Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself

The difference being that the military protects all of us, while a socialist health plan only benefits an individual. It's ironic that the number one health problem among the poor (who will be the biggest user of obamacare) is obesity, a completely preventable condition. The majority of all health problems are a direct result of poor lifestyle choices.

It's strange that you bring Christianity into the argument, saying that Christians should always help anyone.

Take a look at 2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

That can easily, and correctly, be extrapolated to mean that we should only help those who are willing to help themselves.

The point is that a socialist plan, by the way it works, benefits the person most who makes the most foolish choices. Heavy drinker, smoker, drug user, homosexual with AIDS-yes there would be a great benefit for a government plan. If you take reasonable precautions, make prudent decisions, then you get very little benefit while you still pay pay for others care.

The poor in this county already pay zero federal income tax, yet reap the lion's share of government benefits. It was set up this way "to ensure fairness" yet poverty remains generation after generation, because there is no incentive to better yourself when someone else is footing the bill. The more lazy you are, the more illegitimate kids you spit out, the more substances you can abuse, the bigger your benefit check.

Applying the same "logic" to healthcare would only compound the irresponsibility and will bankrupt this country.

Healthcare, along with most government programs, would be completely unnecessary if folks used a minimum of forethought and planning.

http://walmartstores.com/download/1322.p...

I agree, insurance companies need to be out of the health care business. I also agree that a health savings plans are important and puts the responsibility in the hands of the individual. I think that doctors need to be shielded from lawsuits. I also think that we need to stop limiting who can provide the most basic of services. The health care system in the US military allows techs to provide many of the services that RNs and doctors are required to administer in the rest of the nation. I also think that the government health care programs that are currently in place should be structured more like the military health system. Using tax payer money to train more people to become doctors, and requiring them to serve the public for a period of time to repay their debt makes good sense. The bottom line is, we cannot continue down the road we are curently on for much longer.

quietmike, coming from your friendly neighborhood gay man...please do not use ignorant terms that involve such stupid concepts as "homosexuals with AIDS". ANYONE can get AIDS. YOU can get AIDS. Just as easily as I can, even.

Don'tAskDon'tTell,

You can tell that trash to whomever you want, but the facts simply are not in your favor. Aids is overwhelmingly a homosexual disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillan...

"It is amazing to me that a nation that is 85% Christian and proudly stands up when someone says we are the greatest nation on Earth, would let a human being suffer without access to medical treatment."

Nathan - How many people do you, personally, know who have "suffered without access to medical treatment"? I would hazard to guess that number is zero if they are anywhere within reasonable distance of an emergency room at a hospital that receives ANY money from the federal government. It's illegal for ANYBODY to be denied health care if they do receive federal money.

"Who are these people that take time out of their busy days to go to a town hall meeting to vehemently defend a health care system that disproportionally increases rates year after year, that unfairly spreads the costs of treating those that do not pay to those that do, penalizes you for visiting the doctor of your choosing, works hard to prevent you from receiving treatments that may actually benefit you due to cost and actually rewards its employees that deny the most costly claims, and prevents you from getting the same medications cheaper from Canada noting that they can't guarantee their safety?"

My God! Is that really ONE SENTENCE? Anyway, these are people that are NOT "defending" the current health care system, WE are people that are fed up with government intrusion into every industry that they can get their hands on. These are people that do NOT want a "single-payer" SOCIALIZED health care payment system like President Obama has CLEARLY stated that he is in favor of. These are people that are fed up with a government that listens to a few to decide for the many.

Which version of this "health care reform" bill have you read, and were you able to go through the whole thing? Which parts of HEALTH CARE would be changed, aside from the fact that we, the taxpayers, would be paying for everything and we would all be relying on the government to decide which procedures are approved or not? Obviously the government is so great at making these decisions. This is the same government that you have railed against for its intelligence reporting. They are so efficient at making decisions that even the Democrats can't even get together on getting this thing passed. Yep, those are the people that I want running MY health care options...wait, I forgot, there will be no options under their bill.

As an "IT Professional" you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a reliable reference. Also, you use the "National Coalition on Health Care" as a reference when they are nothing more than a lobbying group made up of numerous other lobbyists...those are usually very reliable and not trying to further their own agenda.

You say "Don't let fear-mongers talk you into believing that the government can't do anything right."

I say DON'T LET THE LIBERAL FEAR-MONGERS TALK YOU INTO BELIEVING THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!

I don't know which country YOU are living in, but policemen, teachers, universities, and the military don't run the government, they work FOR the government. The politicians are the ones that "run" the government and they've been running it into the ground for years. Enough is enough.

You don't ram legislation down the throats of the population so that you can "tweak" it over time once the legislation has been made law. That has got to be the most ridiculous idea I've ever read in any of your posts. Pass a screwed up law NOW...and tweak it later. Good thinking!

In reply to your "Don't stand up and defend our current system that is bankrupting our nation and forcing our businesses to choose between health coverage or layoffs."

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING IS BANKRUPTING OUR NATION!

It is a matter of personal economics. The poor pay no taxes because they don't have any money. "They reap the lion's share of government benefits.," quietmike, because they have the greatest need. I will agree that the principal of socialism, "to each according to his need," is operating here; though is it in fact the evil that our passe 50s cold war, McArthyist propaganda would have us believe?

Stereotyping the "poor" is fallacious particularly in today's economy. Many people receiving benefits cannot work or cannot find work. Many have been so stigmatized and conditioned by poverty they cannot bootstrap themselves out of it. I wonder how many of those who engage in this poor bashing have a personal relationship with at least one less fortunate family.

If we need a little socialist methodology to help a few good people and their children survive, perhaps that is a better thing than giving the same money to wealthy corporations to pad their bottom line.

I'm glad that Christopher Reeves had the resources to procure care for his tragic accident caused by his bad choice of sports. Many, perhaps most, don't.

Well said Nathan. We can't love our neighbor as yourself when we're too busy gloating over the things we've accomplished. There is a bunch of blame to be administered, but to blame the federal government, who thus far hasn't been heavily involved in the health care crisis is ironic to me. Every one of these angry mob rioters had no problems with the torturing of innocent people (branded as "terrorists"), had no problem with the Patriot Act (TALK ABOUT GOVERNMENT INVASION), and no problem with illegal wire tapping, illegal wars, telling people who they can marry and the widest gap between social classes since the Feudal system in England. Yet you all are suddenly TIRED of government involvement in your life? Hilarious to me how when one party dictates what others can do, you sit in silence, but low and behold the shoe is on the other foot and you stage a protest.

Has it occurred to anyone that private insurance is here to stay? They are. They lobby billions of dollars a year to our Congressmen to guarantee it. That is why your premiums go up.

All of this talk about the "middle class" from folks who have been deceived into honestly thinking they are the middle class.

Here's a thought for all of you "anti-government" folks, STOP voting for government officials. At the end of the day, nobody who runs for government office really wants LESS government, because if that were the case they'd understand their pay = more government.

"Here's a thought for all of you "anti-government" folks, STOP voting for government officials."

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 10:35 AM

First off, I have yet to see anyone on here that is "anti-government", I'm anti-BIG government but government in and of itself is a necessary evil.

As for people like me stopping our voting, that's a great idea, then people like you would be running the country...just like they have been since January of 2007 and see where that's gotten us?

I would feel much better about the health care bill if everyone voting for it was forced to read it, and explain it to their constituents. From what I see, too many (not all, not everyone, no absolute number) admit to not having read it or even 50% of it.

The general theory of making sure all have access to health care is a beautiful goal, but the "devil is in the details". I read enough of it to say, "go work on it some more folks". What I HAVE read has too many opportunities for abuse and waste and lack common sense. Fine tweak it, but do it BEFORE it becomes law.

The second thing that would make me feel better about any bill passed by government officials is that THEY have to live by it and use it themselves. Will all of Congress be forced to accept the government insurance? If not, then that may explain why they have not read it nor understand the details.

I am spending all of my disposable income, and more than I actually have on medical bills. Would I like that to be reduced, SURE, but I can not, in good faith to my fellow citizens, approve the passing of this legislation.

Something needs to be done about spiraling costs but I think there are better ways than to tax and spend. Fix the legal system that allows such frivolous lawsuits as suing for spilling hot coffee on oneself. I know that was not a medical lawsuit but it typifies what I suspect are better than 50% of those being prosecuted today.

From another side I have seen the absurdity of the legal system. Not all, not every lawyer or every court, but far too many. What this does is run up your doctor's costs to practice medicine, increases insurance costs and guess who eventually pays for it or do without it as a result.

I don't know how accurate it is today, but at one time I was shown a statistic that there were more lawyers in the State of New Jersey than all of Japan. That is not picking on NJ or idolizing Japan. It is just saying that something is WAY out of balance.

Medical professionals are human and make mistakes. If they are not habitual errors or obviously negligent, don't allow us to sue the system into oblivion. I truly believe we have the best medical community as a whole and I believe that comes from freedom within the health care system.

I deal with numerous folks from around the world and while I stay away from politics, we do talk medical care at times. Socialized medicine seems to a bad track record. Everyone has access to it, but you may not be able to live long enough to be seen and what you get seems to be substandard to what we have here. Are there pockets of good medical care? Yes, but where were they educated? Probably here in the United States.

Put common sense people back into our governing positions. Take out the legal mumbo jumbo and write bills that most of us can understand. Take this 1,000 page bill and bring it down to a couple of hundred, then use your resources to help the State or Local governments find the best solution for John & Jane Doe in their area.

Oversee it? Sure, but not with so much paperwork and technicalities that you choke it to death. Let common sense get back into our administration as well as our development of these programs.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Nathan - I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you responded to my question on whether or not you've READ this legislation that you are on here harping. I'll go back and look again though.

One liners are great for sitcoms, not for debating our government or our health care.

Thom it is real simple, every bill that leaves Congress has problems. But something needs to be done to change the current system. I am fed up with hearing idiots on talk radio act like the current system is not broken. I am fed up with people that are more than willing to pay for wars to take lives, but prefer to riot in the streets when asked to help a fellow American not lose their house due to medical bills. Don't tell me it doesn't happen either, I have seen it first hand in my own small town. The Republicans had there chance to make things in America better, and they FAILED! They failed at virtually every turn. Now let's give the other side a chance. Stop listening to idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly, and Laura Ingram. They are hypocrites and if you listen long enough and close enough you will discover that they contradict themselves constantly. They sorta mean well, but they really do more harm than good.

It is a matter of personal economics. The poor pay no taxes because they don't have any money. "They reap the lion's share of government benefits.," quietmike, because they have the greatest need.

If we need a little socialist methodology to help a few good people and their children survive, perhaps that is a better thing than giving the same money to wealthy corporations to pad their bottom line.

-- Posted by kyosaku on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 9:26 AM

Two points. First the NEED that most poor folks have is a need for a large foot to their backside.

As I said in an earlier post if all those able-bodied, sound minded people who claim they can't find a job were horse whipped and told they had 90 days to find a job or they'd be whipped again I'd venture that 80+% would have a job. The vast majority of poor people are poor because they are lazy and/or they make bad decisions. Every study on the poor reaches the same conclusions, liberal hand-wringing and panty wetting notwithstanding.

Second you propose a choice of giving the money to poor folks or giving it to wealthy corporations. Funny, I thought the wealthy corporations EARNED the money. Since the government has no money it didn't take from someone else exactly where do you suppose this "gift" money comes from?

If your non-evil, non-McCarthyist socialism works so well why is social security bankrupt? Medicaid useless? Public schools a failure? And 70 years of a "war on poverty" only netted us 4th generation welfare recipients?

....but calling someone a socialist because they feel that some jobs are so important that they must be handled by the government is just bad logic.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 2:29 PM

Let's carry your analogy a little farther then. The most important job I can think of is being a good mother to your child. So, by your logic, children shouldn't be entrusted to just anyone who hasn't been vetted by the proper government bureaucrat. In fact to ensure all children receive the proper upbringing, FBI agents should be stationed at every maternity ward to take custody of babies as soon as they are born. That way the government can handle this most important job.

So, is it really bad logic, or are there jobs that are too important to be trusted to the government?

The argument against government control of the most important services is ridiculous. Do you believe that we should privatize the military? Would you like for your local police force to be controlled by a subsidiary of a large insurance or oil company? Look at how well private security (Blackwater) turned out in Iraq. What a total disaster! Stop and look at all the services that are provided by your government. How many of these services do you have a real problem with? How much would it have cost you to send your child to a private school if your neighbor without children did not chip in to pay for your child's public school? Why should he have to pay to educate your children? It is the right thing to do and it is good for America.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 2:29 PM

The only thing I would add would be the bottled water industry... I compare it to health insurance in America. There are many, many, many bottled water companies, just like there are many health insurance companies. Both try to tell us that the product/service we receive from them is somehow superior to government provided water or health care. Tap water (you know the thing we all take showers, make tea, and brush our teeth with) is available to nearly every single American in this country, for pennies on the dollar... Compare that to companies who simply filter it, put it in a nice package and raise the price 240 to 10,000 times more than tap water. 90% of the cost of bottled water are in its packaging and marketing... not the product itself. Oddly familiar?

Health insurance giants are much like the bottled water giants, convincing you every single day that what they provide is vastly superior than something that could be accessible to everyone for billions less. However, it is not vastly available to everyone (denials, pre-existing conditions, etc). So, both market a nice product that they want you to believe is the best thing available, while fully understanding that the only thing they care about is how much they make from each policy or each astronomical mark-up.

The government should protect its people from foreign enemeis, exorbitant fraud, monopolies, and the like, but those efforts are useless if it allows tax-paying citizens to die because they can't "afford" to live.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting the "key provisions" in this bill would INCREASE the federal deficit by $1,042,000,000,000 (That's $1.04 TRILLION for those that don't want to count all of those zeroes). Oh yeah, and that's just what they estimate it will be for 2009-2010."

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 4:49 PM

Considering that we as a nation spent 2.4 trillion on health care last year, that sounds like a bargain!

"Let's carry your analogy a little farther then. The most important job I can think of is being a good mother to your child. So, by your logic, children shouldn't be entrusted to just anyone who hasn't been vetted by the proper government bureaucrat."

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 2:56 PM

I think we already have that position filled Mike. It goes by various names depending on what state you live in, maybe you have heard of it? Child Protective Services ring a bell?

You're starting to sound like a talking head Thom. They haven't read it, yadayadayada, blahblahblah. Get real Thom, you think that because some idiot on talk radio or Fox News told you that they didn't read it, that every single member of the United States Congress did not read it? Are you going to start preaching about Obama Death Camps like the rest of the lunatics that are pretending at these town hall meetings Thom? I have done plenty of research to know that our current system is a tragedy that every American should be ashamed of. Change is on the horizon Thom, maybe it will work, maybe not, but it is better than what we've got now and I am glad our country is finally starting to talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_i...

Still claiming that Wikipedia is a reliable resource? Seriously? C'mon, Nathan...I would expect more of that from you (although I don't know why). Heck, even our users know better than that.

What kind of solutions do you have to offer up Thom?

Nathan Evans,

Tell me what is wrong with using Medicaid to help out folks who are unable to get private insurance?

Isn't that why it was created?

First you dodge the question of whether you have read the legislation you are so adamantly in favor of, then you dodge this question...are you looking into a career in politics?

To answer your question, I imagine insurance companies raise their prices to maintain a profitable business. Government regulations and frivolous lawsuits are increasingly making it difficult for any business owner, much more so for anyone involved in healthcare.

To think employer provided healthcare is a right of every worker only speaks to the spoiled mentality of those who advance that idea.

There are much more affordable options available for healthcare, but unfortunately most involve personal responsibility, a distasteful idea to most leftists.

Now, could you please answer the questions posed to you?

Another skillful dodge...BRAVO!!!

Why can't you just say you refuse to answer because your answers will paint you into a corner in regards to your support of this legislation.

Or, you could just plead the fifth!!!

The questions were-

Have YOU read the bill? How can you support a bill if you don't know what's in it, or how do you know it will need tweaking?

Did you read it?

----------and------------

Why not let Medicaid do it's intended job of providing care to those who can't afford private insurance?

Both are straightforward questions that could be simply answered, why the tap dance?

quietmike - I think Nathan is under the assumption that The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) will somehow answer your questions.

It must be a "magical act" that will tell us whether or not Nathan's read the 1017 pages of the current bill AND it will tell us why Medicaid won't serve the purpose for which it was intended.

It must be a "magical act" that will tell us whether or not Nathan's read the 1017 pages of the current bill AND it will tell us why Medicaid won't serve the purpose for which it was intended.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 10:18 PM

Oh Thom, can you connect the dots? Can you explain why individual health insurance plans provide the same coverage as a employer group plan, yet cost far less? Can you explain why my company's insurance provider is asking us to convert drop our group plan in favor of individual accounts?

I hope you don't mind Nathan but I may be able to answer the Medicaid insurance question:

Medicaid is only given to people who are below the 2009 poverty level, for a family of four that amount is 22,050, keep in mind that is before taxes. This amount of 22,050 equals to 425.00 per week before taxes... lets just say the government takes 50$ from this amount for taxes that makes their bring home pay 375.00 per week. Out of this amount this person must feed 4 people all week, pay electric, water, housing, clothing, not to mention transportation to and from work, school supplies, lunches for the children, childcare and by your terms save at least 100$ per child for college a month. If you are single this amount drops to 10,800 per year. Because they are at the poverty level but not below it they receive no food stamps or any other assistance. These people are our working poor...they can not afford private health care nor do they qualify for Medicaid. These are the people ObamaCare will help people who are struggling day to day to make the ends meet and still can not find the funds for health care.

I go away for a couple of days and this breaks out.... :)

While our current system is not perfect, the current bill before the house simply is not the way to go. In effect, it does end private insurance.

Having read most of Nathan's blogs over the last several months I'm convinced he has nothing but the best intentions when it comes to healthcare. We part ways on many points but I know his heart is where it should be.

In this case the devil's in the details. Between the banishment of private carriers and the "end of life counseling" this bill is simply a power grab. Nothing more, nothing less. The "public option" isn't an option at all. Since private carriers will not be allowed to sign any more patients beginning the date of the new program it will be only a matter of time before the private carriers wither and die. Sounds like just the thing my mutual fund or 401k needs right now.

As far as the government running an enterprise there are VERY few examples of the government running an enterprise as efficiently or proficiently as the private sector. I exclude the military, police and fire departments since it's generally agreed that these are needed for protection and general order. Before anyone brings it up, yes I know Medicare runs very lean with about 8% overhead (compared to BC/BS which runs about 15%). I also know Medicare is essentially insolvent and will need huge tax increases (that one will be for everyone) just to meet expected future obligations. It's really easy to run a business when you really don't have to know what you're doing and can just pass legislation to increase your revenues.

The real question now is the enough political will for the house and senate to pass this kind of sweeping legislation (and the associated tax increases) in the middle of a recession. There are a LOT of nervous democrats right now who are getting an earful back home. Renting instead of buying may be a better option for many of these.

Medicaid is only given to people who are below the 2009 poverty level, for a family of four that amount is 22,050, keep in mind that is before taxes. This amount of 22,050 equals to 425.00 per week before taxes... lets just say the government takes 50$ from this amount for taxes that makes their bring home pay 375.00 per week. Out of this amount this person must feed 4 people all week, pay electric, water, housing, clothing, not to mention transportation to and from work, school supplies, lunches for the children, childcare and by your terms save at least 100$ per child for college a month. If you are single this amount drops to 10,800 per year. Because they are at the poverty level but not below it they receive no food stamps or any other assistance. These people are our working poor...they can not afford private health care nor do they qualify for Medicaid. These are the people ObamaCare will help people who are struggling day to day to make the ends meet and still can not find the funds for health care.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Aug 8, 2009, at 10:42 PM

Excellent! thanks for your answer.

The problem was Medicaid was touted as a program to "help" those who fell through the cracks. Based on your post, Nathan's quasi-answer about the gap in care, and good common sense we know that medicaid is not a very good program.

The point being what makes anyone believe that THIS TIME it will be different?

In my lifetime I have seen the government take many relatively small problems, stir people into a frenzy about them, proclaim that SOMETHING must be done RIGHT NOW. So they create a huge bureaucracy and raise taxes to "fix" the problem. Somehow the problem never gets fixed, and usually gets worse due to government red tape and ineptitude. So the call goes out again that all that is needed is more of our money to be given and more of our freedoms to be surrendered, but by golly this time we'll get it right.

So, excuse me if I don't stare starry-eyed at dear leader and swallow his promises that he knows how to fix everything.

It is far easier to blame "the man", big business, or corporate greed on all our problems, but usually the culprit is much closer. Most time he is looking in the mirror.

The problem was Medicaid was touted as a program to "help" those who fell through the cracks. Based on your post, Nathan's quasi-answer about the gap in care, and good common sense we know that medicaid is not a very good program

But Mike wouldn't this be just another good reason for an overhaul of the health care system? A way to include people in a health care program? If this health care program worked the way it should (and I am by no means saying it will) there would be no need for Medicaid or Medicare the government program would take care of everyone. When a program fails shouldn't we fix it? We certainly should not just sit back and watch it slip further down the drain. How much money would this program save every state? There would be no need for TNCare... each one of us taxpayers are paying for every government based health care program that is given to the poor now. Plus we are paying for our own individual based health care insurance. At least with the government based health care program we all could have affordable health care. Even if we paid more in taxes it would not equal the amount we are already shelling out in health care cost.

There is no possible way that government can insure those who are now uninsureable(sp?) and cover procedures that aren't covered now and do it cheaper that what it costs now. It is a mathematical impossibility.

I said this earlier in the blog:

Get the insurance companies out of healthcare as much as possible.

A health savings plan combined with a catastrophic rider would be more affordable than most current plans, and would also remove the insulating layer of the insurance companies and allows the patients to see the true cost of care.

This would force consumers (patients) to shop for health services to get the best price just as we shop for most other purchases. It would also make folks realize the true costs of the decisions they make and by it's very nature would encourage folks to make wise health choices.

I agree there are some conditions that are beyond the control of the patient and we should help them if we are able. However, we would better be able to help them, and discern who really needs help, if we keep the decisions as close to the local level as possible. The average American family already pays somewhere around 40-60% of their total income in various taxes. We would be able to help more people if we could keep more of that as well.

Sharon22, I think we are talking about the same thing with Catastrophic vs. hospitalization plan. The catastrophic I'm referring to would be a policy with a high deductible, say $5,000 per individual, and anything after that would be covered by the policy. And yes, the HSA should roll over from year to year!

What would prevent you from doctor shopping BEFORE your kids get sick?

How about get estimates of an office visit, blood work, or other common treatments between to or three doctors and then you can tell which doctor is more likely to be cheaper on other procedures.

It's funny that you poo-poo the current system, where a person can go to the E.R. or free clinic and get free care, saying preventive treatment is what is needed. Yet preventive treatment would be very easy to doctor shop yet you poo-poo that idea as well.

Now I'm starting to understand why some may actually NEED others to make all their decisions for them.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) DO roll over from year to year, it's the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that doesn't.

As for the "doctor shopping", all you have to do is get a "menu" of sorts and you will know that one doctor is going to be less expensive than another for most things.

As for the "doctor shopping", all you have to do is get a "menu" of sorts and you will know that one doctor is going to be less expensive than another for most things.

-- Posted by Thom on Sun, Aug 9, 2009, at 11:46 AM

Please tell me where one would obtain this menu? I am having some test run next week and the surgery center would not even give me the cost of this until they turned it into my insurance company to see how much they were going to pay!!!

To my knowledge, the is no law prohibiting the publication of price lists. Providers do not publish this list but can produce it if asked.

This gets back to basic free market principles. If all physicians, hospitals, imaging centers etc were required to publish price lists this would cause an immediate drop in costs due to competition. True free markets are the most efficient way of controlling costs. Since the current house proposal will ADD 1 trillion to the deficit, this is a poor model. You want to fix healthcare, here's how:

1) Require publication of all price lists for all services.

2) Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. There are currently over 1300 companies but most cannot get into other markets due to state insurance "regulations" (see monopoly). This would allow true free markets to evolve.

3) Revoke the in-office exception to imaging services. Limit the scope of other in office services of other physicians.

4) Require 12 years of health and wellness education. 12 years of PE too, no exceptions.

5) Limit the scope of the federal government in healthcare. CMS dictates payment for all procedures under medicare and medicaid. This is full of abuse and fraud that we all have to pay for. The procedures that pay really well get ordered, the ones that don't well, don't. This has created a huge financial gap in the system that has left CMS insolvent.

6) Move toward evidence based medicine. This is tough because it requires long time periods to measure outcomes and it's expensive up front. Over the long term it's a bargain. It will also require rethinking how we train doctors.

I was going to get back in this debate, but it appears the lines have been drawn and no ones opinions will be swayed, but that's not why I will not jump back in. I am scared someone will report me to the white houses new (and unconstitutional) tattle tale website. Sounds like our current administration is gonna party like its 1984.

Sharon the prices may vary slightly but not much. Mostly it depends on the local administrative company (in Alabama BC/BS). All of our charges are based on CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes that are published every year. CMS has a set amount they'll pay for each code. That is a problem in and of itself since different groups lobby CMS for higher payments for their favorite procedures. Once that price is set, there is essentially no competition in the market since everyone knows how much they'll get for doing X procedure. If it pays well, they'll do a bunch of them.

OK, my question/comment depends on how you look at it, my husband works for a small company that offers NO insurance, we make to much for a family of 7 to get assistance. to get a private insurance would be more than our house payment a month, so do we suffer, not go to the doctor? or do we hope and pray something comes along that will help us get medical attention? we have looked into several different private insurances and CAN NOT afford them, when you consider paying, house payments, lights, water and putting food on the table, medical insurance, gets pushed to the back corner...

I want nothing of the such Mike. I will say it again, since you are obviously a little dense. I am glad that the topic of health care reform has made its way back to the front in American politics. Our current system has some major cracks that must be addressed. There is no final plan that is waiting our president's signature at the moment. Plenty of people are asking questions in Congress, just like they always do. Even if I don't agree with a handful of our elected representatives, I have to believe that they are outnumbered by ones that I do agree with. I have faith in the American Constitution and our system of government. That is why I took an oath to protect and defend it. If you can not understand that, then I will not waste anymore of my time explaining it to you.

BTW, this is my blog, if you don't like it, then don't read it.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Aug 10, 2009, at 12:52 AM

So you post your uneducated opinion and don't expect people to call you on it? Then, when they do, you tell them not to read "your" blog? I'm sure the T-G would love for you to have nobody read "your" blog on their site.

Well, since you refuse to answer any questions that people pose to you about "your" blog, I'll not bother reading "your" blog any further.

I just hope that anyone else that reads this realizes just how ignorant "your" blog really is. Especially since it doesn't actually tell anyone anything except for Democratic party regurgitation backed up by Wikipedia links that any fourth grader could update.

And I thought us conservatives were supposed to be the ones with the closed minds.

You sir are a troll, and i will read no further.

My concern is not with change as far as providing for those less fortunate, taking away the pre-existing clause, making the hospitals/doctors not charge such outrageous fees($150+ for a quick dr. office visit?) BUT if I like my insurance and can pay for it, then I don't want it taken away. I got my college degrees and have worked for years to do so. And, my husband did run a small business and he did not only pay for our insurance but for his employees.We also purchased an individual policy for my daughter which we don't believe to be outrageous.

Between the time I aged out of my parents' insurance and started working, I did have major surgery and paid for it month by month so my opinion--if I could do it, so could everyone else. You just have to work hard and be responsible.

I know that I have done my own research regarding government healthcare in other countries as advanced as we are and the picture presented is not very pretty.

I also think people would not be so outraged if the gov hadn't already donated all that money to bail out the big wigs and to provide cars for certain people who may or may not be able to afford them and to BANKS! ugh

Amen, Nathan

Lets eliminate the socialist medical system we have now - I encourage the Republican Party, to have in their platform the elimination of medicaid, medicare and veterans health benefits, including the closing of VA hospitals.

-- Posted by Grit on Mon, Aug 10, 2009, at 4:03 PM

I hope the Republican Party rallies behind you on that!

I don't understand why they are in such a big hurry and why they think people that object to it aren't as intelligient as they are.

Something I found interesting... Who was the the first US president to call for universal health care? President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican from New York

He also busted up 40 monopolies and is considered to be the father of the Food and Drug Administration.

"I heard a discussion today about the LTC portion of a nursing home being eliminated and residents' families being told to find another facility because it was too expensive and the skilled patients needed to be given priority. Maybe that facility has heard something we haven't?"

-- Posted by stardust on Mon, Aug 10, 2009, at 10:47 PM

The situation you are describing to me sounds like a private company is running the nursing home and they discovered that long term care is not as profitable as some other business model they can focus their efforts on.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 12:11 AM

In my opinion that makes the most sense. Why can we not do something to lower the cost of healthcare, before we let the govt completely take over.

I admittedly hate my current health insurance...high premiums, high deductables, and large co-pays. Sadly, if my husband didn't work hard, and instead made less or no money, we would be eligible for TennCare. So as a result, I find that I obstain from seeing a doctor to the point of putting my health at risk, while my welfare counterparts can "run to the ER everytime they get the sniffles" (ok, not really, but you get my point...and I am not bashing those on welfare, I think it does have its time and place when neccessary, but who pays for it, and when do we get to stop paying for it?).

Do I wish for a magic wand to fix things, yes. Do I think it will be free, no. After all, money doesn't grow on trees. Just ask our neighbors in Canada how they like their tax rates. I have friends and family in Canada, so I don't need to Google it. You think we pay alot of taxes here in America, try working over there. Yes they have an EXCELLENT health care program in place, but many of whom I've spoken with say they would prefer to have a choice....instead the single man/woman with no kids is paying for the birth of his neighbor's baby (again, not an exact, but you get my point).

When all is said and done here, everyone of you out there that are so against affordable health care would run for that line to get assistance should you have a love one need care and you were in the position of not being able to provide the coverage. If you lose your job, and benefits, and can not find a job that pays enough to pay the premiums and that must choose between the basic necessities (house, food, utilities, and basic transportation) ..... You can not for one second convince me that you would look over to your child and say" I'm sorry honey you can't have your surgery, I can't pay for it, and it is not right for us to have medical care now" " Oh yes honey I know some people get help in our situation but, I'm above that and will not accept it , you are going to just have to do without." Oh sure let the appendix burst (or what ever) Can you honestly say that YOU should have to do without should you fall on such hard times? It can and does happen to any and all social classes even the perfect ones like yours, any one of us could end up in the middle of "below poverty" and the "I can make it on my own levels'. Any one of us could have our life pulled out from under us at a moments notice. You know very well , you'll take that "socialist" unemployment check , and if your still unable to bounce back and find work good enough to survive on , you'll take the assistance you must to care for your family until you can... That won't make you what you see now as a low life socialist or what ever uppity name you have for it, it just means your just one of the rest of the country no better no worst. Would you actually turn down help if you needed it and allow someone dear to you to suffer or die? Sounds dramatic I know but there are a lot of judgmental people out there that have had to eat a lot of crow lately, sure hope your never tested on this don't you??