Comments


  • dollysdad,
    I'm not worried. I wear a hardhat.
    I did say I "remember when" companies hiring illegals wasn't tolerated like it is today. This was when Americans still did the jobs that people claim they won't do today. I distincly remember one local company being afraid to hire illegals because he was afraid of getting caught. After Reagan, things started changing, and quickly.
    You think I want illegals to get public aid? I do not!! I also don't believe in automatic citizenship for babies born here to illegals. If it were up to me, illegals would have no reason to come here. But, this issue is just one aspect of the sorry situation that we are in today.

    March 1, 2010 at 7:59 a.m.

  • How do you separate the two? How do you personally know everyone who is on public aid? Do you speak with each and every one of them to decide if they are worth your compassion? You must be one busy person.
    You can separate them out in your mind, but it stops right there at "I think I know".
    And lets get some facts straight. My opinion does not sway the government one way or the other, no more than yours does. One person cannot change policy and I am not an activist.
    I did not get us into this mess. I believe in government watchdogs to catch fraud, but apparently you do not. I can remember when people could turn other people in when they knew they were defrauding government programs and action would be taken. I wonder when all that changed? Do you remember?
    I can also remember when a company that hired illegals could be turned in and swift action would be taken. Do you remember when that all changed? I do!! It was a certain President that decided that the government was too big and cuts could be made. Guess what? All the protections in place that protected us from fraud, were removed or scaled back so far it was ineffective.
    You can blame me all you want. It really doesn't change a danged thing and doesn't make it a fact. You are part of the problem too, just to pig-headed to understand that. You don't want a government that is too big, and I don't want a government that is too small to do it's job, and lets other entities take control. All you seem to be able to think about is yours, and yours.

    February 28, 2010 at 7:50 p.m.

  • Born2Bme, when your OPINION has us paying more of our hard earned dollars to the Government, YES, I do have a problem with it. It is people like youi who have gotten us in this mess to begin with. If you & others like you feel so strongly about the poor & the worthless (I have separated the 2 out, they are not the same) then adopt a family & raise them....leave us to our own decisions.

    So what would happen if people were forced to do for themselves? You laid out a whole scenario but left out the ending....like I really care anyhow. People like you who wish to force us all into bankruptcy, make me a little more callous & jaded. I blame you.

    February 28, 2010 at 7:17 p.m.

  • Born2Bme, I find it hard to donate to favorite charities these days as I am giving a 1/3 of my income to the government to support theirs. How bout you?

    February 28, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.

  • And that bill will effect the practice of Pharma companys. They release a new drug, a patent is issued,(I forget the # of years), in the mean time alternative uses are discovered for the drug so right before the patent runs out and the drug can be manufactured as a generic drug, they file a new patent that covers the alternative use, and they get a new patent, banning generic manufactures from making their version of said drug.

    February 28, 2010 at 4:08 p.m.

  • Yes rollinstone...

    Latest News
    Tentative Agreement Reached on Senate Patent Reform Bill
    02/26/2010

    Senate Judiciary Committee leaders announced that a tentative deal on a bill to overhaul the U.S. patent system has been reached. Chairman Patrick Leahy indicated that the core of the compromise reached on the bill last year regarding damages has been preserved. In addition, the draft agreement appears to improve the post-grant review process. ...
    http://www.medicaldevices.org/

    February 28, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.

  • Jealous? That is quite funny. Concern and sympathy does not equal jealousy.
    Frankly, I am quite happy with my life, and my conscience is totally clear.
    I really think you are getting a little too testy about someone else's OPINIONS. That usually means that something was hit squarely on the head.

    February 28, 2010 at 3:52 p.m.

  • Legion, I think the reason drug companies make big profits is because of patent protection. They expend a lot of money for R&D to manufacture and sell these drugs. All the while they have lawyers trailing them in "wolf packs" waiting to pounce on any that falter, weaken and fall behind the herd.

    The risks are high and so are the rewards otherwise they would not be in the business. Healthcare is screwed up for one simple reason, the government is involved. Markets where the government is not involved (not many left) the costs are going down - computers, cell phones, etc.

    Oh I know some people will claim there is no free market for a heart attack. Well there is. Doctors are there to satisfy that demand - that's the way the law of supply and demand works, it's so simple.

    We don't need a massive 2700 page program - actually it will be many thousands of pages longer once the bureaucrats get a hold of it. It will contain massive amounts of inane gibberish, endless detail and useless, incoherent crap - I can't wait.

    This massive program will help a few at the expense of the many. Many will lose their jobs and all will have to make do with less. This gets to the fundamental problem with socialism - it doesn't work, never has and never will.

    February 28, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.

  • Legion357
    I was being a bit of a deceiver because in other statements I have called the insurance companies greedy but not in this blog….:-)You are slipping, you usually catch me…..The insurance comapines,government,Democrats,lobbyists, and Republicans have all been demonized at some point..Depends on what side of the fence you are on.

    BTW an excellent list, quite informative.

    I used to be impressed with Rep. Paul Ryan but after his interview with Chris Wallace this morning, I am not that impressed..(not that it matters)….Chris showed him CBO numbers showing tort reform only saving ½ of 1% in total costs.Rep. Ryan said those costs cannot be measured. How can he measure them? Your posts yesterday was right on because Chris showed where expensive medical equipment was at the top of the list but other factors we listed yesterday were also there.

    February 28, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.

  • Mike perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "greedy insurance companys", but it seems to fit as they are the current whipping (boys) companys in the health care debate.

    My last post was intended to back up my previous post concerning medical equipment companys. I didn't not save the info, but all of the top ten equipment providers had sales in excess of $110B, and profits from $17B to about $8B if I remember correctly. Then again the Pharma companys had a greater sales and profit margin.

    February 28, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

  • Legion357
    I don’t know to whom your post was intended for, but I did not mention greedy in this blog but I did mention that during layoffs and hard times the health insurance companies increased their prices by double digits in 11 states, WellPoint raised theirs by 39% in California…Justified, I don’t know but California’s atty. general will subpoena their books; and I will withhold my judgment until I see the results….. The insurance companies are paying lobbyist over $1 million to fight any type of reform.

    I blamed myself (age & related health costs) as one the main reasons for the high cost of health costs and during the 7 hour summit many legislators alluded to the same set of facts.

    The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per annum for elderly people but only $3,352 per annum for working-age people (ages 19-64).

    http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/ex...

    I imagine it has only gotten worse…..We are getting older as a nation and living longer.

    At this rate, a for- profit insurance company will neither have to raise rates or cuts benefits and customers, in order to keep the profit they need to stay in existence.

    February 28, 2010 at 2:22 p.m.

  • Other health care related companys are in even lower in the list.

    February 28, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.

  • Oh those greedy insurance companys... it would seem to me that #3 & #4 on this list bare more of the blame for rising health care costs than #22.

    Top industries: Most profitable

    Industry Rank Industry 2008 Profits
    as % of
    Revenues
    1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 20.4
    2 Internet Services and Retailing 19.4
    3 Pharmaceuticals 19.3
    4 Medical Products and Equipment 16.3
    5 Railroads 12.6
    6 Financial Data Services 11.7
    7 Mining, Crude-Oil production 11.5
    8 Securities 10.7
    9 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 10.2
    10 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.9
    11 Household and Personal Products 8.7
    12 Utilities: Gas and Electric 8.7
    13 Aerospace and Defense 7.6
    14 Food Services 7.1
    15 Industrial Machinery 6.9
    16 Food Consumer Products 6.7
    17 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 6.5
    18 Commercial Banks 5.2
    19 Telecommunications 5.1
    20 Chemicals 5.0
    21 Construction and Farm Machinery 5.0
    22 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 4.6

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortun...

    February 28, 2010 at 1:39 p.m.

  • dollysdad,

    You have no idea what I do, don't do, or how much I pay in taxes.
    It seems to me that since I am standing up for what I believe, then you think I must be one of the people that doesn't work, draws off of public money, and basically expects other people to take care of me. You couldn't be more wrong.
    You make it sound like you think I am not a taxpayer. I pay my fair share of taxes too. I don't like it, but I KNOW it is necessary to keep America the best Country there is.
    And just so you know, giving locally is a great and honorable thing, but it doesn't do much for the huge problems that we face as a COUNTRY.

    February 28, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.

  • Born2Bme, we need to make everything free, why should anyone have to work? Everyone knows work is a bummer. If God wanted us to work he would have said so. So yes forced charity is righteous, and the way to universal happiness and peace - right on there 2B.

    February 28, 2010 at 12:34 p.m.

  • dollysdad,

    enforced charity = tax, That's true, but how many people would willingly give? What would this Country be like if those forced taxes were all of a sidden not forced? I'm asking you to really think about this before you think it is a good idea. Think about it on the large scale that it requires.
    We live in the greatest Country on Earth. We enjoy things that other countries only dream of. Our way of life would cease to exist if we were not forced to take care of those that cannot, or in many cases, will not, take care of themselves.
    What do you think those people would do if they were all of a sudden forced out into a job market that has almost 10% unemployment, and with no insurance? How are they going to all of a sudden find a job to support themselves and their families? How would they find a job that offers health insurance? Do you honestly think that they are just doing to go lay down somewhere and accept their fate and not do something about it? Something that no one would like!!
    How about the taxpayers money they spend in local communities? What is going to make up for that? Is that going to start putting local businesses out of business?
    Yes, we all have to pay more for those who cannot do for themselves, but the money that is funneled through "those people" is needed in local economies.
    We, as Americans, are actually helping ourselves when we are forced to pay taxes to cover other people.
    You may not see it that way, but I do. Just close your eyes and imagine. You should see pictures of Africa, and other third world countries.

    February 28, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.

  • thewaywardwind,

    You are right. Of course one doesn't have to go to church to have a good heart and be a giving person.
    The two questions I asked didn't necessarily have to go together.
    Forgive the way I wrote it, implying that they went hand in hand.

    February 28, 2010 at 11:55 a.m.

  • born2Bme...You didn't ask me, but I'm wondering what having charity in one's vocabulary (or heart) have to do with going to church? It isn't necessary to be a church member to give to charities. Being a member of a church doesn't mean you're a good person.

    February 28, 2010 at 11:14 a.m.

  • newearth
    You're absolutely correct, we have too much waste on both sides of the spectrum but we cannot investigate that fraud without hiring more bureaucrats. It should not be about class warfare because it has been said that 50% of this nation’s health-care costs come from 5% of people like me, the elderly and those on Medicare and VA. We don't practice preventive care on the 15% that are not insured and we turned a blind eye to obesity and its related problems like diabetes and hypertension. We are a free society, so that is not the job of the government to dictate our lifestyle but studies have shown the tobacco tax has reduced smoking.

    We've already supporting government health care like the VA, Medicare and Medicaid but I think you're right we need to add Medicaid and Medicare reform to a comprehensive health care reform bill before proceeding or at the very least, shortly after.

    This health-care reform bill is about 33 million people that are not insured. The poor already have Medicaid and 85% of our population already has health insurance. We are talking about those that have been laid off recently and those that have been denied for pre-existing conditions for the most part. Some are the young healthy people that think that they don’t need any coverage but one auto accident will disprove that.

    dollysdad

    I continue to be amazed that conservatives do not complain about the rising cost of insurance but concentrate all their efforts on income tax. The income tax brackets have been at their set rate since 2003, 95% of those making less than $250,000 received a tax cut. Now go back and look at the rate of increase in insurance premiums.

    February 28, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.

  • Just eliminating fraud in this country, could save our country, did anyone else hear McAllen Texas mentioned during the health care meeting? A report on tv showed that a group of doctors in McAllen run every type of medical procedure such as x-rays etc to soak every dollar they can out of the government, a doctor tried to expose them but they turned on him. I know people myself that some doctor claims people are disabled when I know these people are drug addicts and are too lazy to work but still need money for their illegal drugs. Children that simply stay up late at night because their parents don’t care and these children cannot stay awake at school the next day get labeled attention deficit disorder, that is not a disability but it is a big government check every month to the parent. Just has the young girl that has a baby, it is a check every month; it is easy to have a baby, but not a job. Until the government stops giving everyone a check for cheating, being lazy, we are doomed. Fraud is everywhere, benefits where people pay little in but receive much larger benefits when they retire, people cheating on their income taxes, the list goes on. Why the government in the last 30 years has not stopped this, is beyond me and I hold no hope it ever will. Until they correct this mess I will not support any government health care, first fix the problem, don’t add to it.

    February 28, 2010 at 8 a.m.

  • VBB.

    You sure are painting things with board brush.

    February 28, 2010 at 6:35 a.m.

  • Yes, but it will be more spread out. "Someone" is going to pay for healthcare for those who cannot afford it, one way or another.
    Victorianbybirth (by the way, that's a long name to type), do you go to church? Is charity in your vocabulary?

    February 28, 2010 at 1:16 a.m.

  • Then lets cut out welfare....the people who are sucking us dry right now will be the same people sucking us dry with mandated government run healthcare. All this will do is increase my taxes to pay for others who choose not to succeed in life. And it will only hurt the working poor who can't afford anymore government mandates.

    February 28, 2010 at 12:09 a.m.

  • I look at it like this victorianbybirth, we "have" to get liability insurance, so other people do not have to cover what we have to pay, which is a mandate. So why is it so far off base to mandate that people be responsible for their own medical costs?
    There is not a person alive that can know when they are going to get sick or have an accident. Anyone that thinks it won't happen to them has blinders on and is basically, passing the buck. Mothers, or fathers, are not allowed to get away with not paying for their kids needs. Their wages are garnered for what they owe to help raise their kids. What's the difference?

    February 27, 2010 at 10:14 p.m.

  • I guess I meant Welfare. People who do not have insurance often go on Welfare to get Medicaid. There is a lot of fraud as we all know.
    Give people a way to have insurance of their own and some of that will stop.

    February 27, 2010 at 9:55 p.m.

  • If we are garnishing peoples wages, taxes etc...why don't we start now. Every person on any kind of assistance should not qualify for EIC. They are using tax payer dollars for their own personal needs so they should "pay" it back with the money that isn't really theirs to begin with. We could eliminate EIC & save a ton of taxpayer money.

    February 27, 2010 at 7:33 p.m.

  • Born...you cannot get Medicaid if you have private insurance, so yes Medicaid would save a boat load of $$ if everyone had private insurance. Also, you cannot just "sign up" for state aid...where are you from?

    February 27, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.

  • Yes Mike, I agree, but many of those illnesses could be addressed at a much earlier age if insurance was affordable for all Americans.
    You have to get at the root cause of high premiums. IMO, that starts with adequate pre-natal healthcare for all Americans. Regular checkups can do a lot to put off expensive treatments later in life.
    I don't know if a public option is feasible, but if more healthy people paid into the insurance industry and insurance companies had controls on what they could and couldn't do with the premiums, then premiums would have to come down across the board.
    Mandates are another thing. If people don't want to buy insurance, then they don't get free treatment when they do get sick. They have their income tax returns garnished, or so much automatically taken out of their paychecks, until the bill is paid back. If they knowingly refuse to get insurance when they can afford it, they do not get a free ride. It's a chance that many will not take.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.

  • reyrey
    The state of Massachusetts health care system is a carbon copy of the Senate plan, mandatory sign up….

    I do agree if an individual feels his constitutional rights have been violated; the makeup of today's Supreme Court will take up his/her the issue and will probably rule in favor of big business.

    I completely disagree with your last paragraph because if the Democrats don't pass the very issue that got them an office, they will be seen too weak to govern. I have seen all the polls that will disagree with my assumption but I remembered that those were just a snapshot in time and are not permanent….. The Democrats not only have to pass this legislation but they have to sell it. It will be hard, no question ,but in reality if unemployment is still at 10% in October it won't matter.

    What's that old cliché?.. We will have to agree to disagree.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.

  • Remember when hospitals used to be just about curing the sick? They had tile floors, so a broom and mop would do, and a simple waiting room/visiting room.
    The hospitals you walk into today, look like something out of a mansion. It's not needed and patients shouldn't have to pay for it.
    Lets go back to basic care and save the special tests for regional hospitals.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.

  • Legion357
    No argument there and I will add one, like centralizing of those expensive machines, every doctor, clinic and doesn’t need one…. I am going on a limb because I have never worked in the medical field but I believe we can get by with two or three MRIs in Victoria…. I could be wrong but I haven't had a long wait when I needed these machines.

    Born2Bme

    I agree with your analysis but don't you agree that we are a nation that is paying for the illnesses of the elderly (me) the uninsured, the obese and related symptoms of hypertension/diabetes, and excessive use of the ER…… Insurance companies are in the business of making a profit (nothing wrong with that) but they are just paper shufflers that will have to continue raising their prices unless we tackle the real issues of health care reform.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:44 p.m.

  • Mike, seriously, do you think that the Govt can forced people to sign up for mandatory health insurance? Once again, I do agreed that something has to be done but lets be pragmatic, the second "forced" comes out, it will go to the courts and I do not know how many courts would be willing to mess with it and for sure, the Supreme Court would call it unconstitutional unless, 2 more conservative associates happen to retire. Then there is the little thing about whether abortion is directly addressed. Is a mess and I dont think this is going to be settle by Nov and if it is, Democrats might as well forget about controlling Congress and just in case, most politicians dont have a spine, so they do care about the next election.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.

  • Technological advances are great, don't get me wrong.

    But hospitals zeal to advertise that they have the newest diagnostic tools available, makes them over spend on items. They not only charge patients that use the equipment, they raise the rates for every patient in their facility to defer the cost.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.

  • The most effective way to cut medical costs is to contain the medical equipment providers.

    Every year or so a brand new imaging piece of equipment is released and every hospital in the country just has to have the newest, latest, multi- million dollar improvement released. Citizens Hospital not only buys every latest improvement coming down the pike, they also house it in a temporary trailer building and then spend more millions building a new part of the hospital to house it. Kind of like Microsoft, buy Windows 7, but your computer can't run it, buy a new computer, and a year later they come out with, IDK, windows 8.

    And what ever happened to autoclaves? A report on ABC news said that a specialized biopsy needle costs $800, and is only used once. The needle is made out of stainless just like scalpels and hemostats, sterilize it and use it again.

    And don't even start with the $38 boxes of Kleenex, the $5 apiece Tylenol tablets.

    Start there and a huge savings in medical costs could be realized.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.

  • reyrey & dollysdad

    You just might be right but if representatives decide they just don't want to do anything, why do we need them? It'd be much cheaper to buy some programmed laptops that will not be influenced by lobbyist.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.

  • Arlewill
    I don't know a lot about Medical Advantage but you make the reasonable assumption and I think you are probably right….. You are right about making Florida, Louisiana and Nebraska favorite states but as I understand, those amendments will be stripped from the final bill… I think you have a better understanding of the $500 billion Medicare savings because every since you made me aware of it several months ago; I have yet to give a clear exclamation whether these are projected savings or actual savings.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.

  • Observer,
    this is what I read and it is quite complicated, to say the least. Although, it is not a cut-and-dry increase in premiums, as you stated.

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/s...

    And Observer, with a few tweeks, I have a feeling that the savings could be even more than projected. If people had insurance before they were able to go on Medicare, then they would take care of things before things got too bad. Many have to wait until they are on Medicare to go to the doctors. By that time, health issues are so much more expensive and require multiple hospital stays.
    Less people would be on Medicaid and state aid. Kids would be treated before the problem got too bad. Fewer hospital stays because problems were caught early enough. Fewer multiple testings done. Fewer ER visits for people who do not have insurance. There are so many ways that Medicare and Medicaid could save money if people had their own private insurance.
    If these issues are not addressed, then it will never get better. The few remaining people who have insurance, are going to have to foot the bill for those who don't. Their insurance costs will continue to rise by double-digits every year. In the mean time, those citizens are aging and are in grave danger of being dropped because of their (your?) age and health condition.
    We have to do something to stop this run-away train.

    February 27, 2010 at 6:03 p.m.

  • It is confusing but perhaps this will put some clarity to it...

    # Sen. Lamar Alexander said premiums will go up for “millions” under the Senate bill and president’s plan, while President Barack Obama said families buying the same coverage they have now would pay much less. Both were misleading. The Congressional Budget Office said premiums for those in the group market wouldn’t change significantly, while the average premium for those who buy their own coverage would go up.

    THE FACTS:

    Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out.

    The nonpartisan analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, supporting Alexander's point. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies to defray the extra costs.

    As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others.

    Moreover, the analysis estimated that the people getting subsidies would see their costs cut by more than half from what they pay now.

    # Alexander also said “50 percent of doctors won’t see new [Medicaid] patients.” But a 2008 survey says only 28 percent refuse to take any new Medicaid patients.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/heal...

    February 27, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

  • The CBO, in a recent report, said that Obamacare would result in a 15-20% increase in premiums for the self-insured. The report is readily available for anyone who is interested and not concerned about being confused by the facts because their mind is made up. "AP, Factcheck and others" may have agreed with the President about something, but it could not have been this. Alexander was right.

    arlewil, the $500 billion in "savings" from Medicare is just one more attempted left-wing money shuffle. The current projected 40 year revenue shortfall for the Medicare Program is $38 TRILLION. Reducing Medicare expenditures by $500 billion and pretending that this is "found money" that can be spent on something else is a bald-faced lie.

    February 27, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

  • Dollydad, for once we agreed! I had a chance to watch some "meeting" and it was nothing but a show. I saw Harkings talking about a farmer in IA and the struggle that he is going through, at the same time a commercial where a woman was told that she needed to wait for a breast exam and if she had waited, there was a good chance that the cancer would had been way advance. I am just tired of getting screwed by these two parties. One party thinks that we are too stupid to know what is best for us and the other thinks that we are morons and they can stick it to us. Way!!, that is the same thing.

    February 27, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Mike
    I am still thinking about the 500 billion dollars the President plans to take from Medicare to pay for half of this bill. He did say he planned to eliminate Medicare Advantage Plans. If you have a Medicare Advantage Plan, your medicare premium goes to an insurance company where additional benefits are added. The government pays the insurance company an additional 15% to manage the plan. Medicare Advantage Plans do make life a bit easier for senior citizens with less hassle and paperwork. The problem here is like the Cornhusker Kickback, the State of Florida will continue to have Medicare Advantage Plans for some 800,000 seniors per the Senate Bill, which has to be accepted by the House for ObamaCare to more forward.
    When I went on Medicare five years ago, I avoided Medicare Advantage because I remembered a similar plan, Secure Horizons, that went under because health care providers refused service to patients. It was an industry product and not supported as much by the government as Medicare Advantage is today.
    Many millions of senior citizens are on Medicare Advantage today and insurance companies have really been pushing the plan in the past year. I do not believe the government will save 15% by eliminating Medicare Advantage because the work load will be shifted to government employees and increase that expense.
    There will be a lot of unhappy senior citizens if Medicare Advantage is eliminated to all States except Florida.

    February 27, 2010 at 7:34 a.m.

  • Beakus,
    I agree with you. It is way past out of control. Medicare and Medcaid are going broke because of the increased cost of medical attention, doctors, hospitals, tests (multiple tests). More people are joining public aid because it is the only way to get health insurance.
    Hospital costs go up because of all of the uninsured and unnecessary "5-star hotels" that pass as hospitals being built, the insurance costs go up because of the increase in hospital costs. It's a vicious cycle.
    I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but if insurance isn't made more affordable, more and more will lose their health insurance, or find it unaffordable and they will go on public aid because they simply do not have a choice.
    IMHO, there is no other way to get insurance costs down, except to have some kind of public option and have everyone pay into it. It is the only way to create real competition. We need to be able to buy drugs outside the Country to break the Pharma monopoly. We allow food to be brought in from other countries, why not medicine?
    Shopping across state lines is a joke. The insurance companies will band together and keep the prices up because they are basically a monopoly. The high-risk people will still have trouble finding coverage at a price they can afford. Buying across state lines won't help the people who need it the most.
    And don't get me started on the idea to do away with Medicare and give the elderly people vouchers. At that time in a persons life, many of them do not have the mental capacity to go shopping for the best deals, and wouldn't be insurable at a price that they could afford anyway.

    February 27, 2010 at 12:35 a.m.

  • You know born, you may be exactly right, but I really hope your not. My real thoughts around this whole healthcare reform is that where we have come in the past forty or fifty years in healthcare and costs associated with everything that is out there from pills, surgeries, medicare and medicaid, illegal aliens, entitlements, etc.... How will we as a nation ever be able to pay for all this without sinking the ship (country).

    I believe we need some divine intervention. Wonder if that is covered in the 2400 page proposal.

    February 26, 2010 at 11:40 p.m.

  • Beakus, it wouldn't have made a difference. Republicans want their way entirely, and Democrats want their way entirely. They are both battling for advantage in the upcoming elections.
    The reason why the Republicans want to start over is a simple stall tactic. What good is it to start over? Both sides will still have the same ideas and want the same thing.

    February 26, 2010 at 11:05 p.m.

  • Why didn't the president of the USA setup a bipartisan committee from the beginning instead of using only one party behind closed doors to create a massive healthcare bill? Because at the time the number of votes in the house and senate did not require him to include the other party. What other reason could it have been? Now when he does not have the votes to cram it through, we have a problem. Duh!

    February 26, 2010 at 10:47 p.m.

  • I don't think anyone expected things to change. The Republicans think that Obama has to fail in everything he tries, so they are not going to give an inch to help him with anything. It's sad that party is more important than America, in today's political scene.

    February 26, 2010 at 9:17 p.m.