• They should already have people filling those jobs checking out people on disability/SS and other public assistance. There's a lot of cheaters out there. Why isn't that being looked into?

    October 14, 2009 at 11:12 p.m.

  • Just think how many jobs it would create.....

    October 14, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.

  • sure VBB, but how would they have enough manpower to do that?
    I'm thinking that if insurance is made more affordable, there won't be but a very small percentage that will need subsidizing. They may even put rules into effect like applying for Medicaid and SSI. People have to prove their income, assets, and whatever else they want to know.

    October 14, 2009 at 10:24 p.m.

  • But seriously, what do you think of my idea?

    October 14, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.

  • Suzy said...."1. You pay your own bills. Can't do that, let hospital confiscate your assets to pay off bill. Don't have assets, let them go after your future earnings, or your heirs assets and/or earnings"
    And then...

    "No, if someone thought like you did, decided that they didn't want insurance, and then just died instead of going to a doctor, there wouldn't be a problem."

    Sarcasm?? Okay....

    But...if you wish to kill off everyone who thinks like us then who would pay for all those that are left?

    October 14, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.

  • Letting them all die is MY idea? I wouldn't be arguing for healthcare reform is that was true. Do any of you understand sarcasm?

    October 14, 2009 at 9:39 p.m.

  • Suzy, I'm sure there are many people counted as uninsured who COULD afford insurance but CHOOSE not to. After all, everything but the necessities are luxuries. What do you think about allowing government auditors to have a go at the uninsured budgets to see if they really can not afford it before they start forcing us all to subsidize others insurance through more taxation & mandates? I would think that would be better than your idea...letting them all die.

    October 14, 2009 at 9:32 p.m.

  • This is my argument and it is very simple. Is it right to force one to relinquish their wages, for which they worked, through the mandate of fines and imprisonment, to pay the way for another? Does that policy agree with the constitution or backbone of this country? Is it right to force one American into involuntary servitude to pay the way for another? Are we responsible for ourselves or will we transfer our choices, our freedom, our duty, our responsibilities to a nest of scheming lawyers, moneychangers, and politicians? What do you believe and what do you hold dear?

    These are the questions that each one of us, each American, must look in the mirror and ask ourselves. We are at a defining moment in the history of this country. It is here and it is now. Everything is at stake. Will the warrior for freedom, truth, honor, and justice slip quietly into the night or will you rise up to meet the challenge like your ancestors have before you and tell the enemies of freedom that thier tyranny and usurpations will not be tolerated? Not on my watch! "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; In its worst state, an intolerable one"-Thomas Paine

    October 14, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 14, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

  • The fact is, just as you state, that we are paying for the uninsured through medicaid, medicare, and subsidised hospitals already. Why then the individual mandate?

    Is it because the ponzi schemes run by our government are insolvent and need a new injection of funds? The problem in the health care system is greed/corruption and the promises of politicians looking to the next election. The entitlement programs are failing because the fact is that socialism simply does not work and is unsustainable.

    Why do we not see these programs for what they are? A failed experiment in the socialisation of the United States. Instead of realising our folly with the New Deal and the Great Society we are talking about going after the responsible persons pocketbook through the individual mandate. Would it not be the right thing to do in rooting out the criminals and bringing them to justice? Is it that it is much easier to steal from those that have earned it and give it to the subserviant because it is the cool thing to do? Forcing one to pay for the other is wrong plain and simple.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.

  • Here is a good article for starters:

    October 14, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.

  • I don't know about you but I am not spoon fed the crap that is being told to us, and I choose to remove the wool from my eyes. I suggest you do the same. Research and see for yourself the statstics of government run health insurance!

    The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment. Last year, Canadians had to wait an average of 17.3 weeks from referral to a specialist to treatment (Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn). The median wait was 4.9 weeks for a CT scan, 9.7 weeks for an MRI, and 4.4 weeks for an ultrasound.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:32 p.m.

  • darkvslight

    We all pay for uninsured people, so my thinking is not obsurd.
    Now, if someone thought like you did, decided that they didn't want insurance, and then just died instead of going to a doctor, there wouldn't be a problem.
    Unfortunately, that is not the case is most instances. There would be those that chose not to buy insurance, even though they could easily afford it, and then expect the taxpayers to cover them if they became ill and couldn't cover the costs themselves after they depleted their life savings.
    Your idea is a good one though. How about everyone across America dropping their insurance policies and just rolling the dice. I bet that would get the attention of everyone in the healthcare system. Can you imagine the crybabies and how fast they would think the plans being made now were actually a good idea?

    October 14, 2009 at 3:55 p.m.

  • Suzy, your argument is contrary to the free republic in which you live if indeed you are a proponent of the individual mandate.

    Auto insurance is an entirely different animal all together. It would be similar only if we were required to carry liability health insurance in case we sneezed in a waiting room and got someone else sick and had to pay for thier medical bills because of our negligent sneezing/coughing. Sound obsurd?

    Your type of health care argument reaks of fear and a capricous regard for humanity and freedom. "Let someone else assume the responsibility of taking care of me and others that can't care for themselves so long as I get to watch some mind numbing television and some corporate bought and paid for news in the evening."

    This would be a better way to fix health care. Abolish health insurance(since its nothing more than a socialist ponzi scheme anyway) and all government subsidized hospitals. This would take the greed, lobbyist, and corruption out of the system permanently and place it back in the hands of honorable people that truly wish to help others, (like churches and good citizens) instead of those that make a buck by preying on the sick, injured, and dying. You would see an instant deep cut in the cost of health care as people would once again become individually responsible for thier health and thier doctor bills instead of just throwing down a plastic card and letting others pick up the tab.

    I have no problem removing myself from the health care system that has been corrupted by criminals. I would rather die at 50 a free human being than live till 90 as a coward licking the boot pressed against my neck. Freedom is not free and the costs bore by some is more than others. Remember that "Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both"- Ben Franklin. You can keep the change, the FED, and the fraud and I'll keep my freedom.

    October 14, 2009 at 3:42 p.m.

  • Some good ideas in there, ZMAN, some not so good.

    If insurance companies are required to insure those with preexisting conditions, they will have to either raise premiums or prepare for bankruptcy. If the insurance companies are never allowed to cancel a policy for any reason, then there is no penalty for lying when one applies for insurance; seems that just might present a few problems.

    Allowing competition across state lines is the one, single thing the Congress could constitutionally do that would accomplish more in terms of reducing the number of uninsured than all the Socialist dreams of Obamacare. This would occur as insurers in those few states that do not mandate coverage of a boatload of "nice to have" medical services began advertising their policies and their low, low rates. The 2007 Census Survey estimated that there are 18 million uninsured Americans with incomes greater than $50,000 per year. I would expect the majority of them to be insured soon after the availability of reasonable rates.

    If cutting the billions of dollars spent by Medicare and Medicaid every year on fraud is a good idea and easy, why have we not already done it?

    If we could have five years of shopping across state lines for health insurance and medical malpractice tort reform in all states, the need for massive, mandated socialized medicine schemes would disappear.

    October 14, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.

  • darkvslight,

    so is it OK to be forced to buy automobile liability insurance?
    the thinking behind that is not forcing other people to have to cover your butt if you cause an accident. Mandatory health insurance is similar thinking??
    But, I do see your point. Here's what should happen to those who do not want to have health insurance, but have the means to buy it.
    1. You pay your own bills. Can't do that, let hospital confiscate your assets to pay off bill. Don't have assets, let them go after your future earnings, or your heirs assets and/or earnings.

    I don't want other people to take care of me, so I will buy health insurance if I have the means to do it and it is at an affordable price. If I don't have the means and I've done everything I can possibly do to take care of myself, then I expect some kind of help. I would never "opt" out of buying something and then expect help from anyone

    October 14, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 14, 2009 at 12:53 p.m.

  • I for one refuse to tolerate the idea that this is a debatable issue by government. It belongs in the hands of the people. How can anyone say that a government that forces it's citizens through an individual mandate to purchase and maintain a health insurance policy is not a government takeover? The "health care" debate should not be about whether or not "big bro" is gonna look out for us or not. The debate should be; Is it constitutional for the feds to force me to purchase health insurance when I have a constitutional right to my life, liberty, and property? It is very simple for me. The feds say I must purchase health insurance. If I decline then I will be fined. If I refuse to pay the fine then I will be jailed. How is this benefiting us as individuals? I am an independent thinking responsible human being. I take care of my own general welfare. Why then should I be forced through threat of imprisonment to hand over the fruits of my labor to a corporation or the federal government through federal mandate?

    October 14, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.

  • There are alot of companies in the private sectore that aren't tied to the major companys

    October 14, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.

  • up to a point JR. How many insurance companies are not tied to the major 5 (I think it is)? Would those prices be different accross state lines? How many smaller insurance companies are there and would that make a difference?

    October 14, 2009 at 11:04 a.m.

  • True Suzy. Opening up shopping across state lines would help with that. It would allow people to find a better deal else where.

    October 14, 2009 at 10:39 a.m.

  • JR, I agree with you on this one.
    I would agree with ZMAN to a point. It doesn't address out-of-control rising premiums and the fact that the government cannot dictate to a company what they can charge for their services. It's set a bad precidence.
    Competition is the only way to go with this one. It will break up the monopoly that the insurance companies have. Until that happens, they can do whatever they want and stated as much in their bogus report.
    Open up another option for people and the insurance companies will soon have to adjust their rape of America, or face losing a big piece of the pie. It may be rough for a few years, but should level out in time.

    October 14, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.

  • They would never use your plan, it makes to much sense. Sometimes less is more and they don't get that. There is a new bill, H.R. 615 that Republican Tom Coburn is trying to get passed now. The amendment would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.

    Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)

    Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at: .

    Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians.

    Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us

    October 14, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.

  • You go ZMAN. Makes more sense than anything I have heard so far. What makes me the maddest about all of this is that the taxes are going to be collected before the government implements the so called policy, I think, 5 years from now. We have programs in place now. They just need an overhaul. I am so sick of politicians in the houses covered by the government perks. They need to become part of the system and then let's see what they can come up with for the Americans, who elected them.

    October 14, 2009 at 7:22 a.m.