23% say health care is most important?

[RoadKill]

So who is going to be paying for these changes? We as American tax payers already pay ENOUGH to provide for those who refuse to contribute ! !
If the government wants to give it all to AIG instead of taking care of the voters... WHY SHOULD I PAY MORE ? The money is already there and it has been SQUANDERED !  I am going to start a prostitution ring and sell illegal drugs as a side business while hiring illegal immigrants to do the work and that way I never pay another red cent to be SQUANDERED! And I will be eligible to collect what the fine Americans have payed in! It's that or I become a gov't official but I cant do that because I would have to compromise my morals and it would be difficult to forget entirely how to BUDGET the money as I steal it!  

[Puffs Daddy]

So who is going to be paying for these changes? We as American tax payers already pay ENOUGH to provide for those who refuse to contribute ! !
If the government wants to give it all to AIG instead of taking care of the voters... WHY SHOULD I PAY MORE ? The money is already there and it has been SQUANDERED !  I am going to start a prostitution ring and sell illegal drugs as a side business while hiring illegal immigrants to do the work and that way I never pay another red cent to be SQUANDERED! And I will be eligible to collect what the fine Americans have payed in! It's that or I become a gov't official but I cant do that because I would have to compromise my morals and it would be difficult to forget entirely how to BUDGET the money as I steal it!  

Now THAT'S the kind of clear thinking about complex public policy issues I'm used to seeing here. Apologies for interrupting the usual flow.

[RoadKill]

So enlighten me...WHO GONNA PAY ? Is there not enough money paid in already?  I would like to see health care COST attacked not how to over pay for it. Is that line of thinking wrong ?

 And it would be nice to give benefits to the hooker and her dope dealing boyfriendnext door for free 

[Robert]

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people[1] specified in Hitler's secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination",[2] but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums "who may appear incurable".[3]

The Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4.[4]

The codename T4 was an abbreviation of "Tiergartenstraße 4", the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the General Foundation for Welfare and Institutional Care (Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege).[5] This body operated under the direction of Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler's private chancellery,[6] and Dr Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.

The euthanasia decree, written on Adolf Hitler's personal stationery and dated 1 September 1939, reads as follows:

    Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

[RoadKill]

You have all the statistics  PuffDaddy and you know stat's are never wrong..can't manipulate numbers 


 "complex public policy issues "  MY ARSE ! ! What is complicated about it? Some one is gonna pay and most will get it without contributing. I dont expect YOU to pay more for my health insurance because I play with explosives and ride my Valkyrie at excessive speeds so I dont want to pay more for yours if you ride drunk or you smoke too much. Where will that lead self responsibility ? Do you want to pay for my neighbors health care? for her abortion? for her boyfriends gunshot wounds ? for her Cadillac,her Big screen T.V. ? Well you already DID! what you did NOT pay for was Shoes and coats for her half naked kids. We need more compassionate ,giving individuals like Puff  to pay more so I dont have to keep buying shoes for the kids next door! Maybe you are right...If I sell all my guns I could afford to pay her rent too! I will just wait until our elected officials are smart enough to take the guns after they take all my money.MY Grandma can wait for her med's because the Gov't knows best!
I'll let them spread the wealth.

[Chrisj CMA]

Its certainly NOT a simple problem, but some of the contributing problems are a bit more simple than the whole deal.  The Federal Government running the show is NOT going to help.

stop dumb expensive lawsuits/defensive medicine and rediculous malpractice insurance costs
reduce fraud and waste
increase competition in and between states for insurance
start putting some of that stimulous money towards reducing the deficit and REALLY strengthening the economy
make incentives for more to go into the healthcare profession (JOBS)
restore manufacturing in the USA (have you tried NOT to buy Chinese lately?) (JOBS)
put all government employees on Social Security and Medicare and watch how fast it gets fixed

Get some reality in the immigration system, stop pouring out gobs of services to folks that shouldnt be here, let them go home an do it right if they really want to be Americans

All this is just a start but it would do more than whats being proposed now to improve heathcare and the country

Maybe after awhile of more jobs, stronger economy less waste we could more afford to help those that need help because there would be less of them

[RoadKill]

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people[1] specified in Hitler's secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination",[2] but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums "who may appear incurable".[3]

The Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4.[4]

The codename T4 was an abbreviation of "Tiergartenstraße 4", the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the General Foundation for Welfare and Institutional Care (Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege).[5] This body operated under the direction of Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler's private chancellery,[6] and Dr Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.

The euthanasia decree, written on Adolf Hitler's personal stationery and dated 1 September 1939, reads as follows:

    Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

Those are not statistics and there for not admissible in the leftwing bleeding heart argument    try to pull some liberal media quotes off the internet because those and ONLY those will be considered as fact.   

[RoadKill]

Its certainly NOT a simple problem, but some of the contributing problems are a bit more simple than the whole deal.  The Federal Government running the show is NOT going to help.

stop dumb expensive lawsuits/defensive medicine and rediculous malpractice insurance costs
reduce fraud and waste
increase competition in and between states
start putting some of that stimulous money towards reducing the deficit and REALLY strengthening the economy
make incentives for more to go into the healthcare profession (JOBS)
restore manufacturing in the USA (have you tried NOT to buy Chinese lately?) (JOBS)
put all government employees on Social Security and Medicare and watch how fast it gets fixed

Get some reality in the immigration system, stop pouring out gobs of services to folks that shouldnt be here, let them go home an do it right if they really want to be Americans

All this is just a start but it would do more than whats being proposed now to improve heathcare and the country

Maybe after awhile of more jobs, stronger economy less waste we could more afford to help those that need help because there would be less of them

HOW DARE YOU USE LOGIC?? ! ! Are you not paying attention? Common sense is not even admissible to the left...we have to play within their parameters

[fstsix]

Scanner i mean Puffs uh ? whatever , You never did answer my question on how many Ins Providers were in the same state as you and Scanner? Bring it On ................? Again along with the video you posted, Amazing 20% GDP in future CORRECT if the GOV dose not stop the lobbyist from free markets to work it out AKA competition. pointless. Correction if (WE) dont stop the Lobbyist for their corruption.Again Pointless.

It would be difficult to imagine more errors in one short post. I didn't answer your question about the number of insurance providers in Washington state because you didn't ask me that question. The answer, however, is about 20 including a "public" option for a limited number of people who cannot get coverage elsewhere.

Second, I didn't post a video. Third, I'm not even sure what your garbled point regarding lobbyists is.

(Real simple Why only 20?) i wont even go there on the lobbyist   (give me a break)

[G-Man]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

[G-Man]

So enlighten me...WHO GONNA PAY ?

The rich are gonna pay!  5% will foot the bill for 95%.  We'll tax the rich at 99% and break them.  They don't deserve it.  They didn't make the sacrifices, they didn't take risks with their money and livelihoods, they didn't take out a hundred grand in student loans (that will cost 3 hundred grand in the end) to further themsleves, they don't work 60 or 70 hours a week and give up time with their families.  So, why do they deserve to have money? Those who partied instead of getting good grades, those who got pregnant at 15, those that didn't make any sacrifices to better themselves and their families, those who didn't take risks or borrowed through the nose, those that bought houses they couldn't afford.....they are the ones who deserve it!

[RoadKill]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

That's what I'm talkin 'bout! Send Enron the bill..Haliburton can pay too! I would go more in depth but "SPRINGER" gonna be on in a minute and my cousins "baby Daddy" is on the show today   

[Chrisj CMA]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

Isint that kinda like a lie when its certainly not true?  Just askin  ???

[fstsix]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

That's what I'm talkin 'bout! Send Enron the bill..Haliburton can pay too! I would go more in depth but "SPRINGER" gonna be on in a minute and my cousins "baby Daddy" is on the show today  

  Roadkill i been telling you ya got to stop watching that Jerry Springer on fox.  You need to go back to ABC going to loose respect here LOL.

[G-Man]

Brother, I have read almost all of your posts on this subject and other subjects.  I truly feel that you have a good grasp on the issues and you always present clear and honest approaches to solutions.  Unfortunately, you keep running up against those who clearly choose NOT to see your issues and solutions.  It's happened to me numerous times as well.  You present the argument and a solution, but those on the other side simply try to negate what you've stated, but present NO solutions themsleves, other than to go along with a plan that is not going to do what it was intended to do in the first place.  All of the Republican reps can see this and now 13 of the Democrat reps are seeing that it is not going to accomplish what they set out to do.  That is why this is a crisis.  Everytime the administrations back is against the wall, they call it a crisis.  

Keep up the good work.  I appreciate all you have to say, not because I agree, but because you take the time to present yourself in a respectful way.

[G-Man]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

Isint that kinda like a lie when its certainly not true?  Just askin  ???

Absolutely a lie.  Unfortunately only a few are able to understand why it was a lie.  They knew this....that's why it was brilliant.

[fstsix]

Brother, I have read almost all of your posts on this subject and other subjects.  I truly feel that you have a good grasp on the issues and you always present clear and honest approaches to solutions.  Unfortunately, you keep running up against those who clearly choose NOT to see your issues and solutions.  It's happened to me numerous times as well.  You present the argument and a solution, but those on the other side simply try to negate what you've stated, but present NO solutions themsleves, other than to go along with a plan that is not going to do what it was intended to do in the first place.  All of the Republican reps can see this and now 13 of the Democrat reps are seeing that it is not going to accomplish what they set out to do.  That is why this is a crisis.  Everytime the administrations back is against the wall, they call it a crisis.  

Keep up the good work.  I appreciate all you have to say, not because I agree, but because you take the time to present yourself in a respectful way.

Know The Truth and the Truth shall set you Free.

[Chrisj CMA]

Thanks G-Man, but I think its sad when a bonehead like me knows that what the "experts" in Washington are doing is total nonsense and it could never work.  We are in big trouble if you are right and I am the one with a good grasp on this issue........LOL LOL  I wish our president and his administration had a good grasp on things

[G-Man]

Thanks G-Man, but I think its sad when a bonehead like me knows that what the "experts" in Washington are doing is total nonsense and it could never work.  We are in big trouble if you are right and I am the one with a good grasp on this issue........LOL LOL  I wish our president and his administration had a good grasp on things

I truly feel it's an ego issue with those in D.C.  That's why they're going after Fox and calling everyone with a differing opinion racist.  They can't handle having their egos damaged.  Kind of like when Mike Tyson was proved to be beatable.  He fell apart and turned to rape and biting ears off.

[fstsix]

In fact, Medicaid is not a federal insurance program; it's a grant program that allows individual states to provide medical care to the poorest of the poor. And depending upon the state the coverage ranges from inadequate to ridiculous. Medicare, on the other hand, is a federal health insurance program covering those 65 and older regardless of income. Its administrative costs amount to 3% to 5% of its total expenditures. The average private health insurance plan spends between 17% and 22%.

In an attempt to educate myself on the subject, I ran across this article which is contradictory to what you are saying about Medicare administrative costs. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm

snip:
However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars.

another snip:
Medicare patients are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease, and as such have higher average patient care costs, so expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs gives a misleading picture of relative efficiency. Administrative costs are incurred primarily on a fixed or per-beneficiary basis; this approach spreads Medicare's costs over a larger base of patient care cost.

Like many things, when math and percentages are involved, the numbers can be used to argue either side depending on your point of view.  I'm not arguing either side, just trying to educate myself as the debate continues.

-Scott

Good catch and congrats for bringing at least an effort at facts to a discussion like this. However, the Heritage Foundation commentary is hardly one to rely upon. The HF article essentially makes two points.

(1) Medicare insures more folks who need medical services. Thus, the share of expenditures is lower than for private insurance where many of the insured are not as much in need of medical care. However, this claim is effectively effectively eliminated if one looks at the administrative costs of traditional pay for service Medicare versus the privately run "Medicare Advantage" plans foisted on Medicare by the GOP Congress during the Bush administration. Since both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans serve virtually the same population, the comparison does not suffer from the criticism the HF article makes. In that case, "the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage..."

"And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share..."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/

P.S. It also bears noting that GOP claims that health care insurance reform involves "cutting" Medicare actually amounts to eliminating the wasteful, inefficient "Medicare Advantage" programs that Medicare has been subsidizing since they began.

(2) The HF article maintains that administrative costs are higher for private plans than for Medicare because the latter has an advantage in terms of economies of scale. In short, Medicare has an advantage in terms of containing costs because it covers many more people than any single private insurer.  That, however, is hardly an argument in favor of a "free market." In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

One of the usually unmentioned factors in competitive markets is that administrative costs are duplicated by multiple suppliers. That's why mergers happen, folks. And when they do, the result is virtually always the elimination of redundant jobs.

Apparently, the HF article implies a "single payer" system would be more efficient than the current hodgepodge of insurance providers. It's just that in line with its ideological straitjacket, HF would prefer that it be a single (private) payer.

For a more complete discussion of this issue, see the following.

http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

Credible the NY times that is like me talking from Fox to you. Pooooleeezzz .http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-new-york-times-bankruptcy-update-2009-5

[RoadKill]

I ask you how does a man with no real experience, that no one knows become leader of the one superpower still around?

They made one BRILLIANT move.  They told 95% of the country that they will not have their taxes increased and that they were going to get those evil rich people to foot all the bills.

That's what I'm talkin 'bout! Send Enron the bill..Haliburton can pay too! I would go more in depth but "SPRINGER" gonna be on in a minute and my cousins "baby Daddy" is on the show today   

  Roadkill i been telling you ya got to stop watching that Jerry Springer on fox.  You need to go back to ABC going to loose respect here LOL.

OOHHHH NO YOU DIDENT! ! (ROADKILL snaps fingers and sways head side to side) Dont be talkin 'bout my Jerry Springer! He is gonna be Obama's VP in 2012..then we wont have anybody puttin a spin on the real issues...and gas will be a dollah again!

[Puffs Daddy]

Credible the NY times that is like me talking from Fox to you. Pooooleeezzz .http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-new-york-times-bankruptcy-update-2009-5

Sorry, but Krugman's article in the NY Times cites both the CBO and the GAO as sources. That goes somewhat beyond the lunacy propagated on Faux Noise. Not to mention Rush's wet dreams.

[fstsix]

Credible the NY times that is like me talking from Fox to you. Pooooleeezzz .http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-new-york-times-bankruptcy-update-2009-5

Sorry, but Krugman's article in the NY Times cites both the CBO and the GAO as sources. That goes somewhat beyond the lunacy propagated on Faux Noise. Not to mention Rush's wet dreams.

Im sure your news rag has the same people that want to run our Economics. Typical Angry insults all emotion. How about that 20 Health care insurance response. We are still waiting.

[Scott in Ok]

Good catch and congrats for bringing at least an effort at facts to a discussion like this. However, the Heritage Foundation commentary is hardly one to rely upon. The HF article essentially makes two points.

(1) Medicare insures more folks who need medical services. Thus, the share of expenditures is lower than for private insurance where many of the insured are not as much in need of medical care. However, this claim is effectively effectively eliminated if one looks at the administrative costs of traditional pay for service Medicare versus the privately run "Medicare Advantage" plans foisted on Medicare by the GOP Congress during the Bush administration. Since both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans serve virtually the same population, the comparison does not suffer from the criticism the HF article makes. In that case, "the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage..."

"And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share..."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/

P.S. It also bears noting that GOP claims that health care insurance reform involves "cutting" Medicare actually amounts to eliminating the wasteful, inefficient "Medicare Advantage" programs that Medicare has been subsidizing since they began.

(2) The HF article maintains that administrative costs are higher for private plans than for Medicare because the latter has an advantage in terms of economies of scale. In short, Medicare has an advantage in terms of containing costs because it covers many more people than any single private insurer.  That, however, is hardly an argument in favor of a "free market." In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

One of the usually unmentioned factors in competitive markets is that administrative costs are duplicated by multiple suppliers. That's why mergers happen, folks. And when they do, the result is virtually always the elimination of redundant jobs.

Apparently, the HF article implies a "single payer" system would be more efficient than the current hodgepodge of insurance providers. It's just that in line with its ideological straitjacket, HF would prefer that it be a single (private) payer.

For a more complete discussion of this issue, see the following.

http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

What I've learned so far.

Ok, so we've got two different points of view.  One Liberal, one conservative.  The Heritage foundation on one side, and the NY Times/Krugman/Institute for our Future on the other. 

Let me recap this.  The Heritage foundation posts this article back in June:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm

Krugman, in the Times, says its nonsense:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/

Instead of just refuting the article, he starts and ends with this:

Start:
Whenever you encounter “research” from the Heritage Foundation, you always have to bear in mind that Heritage isn’t really a think tank; it’s a propaganda shop. Everything it says is automatically suspect.

End:
You should always remember:

1. Don’t believe anything Heritage says.

2. If you find what Heritage is saying plausible, remember rule 1.

And to defend his honor, Dr Book clarifies his argument here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/06/medicare-administrative-costs-and-paul-krugman%E2%80%99s-propaganda-shop/

In the end, I feel dumber now for making an attempt to learn anything about the issues.  I do however tend to agree with the original article as well as the followup from Dr Book.  I'll also point out that before reading those articles I had no idea of the political persuasions of any of those involved. 

-Scott

[Willow]

So through four pages of posts no one (or at least few) has really answered the original question.

If only 23% say health care is most important, why is it the foremost item with the U.S. administration, the Congress, and the mainstream media?

Who is the tail that's wagging the dog here?

It seems there are a lot of us that are simply riding trains here.  What we try to pass off as legitimate arguments are just finger pointing at the other trains. 

I still wonder, what is the answer to the original question?

Maybe we should promote two polls, the first question being who is experiencing a medical insurance crisis and the second being who really thinks the government can solve that problem for us.

Perhaps a third question would be who's bright enough to know from where the government gets its money and who thinks he or she won't be included among the contributing participants?

What about who realizes that when money goes into the pool and money comes out (to pay for medical services) more goes in than comes out?  That is to say that over half of us will be more contributors than beneficiaries of any insurance pool, public or private.

The real question is whether we believe that the majority of us will be hurt less by the government who purports to answer to the electorate or by corporations who answer to stockholders.  The answer to that question, I'm almost certain, is more highly determined by one's loyalty to a political perspective than by well constructed syllogisms.

Wow!  So many questions.  Too many questions.  Actually isn't it all the questions that make the discussion interesting?  I guess that's just one more question on which we could disagree.

Wouldn't it be disappointing, or at least disillusioning, if someone actually had the answers? 

   

[Daniel Meyer]

Given that no more than 60% of eligible voters voted in the election 23% thinking it's a priority is a more influential number than it would first appear....

[Mikey]

Daniel,

That 23% may or may not be a decieving number. One thing that Obama has accomplished (i think) is a lot more people are paying attention to what is happening in the world of politics than before. I'm of the firm belief that healthcare should be on the bottom of our list of issues. And I think that the reason that we have the "Healthcare Crisis" is because the Democrats, who are rapidly losing popularity, need to take care of their agenda before they lose majority control (and no one blast me for this, because this is how politics works. The party that has the control tries to force through all the bills that they can while they can) I think the reasoning for the Healthcare Reform is to TRY to win back some support for Obama. Right now, with his popularity rating, he has no chance at getting re-elected, unless there is not another decent canidate. Just my take on things. To recap: Healthcare Crisis = Political Game

[Puffs Daddy]

So through four pages of posts no one (or at least few) has really answered the original question.

If only 23% say health care is most important, why is it the foremost item with the U.S. administration, the Congress, and the mainstream media?

Who is the tail that's wagging the dog here?

The answer is pretty simple. Unless health care costs are both controlled and those costs better distributed, there is no hope of getting the deficit under control.

[Mikey]

I tend to disagree. I don't think controlling healthcare costs will help the defecit at all. If we spend money to make healthcare cheaper, the government will, in the end, get less money. In order to control healthcare costs, I FEEL that the government should pass bills that make it more difficult to sue doctors. This would make the doctor's insurance costs cheaper, thus making their services cheaper. In the end, the consumer would win. I do not believe that a government run business is a good idea.

[Puffs Daddy]

I tend to disagree. I don't think controlling healthcare costs will help the defecit at all. If we spend money to make healthcare cheaper, the government will, in the end, get less money. In order to control healthcare costs, I FEEL that the government should pass bills that make it more difficult to sue doctors. This would make the doctor's insurance costs cheaper, thus making their services cheaper. In the end, the consumer would win. I do not believe that a government run business is a good idea.

So-called "tort reform" is part of the every version of the current bills. But don't hope for much relief in that area. Virtually every study of health care costs indicate that (a) malpractice insurance, (b) legal costs, and (c) "defensive medicine" taken together contribute about 1% to the cost of health care in the US.

The best predictor of increased costs of malpractice insurance is not the cost of judgments, for example, but the return on investment of insurance companies' investments. Lower returns lead to higher malpractice insurance costs. Furthermore, the state with the toughest laws governing malpractice suits, Texas, has had among the largest increases in malpractice insurance costs.

[Robert]

I believe health care reform is important to the admin because its just another way to take away our rights and get us into unsurmountable debt and get us used to the the government telling us what to do who will die and what money they will take in the ultimate goal of a one world government. Obama just like the last of our presidents, they do exert some authority but looking at past presidents most seem to move in this direction. Or maybe its because most belong to the skull and crossbones society like thinkers maybe move in the same direction? If you want a good book to read then read Behold a Pale Horse the author is Cooper and it was written about 19 years ago and you will see a outline there and documents to back it up also read the Bible for a overview. The things written in Pale Horse are still going on today and some bills proposed were written about in this book 19 years ago. So you want answers and reasons thats about as plain as I can be. Thats why politics is just about trying to get your way but the ultimate goal is being worked to. My only political opinion is who is going down the road faster to calamity. Those that argue the moment can get trapped in that moment, but like Willow says who really knows I just look at the parallels and say this is to close to be coincidence. European union. North American treaty,Amero, the Highway that goes from Mexico to Canada, Christianity under attack in our own country,health care for illegals, social security for illegals. Obama sending 2 billion dollars to South America for oil exploration by the company that his buddy Soros owns. I am not for mongering our resources but I am for things being done the right way to keep our standard of living and quality of life. Do I see any one of our elected officials doing this hardly. Let me say 2 other things if the Saudis do indeed stop using the  US dollar as the currency for oil trades we will be in deep @@@@. Also If Israel bombs Iran over its nuclear program before years end. These are maybes but these areas could cause trouble for us and no politician will address it. If we have no roots no history and we focus on the moment then we can be led anywhere by anyone.

The Second American Revolution	powered by Aeva

[fstsix]

As a (Independent) They are all Guilty!  .I Pay for my own insurance and have had to pay for 2 blood test out of pocket 435.00 and 465.00 in just about the amount of days this topic was born. I have 3 company trucks, I have 9 separate policies.Why would UPS only have JUST (1) to cover all their Trucks I have argued this, time and time again with my Agent He wont hear it.Remember all such items are all in my name, All in my name yes I am personally responsible I go to court if any single person gets injured. And my point Can you say like (UPS) Umbrella policy. The insurance is the real problem not Health care.Why is health care so expensive because they are trying to offset what the Insurance co is screwing them out of. And remember my Tax joke or Not, 100 years ago No Politicians.There ya go FSTSIX has finally had a bonafide Opinion or Not.BTW My wife is Disabled we have relocated this last year back up from our property in VA to RI Her Humana Ins jumped 300 dollars a month, Thats Right, Shame on us for moving 500 miles away i wonder if RI is a Democratic state?

[Jeff K]

I think they are going to deny treatment to conservatives. The Death panels will remove the competition.

[JimL]

So through four pages of posts no one (or at least few) has really answered the original question.

If only 23% say health care is most important, why is it the foremost item with the U.S. administration, the Congress, and the mainstream media?

Who is the tail that's wagging the dog here?

It seems there are a lot of us that are simply riding trains here.  What we try to pass off as legitimate arguments are just finger pointing at the other trains.  

I still wonder, what is the answer to the original question?

Maybe we should promote two polls, the first question being who is experiencing a medical insurance crisis and the second being who really thinks the government can solve that problem for us.

Perhaps a third question would be who's bright enough to know from where the government gets its money and who thinks he or she won't be included among the contributing participants?

What about who realizes that when money goes into the pool and money comes out (to pay for medical services) more goes in than comes out?  That is to say that over half of us will be more contributors than beneficiaries of any insurance pool, public or private.

The real question is whether we believe that the majority of us will be hurt less by the government who purports to answer to the electorate or by corporations who answer to stockholders.  The answer to that question, I'm almost certain, is more highly determined by one's loyalty to a political perspective than by well constructed syllogisms.

Wow!  So many questions.  Too many questions.  Actually isn't it all the questions that make the discussion interesting?  I guess that's just one more question on which we could disagree.

Wouldn't it be disappointing, or at least disillusioning, if someone actually had the answers?  

   

Wouldn't it be disappointing, or at least disillusioning, if someone actually had the answers?  
Willow I have to believe your questions where rhetorical in nature, because I assume that you believe that you have the answers,  and I personally believe that anyone who has the capacity for objective analysis and an IQ of at least 80 SHOULD HAVE THE ANSWERS.

Almost all of us pass the IQ of 80 threshold, however "objectivity" is a completely different matter.  Objectivity is something that many of us unknowingly fail to observe when we argue positions that we are passionate about.  The tendency for a person to dismiss objectivity when an issue is near and dear to them is the fundamental reason why the framers of our judicial system found it wise to prohibit family members from the "voir dire" of potential jurors.  If someones son or daughter is a defendant in a murder trial, it would be impossible for the father or mother to be objective when listening to the testimony...they would go through incredible measure to twist the logic in order to justify dismissal.

I have noticed the following pattern in my 52 years of life...and I have very rarely found it not to hold true:

Folks that don't pay into the system are almost universally in favor of redistribution of income.  Regardless of the reason for their situation, ostensibly their plight is almost always because they are a victim.  Just like the family member I mentioned in the murder trial, it is impossible for these folks to be completely objective.....they want the fruits of someone else's labor and they are willing to distort reasoning and torture logic to whatever extent necessary in order to have their needs met.  Folks who choose to distort objectivity in order to justify a society which does not make the individual responsible for themselves, were given clear guidance by George Lakoff in his book "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives" on how to obfuscate logic and reasoning to their benefit....clearly it finally paid off in November 2008.

I am sure you have read my ramblings before and clearly know where I stand on these issues.

Government is a necessary evil.  This is the reason our founding father believed that government should be only as large as needed in order to protect The Republic....and it was never intended to become the "Nanny State" which it has become.  

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

[stormrider]

Should this be a states rights matter? I believe the framers/authors/signers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had in mind a limited Federal Government. We have allowed the government to violate the Constitution by allowing the formation and authoriztion of our banking to be controlled by the Federal Reserve. note: see G. Edward Griffin's Book, "Creature From Jekyll Island."  There are other examples, but none more blantant.

Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Again, the original post was concerning the percent of population that percieves healthcare as our number one issue. The discussion has degressed to discussion as to the soultion or failure to come to a concensus of how to fix healthcare, not a discussion as to our number one issue. As I have stated before, deficit spending and our national debt should be our greatest concern. Now, you say, Steve, that's just your opinion, which is true, but also the opinion of many others that are paying attention to our overall economy.
Admin., at this point maybe an opinion poll would help clarify what issue is of most importance to our membership.
I know a new version of the Valkyrie would be of great value to many of us, but aside for our love of the greatest bike on the planet, what really concerns us? deficit spending/national debt? military involvement overseas? healthcare? loss of jobs to overseas markets? illeagal immigration? not enough raisins in our Raisin Bran?

[Scott in Ok]

So through four pages of posts no one (or at least few) has really answered the original question.

Since when is anyone supposed to stay on topic during a political discussion on an internet message board?

You're not saying someone should actually answer the question are you? *gasp*

And all this time I thought it was all about arguing for the sake of arguing, and most importantly finger pointing! 

-Scott

[G-Man]

I tend to disagree. I don't think controlling healthcare costs will help the defecit at all. If we spend money to make healthcare cheaper, the government will, in the end, get less money. In order to control healthcare costs, I FEEL that the government should pass bills that make it more difficult to sue doctors. This would make the doctor's insurance costs cheaper, thus making their services cheaper. In the end, the consumer would win. I do not believe that a government run business is a good idea.

The doctor's fees are the LEAST contributing factor to the cost of healthcare.  Doctors are awful business people and routinely accept what insurance companies [mainly Medicare (the gov't), who sets the standards] deem "customary"  Is $85 for an office visit really that expensive???  When I performed a partial nail avulsion and prescribed an antibiotic for a patient that came in with an infectect ingrown nail, my fee was $225 which included the procedure (local anesthesia, sterile instruments, cauterization, dressings, my time, and any follow-up visits needed).  The patient limped in with pain and left walking with a smile.  Is $225 for that really unreasonable???  I'm sure that the vet got that, or more, for the routine yearly visit for the dog, or the mechanic got that or more for mounting the new tire.

The high costs are due to hospitalizations and emergent care.  Tort reform will help here.  Docs pay thousands for malpractice while hospitals, surgical centers, emergent care facilities, etc. pay millions. 

We have to stop blaming docs for the costs of their services.  They are business people, in compitition with other docs for the same patients, who are just trying to make their way in this mess as well.  Lower malpractice fees may bring down the docs fees, but by only a few dollars per patient, per visit.  It really isn't the doctors fees that are the culprit.  It's the patients who want everything for very little out of their own pockets.  They want insurance to pay for everything.  When I was younger, there were two kinds of insurance.  There was medical insurance that covered hospitalizations and emergent care.  This was one price.  The other type was "Major Medical", which costed more, but included office visits and investigative stuff (x-ray, blood tests, etc.)  Today, everyone want the latter, without the out of pocket expenses because they feel entitled to it.  I really like the comparrison to car insurance.  It's expensive because we have to cover the bad drivers as well as the good drivers, but should we all have to pay for tire rotations, wiper blades, brake pads, etc.?  These do make cars safer and a safer car may not get into an accident as an unsafe car might.  Should the cost of these services be distributed to everyone.  That's not fair.  I might dirve less than you and need fewer servicings.  You might be healthier than me, should you foot the bill for my ailments?

We have to get people thinking differently about insurance and what insurance actually is. 

[Daniel Meyer]

To recap: Healthcare Crisis = Political Game

Well, yeah, that's for sure. As is pretty much every major piece of legislation in the last 60 years. I thought that was a given.

The question always is...when they play the game, can we the people salvage something helpful out of it?

[Jeff K]

If we can just find the right NAME for this... everyone will LOVE it!!

In an appearance at a Florida senior center on Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to government-run health insurance as "the consumer option." Then Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who appeared alongside Pelosi, used the term "competitive option."

Apparently, the "public option" is sooooo last week.


Pelosi says "public option" has been misrepresented and creates the impression that taxpayers will foot the bill for health care. Wasserman Schultz says she expects the speaker to give the new wording a test drive when she returns to Washington.

[RoadKill]

    
23% say health care is most important?
So then why is this a crisis?

Is it possible that the other 78 % of those polled are ignorant enough to believe it is already "fixed" just because the head mouth in charge said he would ?   My take on the issue being so prominent today is because our dysfunctional government is pushing it to the headlines as a campaign strategy to insure that the IGNORANT public continues to vote for them.I dont know that they really care much about intelligent votes because they have come to the same realization I have.....There just are not that many out there ! ! And if they can get a few of them it's just a bonus! Healthcare reform is nothing more than a bribe in return for votes. We will give you candy to get in the car,and FREE STUFF if you vote for us! If a majority are dumb enough to fall for it they get POWER ! Good intentions or not,that is how you win the game.   I would VERY much like to NOT BELIEVE the crazyness I am spouting here but the previous election cycles (most of them in my lifetime at least ) have convinced me.  The AVERAGE IQ for America is plummeting.

If there was any sincerity in "FIXING" the issues I think they would have been approached from a 180 degree different direction. All the issues have been about treating the symptoms and never the root cause.I see health care as a perfect example of this,and once again throwing money at the symptoms has become almost Status Quo . And whether you label it socialism, or what-ever , the problem is the same as with socialism....sooner or later you run out of other peoples money!

I believe the root cause is society and throwing money at the problems just enables society to decline into a spoiled,entitled,ignorant,lazy mass . I think the scales have tipped and that kind of society is fast becoming the majority. We elect our best and smartest to the top and these intelligent men and women,no doubt,can see this themselves but feel helpless to do anything other than play the bureaucratic game,trying to see thru' all the red tape while doing anything they can to stay in power so they can make changes to a government that has become so freakin' complicated that they themselves (our best and brightest ) get mired down in the confusion ,accomplishing nothing.

How do we smarten up society? Is there any "hope" for that "CHANGE" ? How do you fix American priorities ?