Health care reform

I guess there are no constituents of the Republican members of Congress who need health care reform, all these 47 million people must have liberal Democrats as their congressional representative or senator.

A positive perspective on healthcare reform

by Taylor Goff/Madison Academic
About 47 million Americans don’t have health insurance, due to high costs or unavailability, and more than half of all bankruptcies are a result of medical bills. Eighty percent of those uninsured are members of a working family. In today’s economy, the cost of health care is continually skyrocketing, leaving only the wealthy to receive the benefits of health care coverage. Obama’s health care reform proposal should be given a chance to help those less fortunate.

Obama’s health care plan wants to use the taxes of American citizens to provide basic health-care coverage for everyone. The largest opposition towards this reformation comes from those who aren’t willing to give up more of their taxes to the government. But basic privileges like security are provided for everyone through taxes. Who wants only the financially well-off to receive those benefits?

Europe seems to have the answers to the our problems. Like America, France’s health care system is a combination of public and private funding. However, France spends about half as much as America, and its citizens are healthier because each member of society receives basic health-care coverage through national insurance funds.

A study done by the Commonwealth Fund compared the quality of America’s health care system to that of five other countries who have made the switch to universal health care. Though the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care, we ranked last or near last, based on such factors as efficiency, quality, access, and equity. Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the department of clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, wrote, “The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess.”

Not only would Obama’s plan lower the costs of health insurance for those who can already afford its ridiculously high prices, but it would provide the same benefits to those who cannot. Obama’s proposal is a win-win for all and will hopefully one day be seen to fruition.

Originally published February 25, 2010

Wonder why those in Congress who are "working" on health care continue to waste time and energy on the Theatrics of governing rather than productive activities? Is everyone playing to the camera??

Wonder why those in Congress who are "working" on health care continue to waste time and energy on the Theatrics of governing rather than productive activities? Is everyone playing to the camera??

Of course they are. That's how they get re-elected. Term limits would be nice.

Why do we elect such ineffective people? Health care reform first emerged as an issue in 1912!!! Would anyone tolerate such incompetence in any other aspect of their lives???Members of Congress have taken incompetence to astronomical new levels.

I guess there are no constituents of the Republican members of Congress who need health care reform, all these 47 million people must have liberal Democrats as their congressional representative or senator.

Man, how many times has this number been tossed around in the last year! Included in that "47 million uninsured" are:

1) 10-15 million illegal immigrants
2) 10 million who make over 75K a year and can afford insurance but chose not to purchase.
3) 14 million who are already eligible for low income insurance safety nets but haven't signed up.

We need to address the shortcoming of our current system (cost increases, exclusions) without ruining coverage for the 250 million that currently enjoy their coverage.

The real problem with current health reform legislation isn't the theatrics, it's that a majority of Americans don't want the "reform" currently being promoted. The day these politicians come together to try to fix the real issues rather than attempting an overhaul aimed at making millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care is the day they actually get something done.

The Four-Minute Guide to the Seven-Hour Summit

YouTube- The Four-Minute Guide to the Seven-Hour Summit

It is the Democrats who are exhibiting incompetence. They have had the numbers to pass pretty much whatever they want for a year and cannot agree on anything. The reason is that the "reforms" Obama, Pelosi and REid are promoting will finish the job of bankrupting the country and enough Democrat congressmen recognize the fact to stall the bill.

A bill with wide bipartisan support could be passed that includes allowing purchase of insurance over state lines, banning failure to cover pre-existing conditions and tort reform. We'll see

First of all, why do we need an overhaul of a system that has 70+% of the public covered. And thats through private systems. Dems and Reps better start paying attention to what the MAJORITY doesn't want. Let these inept buffoons fix whats broken first. Medicare, Medicaid, SS are so poorly run right now, why turn our lives over to the likes of Nancy "Take a Free Ride...with Family Members" Pelosi? Quit looking at this like it's a Right. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in The Bill of Rights does it say we take care of everyone. Geez!

If I hear another word about Europe and France having a better system, I'm gonna scream. Euro is tanking now. And we even may get caught up in that mess, too. Just got back from France, and let me tell you: try to see through your CNN tainted glasses. They "aint" in great shape at all!!

Line in Caddyshack: "Well...The world needs ditch diggers, too". And I know a lot of those guys (ditch diggers) that have their own Healthcare insurance. It's out there and can be purchased. So buy it and quit asking the 70% to pay it for you.

I guess there are no constituents of the Republican members of Congress who need health care reform, all these 47 million people must have liberal Democrats as their congressional representative or senator.

I really want to see the proof that "more than half of bankruptcies" are due to inabilty to pay healthcare bills. That's a crock. I agree, some may be, but the majority is just plain and simple poor planning! Like getting mortgages for houses you can't afford! Congress meddled in that stating everyone needs to be able to buy a house. So Barney Frank and Chris Dodd banks and mortage companies run wild to make sure our "right" to own a house was made manifest! We are gonna "Right" ourselves off the planet!

The fundemental problem today is that so many believe that they have a "right" to a house, to healthcare, to an education, to be taken care of in their old age, to a job, etc.etc.etc. The rights that we actually are promised is the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words opportunity. It is up to the individual to plan for the rest.
Our national efforts to provide cradle to grave enefits have driven us to the point of bankruptcy. We cannot afford social security, medicare and medicaid, much less another entitlement.

Insurance Companies or People?

Litmus Test: The People, or the Insurance Companies?

Since 1945, health insurance companies have been allowed to collude to fix prices. The McCarran-Ferguson Act exempted them from the anti-trust regulations that normally prohibit such behavior. And in a country in which more than 80 percent of markets have only one or two insurers, insurance companies just haven't bothered to compete. Insurance is the only major industry in the United States, besides Major League Baseball, where such collusion and price-fixing is allowed.

Litmus Test: The People, or the Insurance Companies?

And in a country in which more than 80 percent of markets have only one or two insurers, insurance companies just haven't bothered to compete.

I looked at this article to see if there was any reference made to support this statement and there isn't......not surprising. I wonder which 80% markets have only two insurers? And, if this is the case, it is the responsibility of the respective States' Ins. Commissioners to ensure something like this doesn't happen.

Nice concept Darcy presents, but I don't believe this person knows what he/she is stating in the writings. In fact, the article is clearly slanted........to whose ideals?

For all you folks that fall back on the constitution, let me point out that the Preamble of the constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm not speaking of Welfare in the sense of food stamps and unemployment, but the traditional sense "benefit: something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the benefit of all"". I know it's hard as conservatives or even as Christians to follow the basic tenants of humanity when it might mean giving on your part more than receiving, but give it a try, for Jesus's sake.

First of all, why do we need an overhaul of a system that has 70+% of the public covered. And thats through private systems. Dems and Reps better start paying attention to what the MAJORITY doesn't want. Let these inept buffoons fix whats broken first. Medicare, Medicaid, SS are so poorly run right now, why turn our lives over to the likes of Nancy "Take a Free Ride...with Family Members" Pelosi? Quit looking at this like it's a Right. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in The Bill of Rights does it say we take care of everyone. Geez!

If I hear another word about Europe and France having a better system, I'm gonna scream. Euro is tanking now. And we even may get caught up in that mess, too. Just got back from France, and let me tell you: try to see through your CNN tainted glasses. They "aint" in great shape at all!!

Line in Caddyshack: "Well...The world needs ditch diggers, too". And I know a lot of those guys (ditch diggers) that have their own Healthcare insurance. It's out there and can be purchased. So buy it and quit asking the 70% to pay it for you.

You are correct in stating that the economy in Europe is not in good shape, that the 'spoiled' europeans are mired in all of these promised benefits to their retirees, etc.. and that in the short and long term it is unsustainable BUT this country is not doing so well either AND health care in France is IMHO, much better for the average person BUT to me the most important thing is that - if you work all your life and happen to get sick and need care, you cannot be forced into bankrupcy the way so many families are here. ALL of your life savings can be drained in an instant if you are happen to need specialized care.

I moved here in 1992 when this debate was raging - now almost 20 years later it still is - and the only thing that has changed is that premiums are now multiples of what they were - absolutely pathetic - nothing ever will happen with so many people entrenched in their own positions and since most people know nothing different, they are fine with the status quo.....

I think we all agree on two major issues with our healthcare system - costs that rise faster than inflation, and exclusions / dropped coverage. What I don't understand is why the current bills sitting in Congress, both of which are over 2000 pages, do little to address the first problem? The CBO has researched these bills and they've been clear, costs are not being controlled, they are being subsidized. There's something very very wrong with that. It's certainly not a long term solution.

I agree with the reps on this one, scrap the current bills and go back to the drawing board. Work on a bipartisian solution, temper the special interests of both parties, and fix the core problems with minimal legislation.

For all you folks that fall back on the constitution, let me point out that the Preamble of the constitution states:



I'm not speaking of Welfare in the sense of food stamps and unemployment, but the traditional sense "benefit: something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the benefit of all"". I know it's hard as conservatives or even as Christians to follow the basic tenants of humanity when it might mean giving on your part more than receiving, but give it a try, for Jesus's sake.

How is adding another trillion dollars in debt to pass to our kids "promoting the general welfare?" All we will be "giving" them is certain economic servitude.
The fundemental problem with our healthcare system is rising costs. The major factors in rising costs are defensive medicine and malpractice insurance. Tort Reform is the best way to attack both problems. Obama's bill does nothing to address tort reform. So we should scrap the bill and start over with a bill that attacks problems instead of paying off campaign promises.

I think we all agree on two major issues with our healthcare system - costs that rise faster than inflation, and exclusions / dropped coverage. What I don't understand is why the current bills sitting in Congress, both of which are over 2000 pages, do little to address the first problem? The CBO has researched these bills and they've been clear, costs are not being controlled, they are being subsidized. There's something very very wrong with that. It's certainly not a long term solution.

I agree with the reps on this one, scrap the current bills and go back to the drawing board. Work on a bipartisian solution, temper the special interests of both parties, and fix the core problems with minimal legislation.

Who cares what the length of the bill is? 2,000; 3,000; 10,000 pages what's the difference? You're simply using right wing talking points about the length of the bill,. As usual conservatives are more concerned with length than substance.

How is adding another trillion dollars in debt to pass to our kids "promoting the general welfare?" All we will be "giving" them is certain economic servitude.
The fundemental problem with our healthcare system is rising costs. The major factors in rising costs are defensive medicine and malpractice insurance. Tort Reform is the best way to attack both problems. Obama's bill does nothing to address tort reform. So we should scrap the bill and start over with a bill that attacks problems instead of paying off campaign promises.

You can blame lawyers, doctors, and nurses until the cows come home. At the end of the day the true reason that health care cost so much is the actual patient. Doctors can turn blue in the face telling a patient to quit smoking, lose weight, or any number of common sense preventative measures, but if that person chooses not to do it, then in the long run their health care bill is going to be much higher than the person who does.

TAX the FAT!

SWGB for Prez. TAX the FAT!

Best slogan I've heard in a long time! Digg it~~~~~~~~~~~

SWGB, with your vast experience and knowledge, you may be able to understand and digest all the nuances and hidden agendas in a bill over 2000 pages but, unfortunately, our Representative and Senators cannot.

SWGB, with your vast experience and knowledge, you may be able to understand and digest all the nuances and hidden agendas in a bill over 2000 pages but, unfortunately, our Representative and Senators cannot.

Welcome to the Snark Side.

Who cares what the length of the bill is? 2,000; 3,000; 10,000 pages what's the difference? You're simply using right wing talking points about the length of the bill,. As usual conservatives are more concerned with length than substance.

You missed my point, I wasn't complaining about a 2000 page bill, I was complaining that in those 2000 pages, Pelosi and Reid failed to address one of the two major problems with our healthcare system. Wouldn't you agree that's a problem?

I'm not defending reps solutions, as I'm not convinced they have solutions to these issues either. But I do think, that if the two sides are working together, we stand a far better chance of getting these problems solved in a reasonable way. Clearly we can't trust a single party to do the job.

Buffett: Scrap the bill.

“We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,” he added. “And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.”

But while Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, applauded Obama for taking up the reform effort, he said that “unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much.”


Asked if he would be in favor of scrapping the Senate health care bill, Buffett responded: “I would be.”​

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33693.html#ixzz0gx1GBOAM

I think it best to start over. Presenting the right bi-partisan bill will not take long. Nor will it take a lengthy period to pass. It is repeatedly stone-walled now because it doesn't address tort and pharma reform (key issues imo). Getting these two items under control in and of themselves will open up additional monies to begin to cover the 20MM or so who are presently not covered through no fault or choice of their own.