Anyone else afraid of this health care bill that might get passed?

[+Daniel]

Honestly, this health care bill, among other actions taken by our government over the current (and previous) presidency have been giving me the willies. Our rights have been violated, our money has been bashed/destroyed, I feel like it's time I sought out Galt's Gulch.

Anyone else feel this way... Feeling like your voice has been trampled on? I thought the US was a republic... so much for that! The minority's opinion has so little value with irresponsible politicians (both democrats and republicans) destroying us, our labor, our lives, and the Constitution our country was founded upon.

Yes, I was born in this country and have had a great childhood, but I know that the time may come when I have to emigrate and seek out a place where the government is not stampeding into everyone's business and dictating us with so many un-Constitutional threats.

I lost my girlfriend to brain cancer four months ago this past Tuesday. I am happy that she does not have to witness the debauchery of our Constitution any longer. The true patriots of this country are being silenced by the begging hands of the masses.

Edit: I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I am saying. I appreciate the work of many people in this country. I am defending them here. I am also defending the voices of those who work hard, earn all that they have, and pursue only that which is within their means. My attack, if there is an attack above, is directed towards those who seek to gain by pillaging the success of others-- those who live only to drain the productive energies of those who work. Those who understand that our Constitution must be defended, not defaced and ruined as it is being done by our ever-growing government, should understand where I am coming from...

[caferacermike]

"I am also defending the voices of those who work hard, earn all that they have, and pursue only that which is within their means."

"My attack, if there is an attack above, is directed towards those who seek to gain by pillaging the success of others-- those who live only to drain the productive energies of those who work"

What would you say to those that do work and work and work to make ends barely meet because of whatever unfortunate circumstance they found themselves in, yet they are not provided with any necessary means to health care? I know so many people that are honest, hardworking, and well skilled but for whatever reason they've stumbled into, they currently do not have, nor have access to, affordable health care. I've been very fortunate enough to chose the companies that I've worked for so that I have always had good health care, however my company has been making huge cuts to and repricing our health care every year for the last 4. I do worry that in the very near future I will not have a job as we've had to let so many people go. Then what? I suddenly have no health care and I've been a very productive worker and quite the charitable giver as well. Will that make me a leach upon your society? I will also take my girlfriend off of her health care as I pay for that as well through my employer based care. Will you then look down upon the both of us?

I do feel that if the Govt. can provide such an outstanding health care coverage for its employees (Especially our politicians) that the exact same health plan should be made available to every citizen at a fair price, say $30 a week per person. And if that cripples the private industry, so be it. They can restructure their programs to compensate and compete.

What really galls me is that there does not seem to be adequate health care regulation. How many of us really know what we are covered for? How many of us know somebody that has been paying into the system for years only to find themselves denied coverage when the need it the most? Does anybody besides myself find it slightly criminal that all insurance companies feel that its first response to a large claim, such as cancer or a handicapped child, should be to deny the claim and pile it under a mountain of paperwork hoping the problem will go away?

And I do understand your conundrum. I have always been a cash in hand person. I've never had a checking account and I only have a cc so that I can book flights when flying and to secure hotel rooms. I have zero debt besides my house payment. I pay for all of my vehicles in cash and do not finance them. We bought the cheapest house that we possibly could in the even that one of us should lose their job we could still afford to keep it. Yes the house is crap but we can actually afford it. But that simply is not the case for everyone. You would be a heartless jackass should you lay down your previous views upon everyone for what they do. Yes it drives me crazy to think that people I know buy $250K houses on the same salary as me with an ARM loan they could not afford. Yes I'd love for them to burn in hell for this. Yet I cannot be so cold and heartless as to force upon their children, who have no control or say in any of this, that they should not be taken care of for their health needs.

It just isn't that cut and dry, black or white. I wish it was but there are always so many facets to every story.

[Rjohn]

Just as an aside, the US is by definition a republic. The voters select representatives who run the government for them. However, this is not strictly true. In actuality, the US is an oligarchy. We are ruled by the rich. At last count, 237 members of Congress and 100 members of the Senate are at the least millionaires. Some of them are much more wealthy than that. What does it say when the mayor of New York City spends 100 million dollars of HIS own money in his finance campaign? The Austin mayor and council members regularly spend in excess of 2 million dollars EACH to gain a seat in the Austin City Council. Our political system is flawed and skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy, but it is still the best thing going out there. With the checks and balances built into the our government, nothing is EVER permanent, except taxes. Wait a while, everything will change.

[+Daniel]

My fight here isn't with whether the current system has flaws-- it has a whole lot of them. But I know that the idea of socialized medicine is going to make things worse. We’ve had corporate medicine now for about 30 years (which in reality has just been "managed medicine" by the government), and it has been a total disaster. Its only credit has been to push the costs up. Medicine should be delivered in the marketplace like other goods and services. I don't see why we can't do this.

No one ever seems to talk about why the costs of medicine are so high. Part of it is due to the government-induced inflation, either by its involvement in various areas of the economy or by its bogus fiat money. Wherever the government is involved in an industry or service, you see prices go up.

One big issue I see is how we all view the purpose of insurance. Insurance should ONLY serve to protect you in the event of heart attacks, cancer, and other expensive, unexpected events in our lives. Unfortunately, our concept of insurance today is that it is just a prepaid service. Insurers are supposed to measure risk. They're supposed to cover you for those major events, but now when you talk about health insurance that means "pay for everything." Market factors are needed, some self-control by the patient is needed, and an incentive not to waste services is needed.

Years ago, before there was medicare, medicaid, or the socialized medicine they are now discussing, people were NOT on the streets begging for medical care, like you often see happening now. People had medical insurance to cover them in the event of anything serious or expensive and they paid for the other services out of pocket. Those who did not have medical insurance STILL RECEIVED COVERAGE. According to Ron Paul, "In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."

With the managed care we've had for the last 30 years, and now with socialized medicine coming, trust me, quality will go down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines and nobody will be happy. What do you see in countries around the world with socialized medicine? You don't honestly believe its all roses over there, do you? Socialized medicine in European countries has resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and for some, permanent illness or death because they could not get the care that they needed.

Are doctors partially to blame? Sure. The current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license. Furthermore, costs costs also go up because doctors fear litigation. They order unnecessary tests, perform extra services, and waste our resources just to avoid getting sued.

Also, a nationalized system isn't “free”-- someone has to pay for it. To quote Ron Paul, "...and why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?"

The only solution we need is one that will make health care more affordable. A system that allows true free-market competition puts pressure on the health providers to lower costs to remain in business. A change in the tax code to allow a person to fully deduct the cost of health care from their taxes would also be appropriate. The tax benefit would also give the added means to afford the smaller expenses which should not be covered by insurance (eg: a doctor's visit). These two steps, plus the elimination of government-supported health care monopolies, would make access to health care more affordable.

The government’s original role, as set forth by the Constitution, is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. I don't want to see us as a nation of slaves-- pleading to the government for our every need. The rugged individualism which made this country great is being choked out.

[innate1]

I won't venture into the political debate but I do wonder why there is no talk of legislating that insurance companies be held accountable for their actions. On one hand they will state that losses were high so they must raise premiums and cut benifits and then to the stock holders they speak of record profits.

[Rjohn]

I really think this is not an appropriate forum for this discussion. It belongs on talk radio.

[GKarshens]

This is the "General Discussion" forum so as long as everyone keeps there posts clean and don't attack each other it is fine.

I think Daniel and Mike both make valid points. The problem is it will never be solved completely. In the meantime we need the best we can get. I tend to think that there is nothing wrong with socialized medicine. Daniel you talk about how terrible it is in Europe and other places. I have talked to several people and been to several of these countries. You are being led to believe it is that bad by the people that want to continue to profit insanely from the costs of medicine. Every single person I have talked to that comes from a place with socialized medicine cannot understand why we have such a hard time with the situation here. They have told me that the health care is just as good, with no waiting, and free.(If you don't count the taxes paid.) The thing is I am all for people working hard and getting rewarded for it, but like Mike said there are far more that work even harder and don't have the circumstances to get the same reward. Go ask a guy that does landscaping in the summer heat for 14 hours a day if he is a hard worker. Does he not deserve to have health care the same as the guy that works hard in an office making many times more income?

I'll even give you my own example. I am employed by a very small company that does not offer benefits. I work very hard and in the heat. I make a pretty good living and would consider myself middle class. I did not have insurance for years. A couple years ago I busted my knee and needed surgery. I had to get on my wife's policy to be able to afford it. She works for a large group of doctors and has a group plan. The premiums for just me were $350 a month. On top of that I had a $4000 deductible and then it paid 80% until I had paid another $4000. So altogether it cost me a little over $12,000 not counting 2 months off work and all the co-pays to get my knee fixed. And that was with a major group insurance policy. I have since gotten my own policy that costs about $180 a month. On this one I have had some stomach issues and now have a $3000 bill in just trying to figure out what is going on, which they still are not sure. Without insurance these 2 relatively small incidents would have bankrupted us. So I can't imagine how it works out for most people that make less than I do and have no access to insurance. So while the current offering that the bill is making may not be the best case scenario, it is a heck of a lot better than what we got!

[caferacermike]

Support for Innate1 and GK. I think you both understand some of my qualms about the "industry".

Daniel you say that people that go to the doctor's office for an upset stomach are abusing the system eh? Well the last time I checked it would run you about $500 for that visit. That is actually some very serious coin to many folks. To me I would count that as a belt drive for the Norton or 1/2 a pinball machine. Now what if that same visit needed follow ups of say $150 3 times. That's $1,000. Who has that kind of coin around? If it were only $30 to see a doctor for a visit and about $20 for treatment or meds, then sure I'd pay it out of pocket. Alas when a new MRI costs several million dollars, the hospitals and doctors feel the need to recoup that money somehow such as charging us $100 for an aspirin.

Here is where I'll go cross the black and white line and make it grey as all get out. What happens when that stomach ache, or back ache (kidneys), is actually a horrible cancer or HepC? Who pays for that? I mean heck you go to the doctors a few times for a stomach ache, get some meds, pay out some coin, only to find out later that instead of getting a full battery of tests to prove what is going on, that you now have full blown cancer. But in the mean time the insurance has been sitting back laughing at you while you pay out of pocket for all this work because it has not yet been proven to be cancer. As you put it earlier, until you can prove it is cancer - no insurance pay out. So does that mean I would have to pay out the $5,000 in testing or worse yet $20,000 for a biopsy, to prove to the insurance company that they now need to begin treatments? And for what? Now my simple tumor has turned into full blown cancer that is eating away at my body.

Wow this sounds like I'm speaking from experience huh? Well yeah I am and it sucks. I have a friend that lost his daughter to cancer when she was 5 years old. The insurance company told them that the cancer was not far enough along to pay for the special treatment she needed to put it in remission. When it was, it was to late to save her. I now charitably sponsor the event that supports the group that helped them the most during this time, The Candlelighters association at the Any Baby Can foundation off of 7th street. The group has now averaged a donation of $30k a year to that organization. Another close friend of mine has been fighting his insurance company for the last 4 years as he lost his liver to HepC and his kidneys have been failing due to the added stress of the failed liver. Every time I visit him he is a little more orange and 1 foot closer to his early death. Had the system worked with him, for him, 10 years ago, he would have been able to receive treatment and would be well on his way today.

[Zarathustra2]

The reason that health care is not able to be adequately distributed through free marketplace means is that it is the exact definition of an inelastic and rare commoditiy. There is also two other main issues going into the healthcare debate that the free market is unable to resolve, namely 1. healthcare is a humanitarian commodity and 2. low cost, regular maintenance greatly reduces the profit of a hospitol.

The core of the issue for me is, what is the most efficient way to distribute this absolutely neccisarry service in a humanitarian way for the least cost to the country overall. The european and canadian systems have found that by providing regular preventative medicine to everyone at taxpayer expense (the only to do so) that the overall cost of medicine for the entire country declines while key health indicators, such as lifespan, infant mortality rates ect, improve significantly. So, we have more humanity in our lives while decreasing costs and raising the standard of living for the entire nation, this is almost the definition of a service that a government should provide. In fact, real world examples bear this out. The united states spends more money per capita than any other nation in the world on health care. We are at the same time very low in the list of industrialized nations for quality of care, lifespans and infant mortality rates. We are also at the bottom of the list of industrialized nations for the amount of people who are actually covered.

Lets take a look at the example above. In the united states we have a fine woman who has stomach pains. She is the mother of 2 kids with a father who has a blue collar job but hasn't earned benefits yet. Since she doesn't have insurance she puts off going to the hospitol. She takes some over the counter medication that helps some but not an immense amount. After a couple of weeks she falls over while working at her waitress job. An ambulance is called and she is whisked to the emergency room. The level 3 trauma team needs to perform emergency surgery where her appendix has burst across her abdomen. This changes a routine appendectomy into a very involved procedure where most of the organs must be removed and cleaned and put back in. This also extends the recouperation time and chance of relapse. After her surgery she would have a couple of weeks before being able to return to her job. At the same time the emergency nature of the bills would have most likely bankrupted her entire family. She would not have been able to pay the medical bills and... catch this... the rest of society would pay her bills through higher insurance rates and costs of hospitols. (note that the leading cause of americas high cost of medicine is not malpractice lawsuits but rather emergency care that cannot be paid for. At the hospitol my girlfriend works at approximately 50% of all ER visits are defaulted.)

If this same woman was in Canada she would have just gone to the doctor for her bad stomach pain. The doctor would have scheduled a non-emergency surgery for a routine appendectomy. Her husband would drive her to the hospitol if it was at a later date. This would be an outpatient surgery with little to no downtime. She would be back on her feet in a week tops and back to being a taxpaying contributer of society.

So, to get back to the core of the arguement. It is much cheaper for society as a whole to pay for it's citizens healthcare. It is also the humanitarian thing to do. There is no rule of god that says that employer paid healthcare is the way to go. In fact it was mostly a series of bad luch events resulting from the WW2 era of companies needing to find a way to attract workers without going above goverment instituted salary caps that were mandated for the duration of the war. We as a society will end up either making unconsionable decisions and letting the poorest members of our society die, or we will end up paying for thier helathcare anyways.

Ecomonically I think the choice is clear and presented as successful in many other countries. Ethically I think the choice is even clearer.

[GKarshens]

Well said!

[caferacermike]

Bravo.

[pbnj]

Is it perfect? No, by all means, but it's such a huge step in the right direction. More needs to be done in terms of actually reducing health care costs.

I watched the coverage of the House debate on Saturday and I had to laugh when I heard Republicans saying that people are not currently being denied access to care in ERs, just like in the Ron Paul quote you provided. Yes, very true. Hospitals, by law, have to treat you. But while everyone can GET care, not everyone can AFFORD care.

What those opposed to the Bill fail to recognize or address is that an expensive trip to the ER without health insurance coverage can force an individual or family into bankruptcy. Just doing a CAT scan in an ER is over $2,000. Take a look at some trends of health care costs over the last 10-20 years and let me know if that "People had medical insurance to cover them in the event of anything serious or expensive and they paid for the other services out of pocket" argument is still applicable today. Now project those trends out over the next 10-20 years and try to imagine those out-of-pocket costs.

Like I said, the Bill's not perfect. But the biggest things to come out of the Bill are no more exclusions based on pre-existing conditions (the biggest insurance scam going), no dropping of your coverage, and no lifetime caps on coverage.

And for those who would argue that just creating competition among the insurance companies will reduce premiums and costs by allowing them to compete across statelines, think again. They will all just incorporate and sell insurance through the state that offers them the best chance at colluding to rip us off, just like the banking industry does in Delaware.

As for the "$1.2 trillion over 10 years" number the Republicans are so up in arms about, funny how they didn't bat an eye at passing the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act in 2003 (which is projected to cost $534 billion over 10 years) when they had the majority in Congress. Could it be because that law pads the pharmaceutical companies' pockets, while this new Bill will take money away from the health insurance industry? Don't get me wrong, I was in favor of that law, but I'm in favor of this new Bill as well.

Edited November 9, 2009 by pbnj

[GKarshens]

I forgot to mention that my new insurance policy excludes my knee even though I was given, and provided them, with 100% recovery by the surgeon and the Physical Therapist.

[pbnj]

I forgot to mention that my new insurance policy excludes my knee even though I was given, and provided them, with 100% recovery by the surgeon and the Physical Therapist.

Oh, those darn pre-existing conditions.

Hey, no more heavy tank lifting for you, my friend.

[muddybluewater]

I have a tank that is cracked anyone want to buy it. It is just a preexisting condition. LOL

I know health care and the need for reform is not funny.

[+Daniel]

pbnj, I believe you misunderstood my reference to people not being denied coverage PRE-government involvement 30 years ago. RP, was describing how things WERE, not how they are now. Plenty of people are being denied health care and getting screwed today. I don't want things to stay the same, but I don't want socialized medicine, either.

I think the issue here is that we all assume that the massive costs in health care we're seeing today (see CRM's post, GK's post, pbnj's post) are a result of there NOT being a government entity around to set prices of health procedures, provide access to health services, distribute the expense of an individual over everyone, etc. That's a fallacy.

You're telling me that the same government which continues to trash the US dollar by printing money from thin air can now somehow afford to provide every American with health care? How much will that cost? Where will that money come from? Shall we levvy more taxes on the "rich"? Or better yet, we'll just print it like all the Keynesians keep telling us to do! This is the same government which has SINGLE HANDEDLY caused the current economic crisis by its poor fiscal and monetary policies...is that whom we're to entrust with managing the costs of health care for 300 million Americans? This is the same government which has acted un-Constitutionally in its foreign relations (pre-emptive wars, entangling agreements/treaties, American troops in 135 countries), is that a government now fit to make decisions on behalf of everyone regarding their health and their money?

Do you all really believe that government is magically able to provide solutions to everything? I'm afraid it's not. There's no money, there's no brains, and there's no Constitutionality. GK-- my comments on socialized medicine in other countries are based primarily on the experiences of two of my family members, one who lives in Germany, the other in Canada. I quoted RP since I'm not as eloquent.

It would be truly splendid if we could all receive health care coverage-- we have two options: 1) we can accept the high costs and allow the government to step in and pay for it by placing the load of the financial burden on those rich devils and ALSO by printing the money we don't have AND hope that they do a solid job handling another trillion bucks, OR 2) we can force costs to go down by allowing the markets to finally act unrestrained (Zara-- truly free markets can provide lower costs across the board) AND reduce our tax burden so that we can pay the suddenly more affordable expenses of medical care. Biopsies would NOT cost $20k were it not for the current government health care monopolies. Knee surgeries would NOT cost $12k if it were not for the same meddling. Does anyone recall what any of these services cost 30 years ago? True, not all the same technologies were available... but you know what? Technology makes things CHEAPER, not more expensive. Yet everything is absurdly expensive today. Again, why are things more expensive? Its because of the government's fiscal games, its health care monopolies (see previous post), and its incompetence in almost everything it does (oh, except for fooling us... its plenty good at that!).

But more important than anything else, are the Constitutional ramifications of this bill and other government actions as of late. Quite simply, the difference between this country and all those in Europe and elsewhere SHOULD be our Constitution. Our Constitution was a short, humble document and specified exactly what our government should look like: SMALL, nimble, and FEARFUL of the people. None of that is true today.

Since the Federal Reserve came around ~90 years ago, our government has been growing and growing... and getting more and more irresponsible, unaccountable, and overbearingly incompetent. And guess what's happening to average people... we are getting more and more screwed. Those of you who are working lose how much of your salary each day to government taxes? Each month? Over your lifetime? We've been paying an arm and a leg for a long time now and what do we have to show for it? A clumsy war-mongering government? A bulky and truly incompetent federal reserve? And yet, this is the government you all seem to embrace and are willing to entrust with the health of every American?

Zara-- here's one of two issues with your argument: the Constitution does not describe "humanitarianism", not even if you make a stretch. Nonetheless, it does give all powers not explicitly mentioned TO THE PEOPLE. Humanitarianism, requires HUMANS. It requires PEOPLE. It requires organizations like CRM mentioned. Private organizations-- churches, charities, etc are created by motivated people (again, see CRM's post) NOT by the government. Organizations that actually get things done are NEVER entities of the government. It's the private markets, the private ambitions of individuals and groups, which provide the humanitarianism we see glimmers of today. As for the second issue, the government which I have already described above is the same that you claim can offer us the "most efficient" means of allocating health care. Really? Our dollar diminishes daily-- if they can't protect our currency, how can they serve the far more complicated matter of health care?

Look, judging by the posts above, we've all either personally experienced or know someone who has experienced the faults of this current system. The costs are high, the waste is high, the pain is high... we all want something new. Again, I am not in favor of our current system, nor am I in favor of the current socialized direction which many of you support-- a government-induced problem simply cannot be resolved by a government-manufactured solution when government is the problem. I suspect many of you have formed your arguments from only being aware of what the situation has been for the last 30 years-- I encourage you all to look more than 30 years back. How much did a doctor's visit cost you? How was care? Was it poor? Did you suffer in excess? True, life expectancy may have been lower during that time period, but that was due to lesser technology. The gains we do see in our life expectancy and other things today are despite those setbacks caused by government. More government in our lives makes us all poorer, both in the wallet and in our bones, that much is certain.

[doktorstick]

You would be hard-pressed to find someone that does not agree that the health care system needs some lovin'. However, I don't think government is the way to solve the problem.

As for quoting Canadians or Europeans, many have second-hand anecdotal evidence that their system is either a) TEH AWESOME, or b) TEH SUCK. I have a contractor-turned-friend that's from Canada, and he won't be treated in Canada because of how abysmal it is. The Canadian healthcare system is falling down, and for specialist medical care, they contract with the United States. Wow.

Fix medical malpractice lawsuits and doctor's insurance. Allow me to get insurance from another state. Yes, under federal law you cannot shop beyond your own state. Wow again. Competition drives prices down.

Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt (government "humanitarian" policies). Do you believe the same will not happen with government health care?

A quote from Thomas Jefferson that just seems very apropos:

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Edited November 10, 2009 by doktorstick

[Zarathustra2]

I'm sorry, but you just can't argue about medicine more than 30 years ago and try to apply it to modern times. Its the same thing as trying to compare a gold standard economy to a modern economy. Your just looking at two different things. Prior to the 80s we did not have a lot of the treatments and diseases that are out there today. AIDS was in its infancy. Now it is possible to live a pretty long and productive life with HIV/AIDS. Chemotherepy was a brand new technology. Pennicillin still worked for staph infections. Major organ transplants were in thier infancy. Gene therepy and sequencing wasn't even in the science fiction books.

Medicine does not work as a free market commodity. When it was a true free market commodity you had snake oil salesmen selling patent medicines that were really just tinctures of opium to cure women of the vapors. So doctors became regulated and the FDA was created. When insurance was unregulated you got the horrors of the early insurance companies during the 70s and early 80s, charging rates and denying services that required expensive lawsuits and regulating legislation to fix and a recap of the same issues after de-regulation in the 90s. In this decade we are seeing a core issue where our country is paying much larger sums for healthcare than all other industrialized nations and getting a poorer level of care.

So to your specifics:

1. NO, medicine does not work in a full free market economy. The reason is that due to the inelasticity of the commodity is it far too subject to collusion and gouging for real medicine. Also, due to the nature of the subject it is very susceptable to fraud. Even today you see hundreds of thousands of products to fix everything from gout to erectile disfunction that ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE FDA. Think about it. There is a fraud dection mechanism in place that even the dumbest in society can follow and we still have a huge amount of fraud in the medical industry as a whole.

2. Humanitarianism: The government is not responsible for humanitarianism and there is no gaurentee in the constitution. I completely agree. However, projects which will greatly impact the quality of life for the entire nation and will help the nation develop are absolutely in the governments ken and interest. I would personally say that a cordinated base level of health care for it's citizens is just as justified as a government project than the interstate highway system, the web of laws concerning air travel and safety or the federal government providing money for schooling.

3. Powers of the Government: Actually it relegates the powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states. Regulating interstate commerce is one of the powers explicitly given to the federal government and I am sure that is the power they will use to justify the healthcare bill. I would personally imagine that after all the dust has settled and the courts have had thier say we will have a similar system to the current road system. Large highways and bridges built by the federal government with additional support provided by each state with varying amounts of that provided by private companies. Or, In this case, a backbone of care provided by the federal government for major issues with each individual state having some variety of care depending on that state's thoughts.

4. The money: Ahhh, the big issue. Here is the thing. The money will come from the same place that our current healthcare spend comes from. The money is just moving around, and, if this is done correctly, there will be less of it moved. The main reason there should be less of it moved is because we are taking the profit motive out of the insurance game. As a whole we spend more money than any other industrialized nation on healthcare while recieving one of the lowest levels of care. This is our big sign that the current system is unsustainable. The systems that seem to be at the right break off point for spending vs. quality of care all seem to have government sponsored and monitored insurance types of systems. The nordic countries seem to be particularly successful, providing the best quality of life statistics at a cost that is significantly lower than the united states system when looked at on either a per capita spending or a GDP percentage. At the same time it would be very difficult to say that the Dutch or Swedes are not a freedom loving democracy. There are examples of problem systems. I have personally visited canada many a time and had to get a torn knee set up after an ice related injury in ottawa. The care i recieved in the great white north AS A VISITOR FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY was very comparable to the care I recieved in the US. Here is the thing, it was cheap for them. Since it was not a break, i never actually saw a doctor. Nurses were able to help me. I visited the day clinic in downtown ottawa and was in and out in just a couple of hours... for no cost to me. Most of the people i know from ottawa may have gripes with the current system. However, all of them would prefer the canadian system to the US one.

Another example, I had broken a toe while I was traveling to India. India has a great way of supplementing health care. They provide a bounty to any doctor who sees a patient. So, you see 100 patients you get 100k rupees from the government. After that it is very hands off. So I visited a doctor. He xrayed my toe and verified that I had set it correctly. Re splinted it with something besides a popsicle stick, and gave me a nice pain pill. All for about 5$ US. This was the same cost and level of care that ANYONE could recieve.

So, we know there is a problem with our system. We have other systems that, to all appearances, work better than ours from both a cost and quality of life level. So yes, it is absolutely the governments job to step in and change the current system. Is the democrats current bill the right way to go, no, I don't think so. I think there needs to be a bare level of nationally provided health care for all. I also don't think that the swedish system could work for the united states. We do not have a strong enough central government and our population centers are far too spread out and "sprawling" comparaitively. That being said, I think taking the blue cross/medicare program and extending it as a base level of coverage for ALL is probably the right way to go. The congressional budget office estimates this as a cost of $1T over 10 years. So, 100B a year. This is on par with the last 7 years of the war on terror with a much larger payoff. And remember, this is money that we are already paying for our healthcare services, not an additional spend. We are just shifting the collector of the money from a for profit insurance company to a not for profit government agency.

[Rjohn]

Two issues I think need to be addressed:

1) There needs to be a way for sick people to get help other than an emergency room. Emergency rooms are for people that are dying or severely injured, not for people with the flu. However a lot of people show up there cause they no other access to medical care. This passes the costs onto the hospital and indirectly to everybody.

2) If students take government funds for medical school, then after completion, they should have to spend X number of years in government service. There are a lot of areas, particularly out west where doctors are hundreds of miles apart. Putting in government clinics staffed by doctors and nurses working off their student loans would alleviate a lot of this problem. Also, I am not sure the government should be paying for dermatologists and other specialty areas.