The very first response to your like Pres, was so funny had to paste it here . . .

Solution.Any Senior who disrupts the meetings with their ill informed stupid screeching and screaming,should be sent a letter the next day that says.

Dear Sir/Madame:
The Government of the USA,has removed you from the medicare and medicaid socialized health care system and subsidized prescriptions lists,effective immediately,at your request.Your entitlements have been transferred to one of the 50 million uninsured, immediatel y.You are now free to subscribe to any high premium health insurance company of your choice.Rest in Peace and we hope you have no existing preconditions. You can also contact Rush Limbaugh or one of your republican or blue dogs democrat lawmakers to assist you in attaining insurance from one of the highly competive group of insurance companies/ cartel. Hap py Health and have a wonderful retirement!

pres-elect:

sorry dave, that would not happen. have u heard of the blue dog democrats. 52 of them in the house of reps. they threatened to vote against a reform with a public option. if 52 democrats and all republicans in the house vote against the bill, it wont pass the house.

of course there are enough senators to kill it off. including democrat senators.

it's so pathetic, what reform will it be if no public option is there. this is a moral issue. [b]i thought they said the govt cant run anything [/b]and yet they are afraid of competition from govt healthcare option

i already know it wont pass but at least government will say they tried but ideologues chose to kill it. Its sad to see a country i once thought was a nation of brilliant intellectuals reduced to a nation of fear-mongers, liars and uneducated hypocrites. They claim the govt cant run anything but they spend millions of dollars running for posts in that same govt?

davidylan:

The very first response to your like Pres, was so funny had to paste it here . . .

Solution.Any Senior who disrupts the meetings with their ill informed stupid screeching and screaming,should be sent a letter the next day that says.

Dear Sir/Madame:
The Government of the USA,has removed you from the medicare and medicaid socialized health care system and subsidized prescriptions lists,effective immediately,at your request.Your entitlements have been transferred to one of the 50 million uninsured, immediatel y.You are now free to subscribe to any high premium health insurance company of your choice.Rest in Peace and we hope you have no existing preconditions. You can also contact Rush Limbaugh or one of your republican or blue dogs democrat lawmakers to assist you in attaining insurance from one of the highly competive group of insurance companies/ cartel. Hap py Health and have a wonderful retirement!

lol.

davidylan:

i already know it wont pass but at least government will say they tried but ideologues chose to kill it. Its sad to see a country i once thought was a nation of brilliant intellectuals reduced to a nation of fear-mongers, liars and uneducated hypocrites. They claim the govt cant run anything but they spend millions of dollars running for posts in that same govt?

exposure to reality huh. i was so ashamed when i went to america and people ask me where i came from and i say united kingdom, then they'll ask . . .where is that? i thot i was used to the thinking africa is a country but i wasnt prepared to see that americans dont know where UK is. (they know england/britain but not UK) . lol . . .

anyway, their ignorance is too bad

i wonder why these people cant see that republicans are terrible people. can u believe the 2 journalists released from north korea, everyone seems to say it was a good thing except fox news. their own concern is that the north koreans had a chance to sit with an ex-US president. that has been a foreign policy disaster. terrible thing and a failure of obama admiknistration. b/c it is not their relatives. aint it?

yet people follow them

pres-elect:

exposure to reality huh. i was so ashamed when i went to america and people ask me where i came from and i say united kingdom, then they'll ask . . .where is that? i thot i was used to the thinking africa is a country but i wasnt prepared to see that americans dont know where UK is. (they know england/britain but not UK) . lol . . .

anyway, their ignorance is too bad

i wonder why these people cant see that republicans are terrible people. can u believe the 2 journalists released from north korea, everyone seems to say it was a good thing except fox news. their own concern is that the north koreans had a chance to sit with an ex-US president. that has been a foreign policy disaster. terrible thing and a failure of obama admiknistration. b/c it is not their relatives. aint it?

yet people follow them

lol they were 2 asians, who cares. If they were white Fox would be singing a different tune. Remember the dude captured by somali pirates? It was a failure of the Obama admin that he didnt rescue him immediately . . . infact some on Fox were asking the US government to invade Somalia anyway. What a laughable bunch of empty heads.

how about the veterans, many of them are white. they are not treated well when they return. i once went to a vetran affairs hospital in ohio last 2yrs. i wanted to cry. my relative was working there and i saw how soldiers were treated. even the way they talk to them. and i'm not talking about the deception in thier documents they signed b4 joining military with regards to benefits they thought they will recieve when they come home. they are whites too. and yet they usually vote republicans

@topic,

Pres-elect said the following:  "i thought they said the govt cant run anything"

His schizophrenic half  now said the following:

how about the veterans, many of them are white. they are not treated well when they return. i once went to a vetran affairs hospital in ohio last 2yrs. i wanted to cry. my relative was working there and i saw how soldiers were treated. even the way they talk to them. and i'm not talking about the deception in thier documents they signed b4 joining military with regards to benefits they thought they will recieve when they come home. they are whites too. and yet they usually vote republicans

If they can't even treat the veterans well, how will they take care of the rest of the population?

that happened under bush. if u didnt know, obama came in, changed e few things, improved funding for dept of veteran affairs, improved allowances for the vetreans, made another[b] ''GI bill'' [/b] which was signed into law recently. stopped wasteful spending like the f-22 jet bullsh-t. diverted the money into more sensible projects.

and talking about govt run issues. it depends on who is running the govt. bush or obama (or clinton)

Bushmessed up the veterans.

can u believe that even some prisons in the us have become privatised? there are correctional establishments in the NYSE. then they'll lobby congress for harsher laws--->more imprisonments--->more business for them.

so when republicans mess things up, they claim govt can run things

but govt runs the military. perhaps that too should be privatised. anyway they have started that already and that is why there will always be war. the lobbyists must chop.

@Pres-elect,

So Bush was running the VA as a private citizen ko? You need to take a break from carrying bricks for Pharaoh. It's not helping you think straight.

As usual, the Govt solution to every problems is to throw more money at it. It does not matter whether the money was judicioulsy spent in the first place or not. Tax and spend is the order of the day. What happens when they throw more money at VA affairs, more at mass-transit, military, universal health care, cash for clunkers etc? Where will the money come from? Printing Presses?

JeSoul mentioned what happened to MA's helath program. here is one that happend in Hawaii also. Hasn't there been enough trial runs that became failures to make a reasonable person rethink.

HONOLULU (AP) - Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.


"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

State officials said Thursday they will stop giving health coverage to the 2,000 children enrolled by Nov. 1, but private partner Hawaii Medical Service Association will pay to extend their coverage through the end of the year without government support.

"We're very disappointed in the state's decision, and it came as a complete surprise to us," said Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for HMSA, the state's largest health care provider. "We believe the program is working, and given Hawaii's economic uncertainty, we don't think now is the time to cut all funding for this kind of program."

Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn't already have health insurance—mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.

It costs the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child—an amount that was more than matched by HMSA.

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.

The Republican governor signed Keiki Care into law in 2007, but it and many other government services are facing cuts as the state deals with a projected $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011.

While it's difficult to determine how many children lack health coverage in the islands, estimates range from 3,500 to 16,000 in a state of about 1.3 million people. All were eligible for the program.

"Children are a lot more vulnerable in terms of needing care," said Democratic Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland. "It's not very good to try to be a leader and then renege on that commitment."

The universal health care system was free except for copays of $7 per office visit.

Families with children currently enrolled in the universal system are being encouraged to seek more comprehensive Medicaid coverage, which may be available to children in a family of four earning up to $73,000 annually.

These children also could sign up for the HMSA Children's Plan, which costs about $55 a month.

"Most of them won't be eligible for Medicaid, and that's why they were enrolled in Keiki Care," Diesman said. "It's the gap group that we're trying to ensure has coverage."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1

Tayo, your own article summarises the problem with a lot of you. why were parents with private insurance dropping out to opt for the government held insurance? Because private insurance is simply not providing any better service for the dollar!

If i can get better coverage and pay only $7 per doctor's visit then why pay $1000 a month for healthcare that is only there as long as i dont fall sick? Do you now see the problem now?

The way Hawaii was running theirs makes no sense, in other countries healthcare isnt free either. You basically get the cost deducted from your pay check!

@Davidylan,

I am disappointed in you with the way you vilify Doctors as if they are the Villains here.  These are people who have sworn to help the needy regardless of their ability to pay or not.  No one, I repeat no one is ever denied treatment in a US clinic because of an inability to pay.  That just does not happen.  Should Doctors be compensated for their work? No doubt Yes.  Do you realise how much the average Doctor owes for educational bills just to become a Doctor? Such risks shoudl be matched with the right compensation.

People like Clinton collect $250,000 just to deliver a speech.  If you ask me, I think what the Doctors do is more valuable than what Clinton and co do, and yet these people get paid more than Doctors.

Doctors have the ability to monitor their practice without govt intervention.  I am an Engineer and we monitor and regulate our practice ourselves.  It's an insult for a Bureaucrat in Washington to tell me how to practice my profession.  Obama needs to apologise to Doctors for insinuating they carry out procedures just for profit.  I've worked on many projects where we've actually lost money.  Our overiding goal is to produce safe and economic products and I believe same is true for Doctors.  Whether we run at a loss doing so notwithstanding.

If you really care about bringing the cost of healthcare down, ask your Democrat colleagues for TORT reform.  See how quickly they will shout you down. Yet, the fear of lawsuit drives many Doctors to carry out a lot of costly tests just to cover their behind.  They pay so much in insurance in case of a lawsuit.  And of course, they have to save up enough money becuase they will lose their licences if so many legal cases arise against them; irrespective of whether they are found guilty or not!

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,

I am disappointed in you with the way you vilify Doctors as if they are the Villains here.  These are people who have sworn to help the needy regardless of their ability to pay or not.

I did no such thing, i simply presented the bare facts that no doctor will disagree with. I have a doctor for a mother and a brother who is a doctor in training so i'd be foolish to paint them as villains.

Tayo-D:

 No one, I repeat no one is ever denied treatment in a US clinic because of an inability to pay.  That just does not happen.

No it doesnt happen but all the doctor has to do is stabilise you and send you home . . . do you get free chemotherapy or tissue transplant free? NO! Just does not happen.

Tayo-D:

 Should Doctors be compensated for their work? No doubt Yes.  Do you realise how much the average Doctor owes for educational bills just to become a Doctor? Such risks shoudl be matched with the right compensation.

Why then are doctors at places like Mayo placed on salaries? Are they complaining of not being able to pay their educational bills?

Tayo-D:

Obama needs to apologise to Doctors for insinuating they carry out procedures just for profit.  I've worked on many projects where we've actually lost money.

this nauseating "Obama needs to apologise to everyone for every statement he makes" is ridiculous. Obama wasnt making an "insinuation" he was stating a bald fact!

Tayo-D:

If you really care about bringing the cost of healthcare down, ask your Democrat colleagues for TORT reform.  See how quickly they will shout you down. Yet, the fear of lawsuit drives many Doctors to carry out a lot of costly tests just to cover their behind.  They pay so much in insurance in case of a lawsuit.  And of course, they have to save up enough money becuase they will lose their licences if so many legal cases arise against them; irrespective of whether they are found guilty or not!

You have a point on tort reform, that is needed if this healthcare bill is to be an over-riding success.

However this is all BESIDE THE POINT! I'm amazed that of all the discussion on healthcare reform you simply cherry-picked what was nothing but a side-note to spend so much typing energy on. What has my opinion on doctors salaries to do with healthcare reform?

@Davdylan,

Tayo, your own article summarises the problem with a lot of you. why were parents with private insurance dropping out to opt for the government held insurance? Because private insurance is simply not providing any better service for the dollar!

If i can get better coverage and pay only $7 per doctor's visit then why pay $1000 a month for healthcare that is only there as long as i dont fall sick? Do you now see the problem now?

The way Hawaii was running theirs makes no sense, in other countries healthcare isnt free either. You basically get the cost deducted from your pay check!

Sems like we are looking at this from differenet angles.

Hawaii basically shows you what happens when anything is free - abuse sets in.  When healthcare is free, you create an artificial demand.  Unfortunately, supply will not keep up.  And to meet everyone's needs, Doctors will look for shortcuts and we all end up not getting adequate care.  You will find people goint ot see the Doctor for flimsy reasons because it costs them nothing.

Let the govt take over healthcare and you will see 90% of people dropping their current insurance for the govt option which they really are not getting free because they will be taxed for it.  That will overwhelm the system really quick.

Shey the govt ran out of money in implementing cash for clunkers program in just one week of inception.  Now the program will cost at least 3 times what they envisioned. Multiply the anticipated cost of the proposed Universal Healthcare by 3 to begin to have another idea of its real cost.

Tayo-D:

@Davdylan,
Sems like we are looking at this from differenet angles.

Hawaii basically shows you what happens when anything is free - abuse sets in.  When healthcare is free, you create an artificial demand.  Unfortunately, supply will not keep up.  And to meet everyone's needs, Doctors will look for shortcuts and we all end up not getting adequate care.  You will find people goint ot see the Doctor for flimsy reasons because it costs them nothing.

Let the govt take over healthcare and you will see 90% of people dropping their current insurance for the govt option which they really are not getting free because they will be taxed for it.  That will overwhelm the system really quick.

Shey the govt ran out of money in implementing cash for clunkers program in just one week of inception.  Now the program will cost at least 3 times what they envisioned. Multiply the anticipated cost of the proposed Universal Healthcare by 3 to begin to have another idea of its real cost.

single-payer healthcare is NOT FREE! Go to Canada or France or Australia or Germany . . . they pay taxes to maintain that healthcare, the only difference is its not tied to employment and you can access it for far less cost since its run by govt as a non-for profit.

What Hawaii did was try to make healthcare free, that isnt going to work and is not a working model or example for this healthcare bill. Pls dont confuse the two.

Tayo-D:

Let the govt take over healthcare and you will see 90% of people dropping their current insurance for the govt option which they really are not getting free because they will be taxed for it.  That will overwhelm the system really quick.

Ask yourself a question . . . if the status quo was ok why shld 90% of people drop their private insurance for the govt option? Are these not the same pple crying that they dont want socialized medicine?

How will people being taxed for healthcare overwhelm the system?

@tayo

ur problem is that u hate obama soo much that u will oppose anything that comes from him. this is not about obama. this is healthcare. if the US can afford it, why cant everybody be insured? this is a country that spends billions of dollars every day in a useless war, why cant money be invested in its own people. 46(?) million people without health coverage is sad.

for all u say about canada and britain, these 2 countries have better health care than the US. ask WHO. US ranks way down compared to other rich countries. but b/c U hate Obama(now u call him pharoah ) and probably u hate me now(no wahala) b/c i express my opinion which is different from urs, u let this hatred completely overwhelm ur rationality. na wa for u

anyway, like i told david, i'm tired of a debate in which the people who need help most just relax while hoodlums reign supreme at town halls.

kaput

@David and Pres-elect,

I have tried hard to avoid saying much about Canada and the UK's healthcare system because I do not know much about them. Common sense teaches me that Universal Health Care will fail. While I have heard a lot about the ills faced by people seeking healthcare in those countries, I find it hard to use some of the postings here because I do not have a firsthand experience. However, to counter some of the absurdity you guys have posted here regarding superior healthcare in Britain and Canada, I will post some articles here that refute such claims. Let's start with the following:

Cancer Patients Lose Shot at Longer Life in U.K. Cuts (Update1)

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.

Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- the government agency that funds the nation's health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.

``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''

The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

`It's Outrageous'

``It's outrageous,'' said Kate Spall, a full-time activist who has helped about 100 patients appeal NHS denials of cancer medicines. ``We are not asking for anything new or exciting or novel. We are asking for what the rest of the western world is getting.''

To help curb expenses, the government created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, known as NICE, in 1999 to review medicines and recommend whether the NHS should fund them.

``There is a view that all treatments should be available. Unfortunately, that's not possible,'' said Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director. ``There is a limited pot of money.''

He said the four cancer drugs provide a ``marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost'' and that the agency had to keep in mind that funds spent on the medicines could be used elsewhere to help others at a greater value. ``Those are the hidden patients, the ones who benefit from the things the NHS does spend money on,'' Littlejohns said.

NICE Review

NICE is reviewing its Aug. 7 preliminary recommendation that Sutent, Roche Holding AG and Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Nexavar, and Wyeth's Torisel shouldn't be funded in light of their cost of 20,000 pounds to 39,000 pounds a year per patient. All four medicines have been approved by European and U.S. regulators and are sold in other countries as well. A final ruling is expected in March.

While a drug is under review, the decision whether to pay for a therapy falls to the NHS's 156 local organizations, called trusts.

Of the 3,000 applications for exceptional funding for cancer patients a year, the most-requested drug was Sutent, said the Rarer Cancers Forum, which focuses on cancer cases that fall outside the more common ones such as colon, breast, lung and prostate.

Sutent, which stops cancer cells from dividing and chokes off a tumor's blood supply, was first approved for European use in July 2006. Kidney cancer sufferers taking the drug had a median survival rate of 26.4 months, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology in May.

Five Years to Live

New York-based Pfizer provided NICE with Sutent cancer- survival data that were released after its review began to try to persuade the agency to reverse its decision, and has offered to make the first treatment free, company spokeswoman Emily Bone said.

On Nov. 4, the government proposed giving NICE more flexibility in approving higher-cost drugs and allowing patients to buy the medicines themselves without losing access to government-funded health care. Final recommendations on the proposals aren't due until early next year and Rosser can't wait that long for his medicine, Spall said.

Rosser, of Kingswood, England, was diagnosed with cancer four days after Emma was born in July 2007. After operations in August and March to remove a kidney, adrenal glands and bone tumors, he was told he might live two to five years. In July, he was told by doctors that Sutent would help, but the South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust said it wouldn't pay for the treatment.

`Very Expensive'

``I read the letter and I burst into tears,'' said Rosser, who was forced to retire from his air-conditioning and sheet- metal company because of the illness.

South Gloucestershire, the trust that includes Rosser's home, accepts applications for Sutent funding only for exceptional cases, said Ann Jarvis, director of commissioning at the trust, in an e-mail. ``Unfortunately for very expensive drugs, if they are proven to only provide a small benefit we have to prioritize other treatments.''

The trust plans to review its Sutent policy at a meeting next month, spokeswoman Sue Pratt said today.

Kidney cancer patient Kathleen Devonport, a 65-year-old retired factory worker, called it ``heartbreaking'' to have to beg her local health officials to provide her with Sutent. The County Durham Primary Care Trust, in northern England, initially turned her down in March 2007, then agreed to supply the Sutent seven months later only after she responded to a cheaper medicine paid for by an anonymous donation.

Offer Vetoed

Jenny Rosser, 41, said she is looking into getting her husband into a clinical trial for Sutent, but so far she has been told that his cancer would need to advance further to qualify.

Meanwhile, he is surviving on painkillers coupled with steroids for inflammation after vetoing his wife's offer of selling the house to pay for his treatments. In late October, he had another operation to remove growths on his spine and neck.

J[b]enny Rosser said the policies seem aimed more at saving cash than treating people.[/b]

``It seems like a money-saving exercise,'' she said. ``If a patient dies, tough.'' - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYPuCa1iuxG8What a well run govt program!!!!!!

@topic,

What happened to my last post?

@topic,

I'll try and repost, again.

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.

Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- the government agency that funds the nation's health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.

``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''

The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

`It's Outrageous'

For more outrageousness, please see - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYPuCa1iuxG8

this is sad. of course it is sad and unlike u, i wont deny that it is sad just b/c it came from tayo. it is sad.

but note that if it were in the US that man would not even live to see the child enter primary school at all as he will have no drug at all with no coverage. but the nhs has helped a lot of people who otherwise would never have been able to afford it . . . .and . . . wait for it. . . . even in the UK people who dont like the NHS can still have health insurance from private organisations.

yes, you heard me, even in the UK, those who dont like NHS can still have private coverage. that is what we are saying. i'm not saying private coverage should be wiped out. no. but with govt options, they will be forced to lower their costs and cover more people as a result.

all human beings should be able to get coverage in healthcare. all human beings. this should not be politicised and should not be a democrats/republicans issue.

if the democrats cant pass this bill(real health reform bill with public option), then their majority in congress is useless and should be taken away from them and given back to the republicans . . . . we can then have all the tax cuts and wars they may want.

@Pres-elect,

Your attempt at dehumanising me is just pitiful. You think you care more for people because you voice pity in your responses? You guys simply have no clue.

Now you are begining to change the goal post. I prefer the US situation where I know my life is in my hands instead of waiting for some Bureaucrats to determine whether my life is vvaluable or not. Tell me, do you think Gordon brown would have been denied those drugs if he was in need of it? There you go, one life is more valuable than others to you guys as long as the politics of that life is in line with yours.

No system is perfect. Health care is not a human right. It is ludicrous to think it is.

@topic,

By the way, did you notice the rising cost of healthcare in Britain as well as noted in the article? Are the greedy American Insurance companies manipulating the market in England too?

What do you think will happen in another 10 years when the cost quadruples? More care or less? Siddon there they wait for fee healthcare.

i am not dehumanising u. u are doing a good job of that, u dont need my help.
no system is perfect but surely it would be wise to give everybody a chance . . . everybody. and unlike u, i believe health care is a right and i can tell u, life is nothing without good health and if life is a right, health care is attached to life and every human being on this planet should have access to good health care, food, water, housing. i'm not saying that govt should provide all these for americans, but health care should cover everybody and reduce the power of the capitalists HMOs

disagree. fine, but this is what i believe.

unfortunately, the democrats lack spine

look, there is nothing like free health care. it does not exist. nothing is free. but it is free-at-the-point-of-use.

this means that payment is not reguired when it is needed but payment is made some other day somehow

@Pres-elect,

health care is attached to life and every human being on this planet should have access to good health care, food, water, housing.

Yet a lot of people make plans to acquire everything you listed above and yet ignore their health. I have a very healthy family and yet I pay a lot every month for health insurance. I do so because health insurance should be just that - insurance. Many choose to not be insured and are waiting for free healthcare from the govt.

Whether requested at the point of use or not, no one is denied healthcare in the US at the clinics. You go there, you receive treatment. I know of at least two Nigerians who came to the US to give birth to their kids. Both used the hospital resources and drugs and never paid a dime. They were not denied care for not having money. Unlike your folks in Britain, no Bureaucrat sat down to determine if they should be give epidureal or not. No one quantified the value of their comfort and well-being in dollars. That is how things should be.

Healthcare is not a right. If it was, theose people in Britain would have gone to court and won hands-down with the argument that the govt was denying them their fundamental human right.

Tayo-D:

No system is perfect. Health care is not a human right. It is ludicrous to think it is.

Neither is education by this reasoning.

These people (Republicans) are animals

Health Care is a human right, though it neednt be cheap or free.

Taxpayers would argue that it is not free.


Now some slowpoke   mentioned that Hawaii dropped their Universal Child Healthcare because of the rise in people foregoing private insurance to take it up. The son of questionable parenthood   tried to use this this as an argument against Universal Healthcare. Any well-reasoning individual would take the opposite approach and laud the popularity of Universal healthcare cos it was so highly sought after that even those who could afford insurance forewent insurance to join the scheme. The scheme closed because it was oversubscribed. Perhaps the citizens of Hawaii would have preferred to pay a small percentage of their insurance as tax, and in that way, they would receive the healthcare they need. Instead, imbecilic Americans pay hundreds toward Insurance yearly. What percentage of insurance payments are actually spent on actual health costs on average? Compare this with Britain where prolly 95% of the tax deductible for health purposes is spent on health, and the rest 5% is beaurocratic wastage.

So whilst lobotomised individuals argue that Health is not a human right, it is better to argue that Healthcare is not a structured product, or a financial instrument.

Can you imagine a situation where Health Insurance bosses receive 10's of millions in bonus payouts? What target do you think their bonuses are predicated on? Your health or their profits?

@ibime
i'm tired of debating this health thing. my greatest discouragement is the fact that the people who the govt is trying to help are not being forceful like the paid mobs from the right. if i'm poor and ill, i'll rather have the US govt handle my health care than the CEOs of Health Organisations who are only interested in their pockets.

i'm just tired of the argument. i tire to be honest. but if the democrats can get this right, with over 60 votes in the senate and clear majority in the house, then they should forget it for the next 8-I6yrs . . . . .

The funny thing is that those who support universal insurance do so on the grounds that "in a life or death situation, my insurance will give me better service than universal healthcare". . . . these are the same idiots who will be denied insurance on health grounds if they are in a "life or death situation" 

@pres-elect,

i'm tired of debating this health thing. my greatest discouragement is the fact that the people who the govt is trying to help are not being forceful like the paid mobs from the right. if i'm poor and ill, i'll rather have the US govt handle my health care than the CEOs of Health Organisations who are only interested in their pockets.

I thot I'll address this because it is a legitimate concern.

Unlike you, I'll prefer the CEOs than the govt.  The CEOs are in business to provide a service.  Their aim is to provide the greatest service for a minimal cost. They are always under pressure to give more service for less amount because of market competition.  Anyone with outragwous bill for little services will be out of business real quick.  As for the govt however, there aim is to retain power at all cost.  Service is not their concern, neither is your welfare.  The article I posted earlier suggests the bottomline for the govt too is money.  But unlike the CEO, the govt has no competition.  You can only appeal from the govt to the govt. If you don't like what one CEO does, you go to the next one simple.

There is nothing wrong with profit.  Desire for profit drives innovation and eliminates wastes.  Do you know that of the $1 billion set aside for cash for clunkers, more than 10% of it went into administration?  Do you think that will ever happen in a private company?  I don't think so.  The CEO makes his profit by eliminating waste and taking a cut from the money he saves.  For instance, if I run the C4C program as a CEO and only administer the program for 5% of the total cost and requests 1% as compensation, I trust people like you will be crying foul play for the $10 million windfall.  Unkown to you through my skills, I saved you $40 million.  This is the truth that they hide from you when they are talking about parachuting.

Tayo-D:

The CEOs are in business to provide a service.  Their aim is to provide the greatest service for a minimal cost. They are always under pressure to give more service for less amount because of market competition.  Anyone with outragwous bill for little services will be out of business real quick.

Of course, these are economic arguments which are rubbished when the word "cartel" comes into play. . . .  which the health insurance companies of America are!

Lemme school you how we do it in Britian. We have introduced market elements into what is essentially a public good. Private companies (Health Trusts) compete for contracts from the Government. They are mandated to provide services at a fair price set by Government. There is no cream-skimming or turning away of patients. They are paid per capita, and they do also realise profits by cutting beaurocracy. Animals in the Republican Zoo have long been programmed with an anti-Govt phobia, and have been fed the lie that Universal Healthcare is about Government wasting tax payers money on a whole bunch of beaurocracy, but the British example portends a redefinition of what Republican nitwits know as Universal Healthcare. Government sets the price, a fair price.

And of course, if that is not good enough for you, you have the Private option. It'll only cost you £30 a month or thereabout. . . . no thanks to the fact that people in Britain know how much health is supposed to cost, cos the NHS has informed their decision.

@Ibime,

Your Eldorado is rubbished by the reality that is revealed in the article I posted above.  Not only are you denied needed medicine becuase of cost, the cost of providing healthcare has doubled in Britain too in the past 10 years.  Was that caused by the American Cartels too? 

All your fear mongering about cartels is just that: fear mongering.  If anyone could offer the same services for much less, they will do so and put those guys out of business for good.  If economics dictates that those services can be replicated for half the price offered by existing providers, someone will be a billionaire overnight to do just that.  Prices have gone up in Britain as much as in the US, so of what good is the govt other than telling poor people their lives are not worth $60,000?

Tayo-D:

@pres-elect,
I thot I'll address this because it is a legitimate concern.

Unlike you, I'll prefer the CEOs than the govt.  [size=18pt]The CEOs are in business to provide a service.  Their aim is to provide the greatest service for a minimal cost.[/size] They are always under pressure to give more service for less amount because of market competition.  Anyone with outragwous bill for little services will be out of business real quick.  As for the govt however, there aim is to retain power at all cost.  Service is not their concern, neither is your welfare.  The article I posted earlier suggests the bottomline for the govt too is money.  But unlike the CEO, the govt has no competition.  You can only appeal from the govt to the govt. If you don't like what one CEO does, you go to the next one simple.

There is nothing wrong with profit.  Desire for profit drives innovation and eliminates wastes.  Do you know that of the $1 billion set aside for cash for clunkers, more than 10% of it went into administration?  Do you think that will ever happen in a private company?  I don't think so.  The CEO makes his profit by eliminating waste and taking a cut from the money he saves.  For instance, if I run the C4C program as a CEO and only administer the program for 5% of the total cost and requests 1% as compensation, I trust people like you will be crying foul play for the $10 million windfall.  Unkown to you through my skills, I saved you $40 million.  This is the truth that they hide from you when they are talking about parachuting.

What a phony this guy is. The aim of CIGNA is to provide "greatest service" at minimal cost? No their aim is to GENERATE PROFIT FOR SHAREHOLDERS, if they do so by providing minimal service then the better. Why do you think the elderly are all on medicare? Its cheaper and the insurance companies wont take them anyway!

You say you have a healthy family . . . thank God for your life. If you had a child born with congenital problems and you couldnt secure health insurance for him on the basis of pre-existing conditions you wont be defending Ed Hanway and his gang.