US Goverment coul possible be able to shut down internet

The only words I could offer to someone with no insurance at all...is that you saved yourself 500 to 1000 a month for 15 years....avoided screws 1 through 3....went straight to screw 4....and are in pretty much the same boat, without a false sense of security that was very expensive. I know....that's not comforting.

Although we disagree on the health care debate, I agree 100% about the lack of proper and sane regulation. IMO, the move toward deregulation in the last 30-odd years has ripped the under pinnings from our financial system, and if we don't make haste to restore some sensible curbs on the excesses of greed and corruption plaguing the halls of both Wall Steet and Washington, we are in for worse times ahead. I wish I had confidence that our elected officials were moving to restore some of the regulation their predecessors dismantled, but I fear the lobbies are too powerful...

/me sends a cold beer to Linda
I guess politics is most definitely a subject to be avoided in a forum such as this

I say we try to figure out where the heck those new shoes are that SLink promised to release last night!

Even if you read all the fine print...and sit in front of the insurance agent's desk with coffee and doughnuts for two hours to figure it all out ahead of time....it changes the minute you walk out that door with your complimentary calendar.

Recently, I've been thinking of those who stayed in a job they hated for a number of years, solely for the health insurance benefits (and solely for retirement - that's another story)....only to get canned by unaccountable corporation #672.....man, would I be pissed....on top of being scared.

Before I disengage from this topic, I wnt to say I am sympathetic to those people who have shared their stories here, and I agree that the system as it is now is horribly broken and in need of replacing. But I just can't honestly believe that our government would be able to do it more efficiently, cheaply of effectively than what is in place right now. The byzantine machinations of insurance companies have been lucidly iluustrated, but government stil reigns supreme in creating lumbering, cold hearted, inflexible beauracracies, there isn't a service they provide that isn't riddled with fraud and waste.

We are in a big mess here in the States, and a solution is sorely needed. But I have no faith in entrusting those solutions to the very people who are largely responsible for getting us where we are today. Perhaps in places such as Canada and the UK the people running things are more competent than our Fools on the Hill. If so, I wave my pants in salute to them.

My hot buttons were burning yesterday too over this thread, and the debate of Health Care in general. Luckily, I just stepped away for the evening and cooled off...

I do want to make a point, though, about our public discourse. We all seem to have hot buttons. It seems to have reached a point where no one is willing to listen to the other side of the argument and make rational compromises.

For example, ( and bear with me a bit, please) people who support the right to bear arms, and especially the NRA, don't seem to be willing to discuss and support reasonable restrictions on firearms, so we've reached a point where people can legally walk around (in some jurisdictions) with an assault rifle over their shoulder.

Or, for anther example, people who support abortion rights, aren't willing to discuss and support some reasonable restriction on late abortions.

These are two blatant examples of issues where the whole "slippery slope" argument seems to get bandied about with great regularity. The NRA won't support ban on automatic weapons because the next step might be a ban on hunting rifles... etc, etc.

You've all heard these arguments. I say, we make judgements all the time about what is enough, what is too much. Yes, I know there are some for whom any abortion is reprehensible, but I think there are plenty of Americans who agree that a first trimester abortion should be a private medical decision, but begin to feel regulation is appropriate somewhere between the first trimester and the third. By the same token, I'll bet there are plenty of Americans who whole-heartedly support Uncle Joe's right to own a hunting rifle, and even a pistol, but begin to wonder whether Larry the Tweaker really ought to have legal access to an assault weapon. Why aren't we discussing reasonable compromise?

This whole argument about the health care debate.... for one thing, the Administration plan does not even begin to approach a Canadian style single-payer system. As a matter of fact, the Adminstration has or seems to be close to dropping any public option, instead substituting a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance from a private insurer. There is not, nor has there been, any proposal in the plan under discussion to take private insurance away from those who now have it. Neither of those facts has had any effect on the raging debate though. Why, I wonder?

I don't have answers to these questions... I'm just musing, I guess.

interesting article with some clarifications...thought i would share...

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

I don't think the "Ijits on the Hill" (my father's words) know the answers either. They can afford their health care or it's on tax payers' dollar. They're about as far remove from the very people they claim to represent as the CEO of a corporation is from it's bottom rung employees.

As I said, I'd be happy if there was an OPTION for a government run health insurance, especially for those who can't afford the insurance or have health issues that private insurance will not cover.

Otherwise, it's going to have to be a combination of regulation of the private insurance companies and subsidizing those that can't afford it. But the problem with this route is that it would have to be rigorously watch-dogged by the very people that the private insurance companies are now lobbying.

For me, this isn't a "hot button issue." It's more like a despair button. All I feel is stress and worn out. I'd be almost happy with anything that helps reduce the financial burden that health care costs us. But kinda like when dealing with LL.. I'll believe it when I see it and I'm optimistic that they'll completely screw it up when I do see it. It'd sure be nice to be able to afford health insurance and to pay the doctor bills that I do have.

But we have, or rather Obama has compromised already. He's taken single payer off the table and has apparently considered the same with the public option, which would basically make the whole thing useless. There are times for compromise, but I think that this is not one of those times.

I apologize for the paranoid comment as it may have been too harsh. The feeling I had about that came from your comments in the past about all politicians being crooked, etc. I think that any time we say an entire group is bad or is one way or another, we're definitely not being rational about that group. To say that all politicians are corrupt and incompetent is simply not true.

I also have issue when anyone says, "keep your hands of my whatever." It reeks of selfishness. This is not about your plan, this is about the large group of people that have no plan. I'm not saying that you're selfish, but those choice of words make it appear so, especially when we're discussing those who need coverage.

And I never meant to insinuate what you think I did. My point was purely meant to redirect what this debate is about....lack of health coverage for people who need it. While I do think there are a number of people who do not care one whit about others, but I never have got that impression about you.

I can see both sides of this coin. I spent many years working under the poverty level and raising children without insurance. I went into debt and couldn't afford to pay anything but the smallest medical bills. Only in the last five years have I dug myself out of that debt.

I have to say after working hard to get to this point, I do feel a little selfish and keep your hands off mine. I worked damn hard to get to this point. I also wouldn't mind though if things were a little bit more even. *shrugs* I am very conflicted on this issue.

I guess I was mostly musing about us, the people I talk to in RL and SL. It's true that there are political deals and compromises made all the time. Usually not as a result of reasoned discussion about what is right and just, but more often as a result of backroom deals...

I may be wrong, but I believe Obama says now that a single-payer system was never on the table for his reform package. He made statements supporting a single-payer system back in 2003, long before his actual candidacy. His campaign statements indicate he recognized that the political climate wouldn't support such a plan.

Crighton, I've personally long been an advocate for true universal health care in our country. I think our collective national disdain for those less fortunate is appalling. I'm also appalled, though, that we can't just rationally discuss the real issues facing us, without resorting to lies, scaremongering, and misrepresentation, on all sides. My remarks in this thread have mostly been aimed at getting people to actually discuss the real plan before us, not all the crap spewed by the media.

I wish I could continue this... I've got to leave work now, and am driving from L.A. to Eureka tomorrow, so I probably won't be back to the forum til Tuesday. A nice holiday, to all those in the U.S.

Thanks, Jack, for the excellent information about homecare in your state, and for setting the record straight on the "death panels". I think fiscal incentives for better performance in healthcare are a great idea.

Clarissa, I hold no brief at all for drug companies. It's quite clear to me that they will use whatever means they can get hold of to promote their own interests and they don't really care what happens to the people who get hurt. The current news about Pfizer is just more of the same. However, you've been making my point for me when you say the FDA has been working for them. That's because the Bush Administration fired the last honest FDA head and put in a drug company lackey in his place. It really does matter who's running the government.

Here's a meta-observation: size and complexity always create problems. The larger and more complex any system is, the less efficiently it operates. That's true of government and of private industry. Big, complex corporations do not survive because they compete on price or quality. They survive because they have captured market share that gives them momentum. It's a myth that the private sector somehow magically always "gets it right". There are times in the development of a market when dynamic competitive forces produce lower prices and better quality. There are other times, when markets mature, where the forces become oriented toward preserving the status quo. Even Adam Smith, with his "invisible hand", said that sometimes the government has to step in for the good of society as a whole.

Because there are hundreds of different insurance companies in our system, each with their own peculiar set of regulations handed out by their own pencil-pushers, medical providers in the USA face a host of competing and, at times, simply unfathomable and unresolvable conflicts, along with huge overhead costs for paperwork. A single system, with one set of regulations and one set of forms, can only improve the situation. Of course, we're not gonna get a single system--maybe that will have to wait until the current "reforms" collapse.

FDA corruption goes back before that, but we're on the same basic page in that part of the discussion, Esquivel.

I read Jack's post once I'd had some sleep - half of it consisted of definitions I already knew. As to the rest, I'm checking in with people who make their living in the field. Waiting until then to make more comment.

I'm with Lindal and Brenda, in that no one needs to sling names around like "paranoid" simply because a person disagrees with them. I also have not seen anyone blacken the eye of other nations - only express concerns. Maybe THAT is a good definition of paranoid - to see an attack against their home country where there has been none - at least not in this forum.

I can attest that a friend of the family opted for heart surgery here because to wait as long as his (unnamed here) home country would have had him wait could well have killed him.

People who are NOT American and/or did NOT grow up here should also keep in mind that their system is all they know. And so is ours. Also the plans and govts. are not twins. Nor is the current climate.

I can see the points made on each 'side' of the discussion. I have also experienced both sides - been without insurance myself, with all that goes with that. Had a family member bankrupted when her child needed emergency helicopter flight to a hospital after a wreck. I GET IT.

My thinking is, why does it have to be so either/or. What some of us have been saying is simply, YES reform is needed and changes are needed, but we don't like it as proposed. I honestly do not see why that sensible statement, or opinion, should incense anyone.

The term "paranoid" I used was probably incorrect, but what prompts someone to say "All politicians are corrupt/inept/etc?" What is the motivation there? When seen objectively, it's obviously not true. Blanket statements never are. One possibility is a certain paranoia about them, and there are plenty of people that are in this country. While I did not mean to point that word directly at Brenda, I can see how it was taken in that context, hence my apology.

Oh, and I never threw that term around because Brenda and I disagreed. I used it because many people in this country with a disdain for our government ARE paranoid.

But see, you say you dislike blanket statements and just made one, yourself.

There are a lot of awfully good decent working class Americans at those 'tea parties' and they are concerned with reason. Bottom line, (I think) we all want something that will improve the current situation and should not be at odds.

Also some of us might've been a tad facetious or even self mocking a BIT when making such statements. Or perhaps, venting. Still, do you know of many totally honest politicians, or ones who haven't been called out for misconduct? I don't. (I wish I did.)

Where? I said many people are, not all.

I can think of a few right offhand, and if I spent the time to look for good ones, it would not be hard. It's easier to find the bad ones, because they are in the news. Good work usually doesn't receive the press it should. Chuck Hagel (a Republican no less!!) and Dennis Kucinich spring to mind as decent people who've not had scandals, from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Being from Nebraska, I've never heard anything horrible about Hagel, and he even stood up to the Bush administration when it wasn't popular for anyone to do so.

If we spend time looking for negatives, that is what we see and that becomes our reality.

Saying that "many" of a given group are one way or the other is still a blanket statement since there is no possible way to know it is true. It's a sweeping opinion. It's just as fallacious as saying that all politicians are ____. Well perhaps not quite.

I'm not saying I'm devoid of such misconduct myself when an argument gets heated (when discussion becomes argument) anywhere. (Although I try to avoid getting to that point!) I just notice it happens more frequently when people's emotions are engaged.

People are afraid, on BOTH sides of this issue. For different reasons.

Calling Americans who are protesting this, or who see something sinister around the edges of things (NOT just this bill) "paranoid" does them a great disservice. Since I count many such among friends and family I try not to take it personally but it's difficult.

Not trying to single you out, though, Crighton. That word has appeared more than once in the thread.

Ummm...no, it's not a blanket statement. A blanket statement means ALL. I"m not sure how you came up with that, but it's just not true. I didn't say all or most, I said many. Not a blanket statement, unless the blanket has holes or is mesh, perhaps.

Random photo DROP OP!!!!

Alright for the sake of peace I'll say you're right. Fallacious argument then, assumptive logic. LOL. Whatever. "Unfair." ;p

I <3 you.

This I find funny, of course living in florida I know the amount of canadians and europeans that are here..

/me tiptoes in ...

I don't want to get too involved in this argument as I don't understand all the issues in the US, I just wanted to offer a perspective from the other side of the pond. In the UK, most people I speak to are extremely proud of our national health service, for all its faults. I have had two babies on the NHS, one of which was a home birth. I have three family members who have had prompt and successful cancer treatment and when my father was dying, his care was managed at home, as he wished, with daily visits from both his doctor and a community nurse. My son has a long-term condition which requires regular check-ups and very expensive tests to keep an eye on it, and occasionally needs emergency hospital admission. I had an elective operation a few years ago and was offered a choice of three dates. We have national screening programmes for a range of common, life-threatening diseases. New mothers have follow-up visits from midwives and access to district nurses until the child turns 5. We get free contraception. We can call out a doctor at any hour of the day or night.

It is expensive and we pay a lot of tax. It is also, of course, a bottomless pit as the population ages and as more conditions become treatable every year. We do also pay a subsidised rate for prescriptions, eye tests and dental treatment (children, the elderly, pregnant mothers and those on a low income don't pay for these). Lots of things could be done better, in particular, it can be hard to find access to NHS dentistry, and target culture has caused a few problems over the years. Overall, though, I think we get a very good deal. If I, or a family member fell seriously ill, I cannot imagine the stress of having to worry about money for medical bills when already coping with the stress of the illness, or having to decide whether to get a worrying condition checked out or not depending on what's in the bank or whether I have enough insurance. I also like knowing that there are NOT other less fortunate people than me being denied medical care because they lack funds.

I could, if I wished, take out medical insurance as well as relying on the NHS. Lots of people do and it's a very common employee benefit. What that would buy me is faster access to non-emergency treatment and a nicely decorated private room.

Done right, a nationalised health scheme can work very well indeed (nothing will ever be perfect). I understand that not all governments are the same, and that we have had about 60 years to iron out the problems in our system (and we are not there yet, we probably never will be). Good luck, America! If you get a system anywhere near what we have here, you really have nothing to worry about.

/me tiptoes out again.

They do here too. Have you heard of a program called Medicaid, perhaps? Charity hospitals? Free clinics?

You keep changing your ground, and throwing out one sided examples, and I'm tired of it.

Let's take that infant mortality issue. First of all, I disagree that US infant mortality compares with "third world countries". But more importantly, what does our infant mortality rate have to do with who pays the hospitals and doctors? That's what the US health care debate is about, you know. Nothing in Obama's proposal(s) would do a thing to improve infant mortality.

You say you want a choice. You HAVE a choice. I can choose from any of a large number of health insurance plans. HMOs, designated network, no network, fee for service, catastrophic coverage only...it's MY choice.

And yes, there is a difference in who is "skimming off the top". Insurance companies are in competition with each other. If they don't attract customers, they don't make a profit. If they don't profit, they go out of business. The government has no such motivation. True, they don't have a $50 million a year CEO to pay...only an army of a couple of thousand GS-12 bureaucrats. Who happen to cost a lot more than $50M.

People say there is a health care "crisis" and point to specific cases...like denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, or your red herring of infant mortality. This is not a "crisis". This is an indication that SOME issues need to be addressed. The solution, IMO, is NOT to create some vast new government bureaucracy. The solution is to address those specific issues...and the LAST solution that we should look at is more government regulation.

It's possible to design an economic system (health care or anything else) in such a way that the people who are in it produce, collectively, the results you want, simply by pursuing their own self-interest. Look at things like eliminating frivolous malpractice suits. Things like letting a doctor prescribe treatment without being second guessed by a lawyer or a claims adjuster. Things like requiring some defined amount of pro bono service. Things like keeping hospitals from charging $100 for a $2.00 aspirin tablet because they're trying to game the system and get paid at least the $2.00. Things like doctors' win/loss records being publicly available.

Let's take a specific example. My parents had Blue Cross/Blue Shield for many years. They paid their premiums. They seldom had to pay much for medical care, their plan was a good one. My mother required several major surgeries after age 65. They enabled her to have a good quality of life for another 20-plus years. When she and my father were in their late 80's, they entered their final round of illnesses. I was their financial manager at the time, so I saw the bills...about $250,000, in my father's case. All covered. And that quarter-million kept him alive (bedridden, semicomatose much of the time) for only about three months.

Would the bureaucrats running a government program judge that to be cost-effective? Or would they have denied him treatment and let him die three months earlier? Speaking from a purely statistical standpoint, I'd have to say that it would be a pretty good decision. Speaking for my dad, and as his daughter, I'd have to say that it was worth it.

How about my mother's surgeries? Those had a better outcome...but the thing is, you don't know that in advance. Maybe the bureaucrats would have denied her her hip replacements, or her heart bypass, or her mastectomy, based on her expected lifespan and her future "contribution to society".

Take your government-run, taxpayer-supported medical systems and shove 'em.