three questions. Did you miss them?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 11:24 AMSharon B.,
"Every time we ammend the Constitution, we in effect, "go beyond It""
No, we amend it so we don't go beyond it. But, if you're talking about amending the Constitution to provide health care for all, go for it. I won't support that but it would be right way to do it.
I say we ammend it to "go beyond" as in prohibition.
You say we ammend it "so we don`t go beyond it." As in?
Do no liberals or some liberals who give less, give to charity?
Mr Martinez owned the restaurant.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 12:51 PMSharon B.,
"I say we ammend it to "go beyond" as in prohibition.You say we ammend it "so we don`t go beyond it." As in?"
An amendment is not "going beyond" the Constitution. An amendment is working within the confines of the Constitution as Article Five clearly states:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
"Going beyond" the Constitution would mean bypassing Article Five altogether and simply doing whatever was desired.
So, are you arguing for or against an amendment to the Constitution for a national health care system? If you're saying a national health care system should be an amendment to the Constitution, I would oppose the measure but increase my respect for you.
"Do no liberals or some liberals who give less, give to charity?"
I will cut & paste my answer that already addressed the question:
"Yes, I purposely used a universal statement to drive home the fact that liberals donate less to charity than conservatives."
It was an obvious exaggeration to make a point, Sharon B.
I stand by my statement of 11:34
I used amending The Constiltution as an example, of "going beyond it. ,not as an arguement for amending it to put in health care.
I am neither arguing for or against an amendment for health care,. Only you brought that up.
Let me make this so easy "liberals donate nothing or less " You can cut and paste till your fingers fall off, but you made both statements.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 02:44 PMSharon B.,
This is why I get frustrated conversing with you. Your logic is all over the place and you almost never stick to a point.
Your concept of "going beyond" the Constitution by amending it is a flawed notion. The Constitution provides the ability to amend it so how can amending it be "going beyond" itself?
First you say:
"Ok, so the Constitutions general welfare means structures, not programs. Surely we can go beyond that..."
Then you define "going beyond" with this statement:
"Every time we ammend the Constitution, we in effect, "go beyond It""
So, in a conversation about a national health care system, you suggest we can go beyond the Constitution to offer a national health care plan.
Then you say amending the Constitution is "going beyond" it.
And now you say,
"I used amending The Constiltution as an example, of "going beyond it. ,not as an arguement for amending it to put in health care.I am neither arguing for or against an amendment for health care"
How am I supposed to respond to your logic? Get me Mr. Skank. He's the only liberal on this site that knows how to properly debate an issue.
As for this:
"Let me make this so easy "liberals donate nothing or less " You can cut and paste till your fingers fall off, but you made both statements."
Again, this will be the third time now, I acknowledge the contradiction in my statement. It was an obvious rhetorical exaggeration to make a point.
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 03:19 PMNo , this is the first time you used the word contradictilon.
The amendments "go beyond" the basic Constitution and you know that. We were discussing the general welfare clause, i said we could go beyond the idea of buildings if we wanted.
I never suggested we go beyond the Constitution and offer nations health care, with an amendment.
My remark was "general" going beyond, and your remark was specific"amending for national health care.
In a way I can see how you are confused here, but I think you want to look that way to make me seem all over the place.
Oh JohnI I ,I can stick like super glue if I get my way eventually, and reading you admit you contradicted yourself took only what, hours ,a day maybe.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 03:50 PMThis is a great website! Keep up the great work. Thanks much!
Posted by fastcareer on June 29, 2007 02:08 AMPosted by Maxx on July 11, 2007 09:49 AM