Same happened with the deregulation of Wall Street…nothing to worry about…and that worked out well.

In fact, there are no problems to be dealt with at all in America….except that taxes are still too high on millionaires.

The bill is not about coverage or costs at all at this point, it's simply a political football representing win/lose for Obama and the incompetent dem leadership. It will either die or end disastrously for Americans.

That led to the give-everything-to-insurers mess we're looking at now in the Senate.

Jeff…two things….

1) The government has not created the health-insurance-costs-too-much crisis. Insurers, whether you believe it or not, contribute blsolutely nothing to the health care of Americans. Just the opposite. Insurers make profits by denying procedures, treatments, tests, etc…..for those with insurance. They are parasites.

2) Please don't call my longtime good blog friend, Andrea…."dear." Thanks.

Wrong again, it is GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in the free market that got us into the mess we have now. The STATES can mandate what is covered in your health insurance policy, WHY, why do I have to pay for HIV care, why cant I purchase a policy without it? That would be free market, that would be competition.

If I am at risk for a certain disease, then I can pick a plan that covers it, that is freedom to choose.

The problem with your solution is simple, place a not for profit option, and dont give people the ability to choose their coverage, then the not for profit gains a large competitive advantage, especially when you couple it with taxpayer subsidies, and not just insurance revenues. And as private insurance premiums increase due to legislative forces (eliminating pre-existing condition exemptions for one (ps, if you have insurance you can not be denied a change in insurance for a pre-existing condition) )( Would it be fair to allow someone to buy fire insurance once their house caught fire? think what it would do to insurance?)
The companies who offer it, would slowly be forced to drop coverage for their employees due to the excessive cost, placing a bigger and bigger burden on government, and leading to law makers making the next logical (and fatal) step to a single payer socialized system (one we know does not work and one we as a people can not afford).

But again none of you neo-soc's will answer the simple question, why does this cost 10 times what it would cost to insure the 8 million or so who want insurance and cant afford it?

Taxes: YOU CAN NOT DEDUCT YOUR MEDICAL EXPENSES UNTIL THEY REACH 7.5% OF YOUR AGI. and only the amount of 7.5 % That my dear is not 100% deductible which is what Da King said. If you make 40k you need med expenses of over 3000 to deduct them and only what is over 3000. That is crap, and you know it, give a 100% deduction for insurance, and provide competitive insurance across state linesincluding catastrophic plans and you will solve 95% of the un-insured problem.

Next you can not deduct them if you dont reach the standard deduction for all your deductions.

The rest, provide health insurance to those who can not afford it an are WORKING, no more free lunches, if you cant get a job, we can find one for you, how about picking fruit, sweeping streets, why shouldnt people give a fair days work for a fair days pay?

The public option was crap, and you know it. Dont tell me it would cut costs, at best it would pass them on to the taxpayer, as opposed to the insurance buyer.
Next just because it is "out" of this bill doesnt mean it wont surface somewhere else, this congress is great at hiding what it is really doing.

Still no answer on why we need to rush this, when it does not take effect until 2013 at the earliest. And costs the taxpayer 10 times what it needs to.

And still where is it constitutional to FORCE people to buy health insurance or go to jail (I know, in the extreme case, but the threat is there) and dont try the car insurance analogy it does not fly. 1. It is the STATE not the Fed that requires insurance, 2. The state does not force you to buy it, you can provide proof that you can pay out of pocket. 3. Driving is a privilege granted by the state, is living a privilege granted by the fed government.

Also, Tort Reform does not screw the aggrieved party, what it does is prevent the rich trial attorneys from cashing it, Doctors are still liable, just the awards are capped to prevent abuse by the trial lawyers (who vote and by Dem votes)
When some woman gets 9 mil for spilling coffee on herself, dont you think some intelligence is needed to protect us from the madness, who do you think paid that no mcdonalds, but everyone that buys food from mcdonalds, they just pass it on, and that is one reason why the drug companies charge so much, the other is countries like Canada, cap what drug companies can charge for the same drug sold here, so guess who gets screwed we do, If governments stayed out, we would pay less, canadians a little more, and the company makes the same reasonable profit. 3% is not getting rich, not when some jerk can sue for Billions.

NEXT dear Andrea, the cuts in Medicare, are for a program that competes with AARP's supplemental insurance so the cut is just a payoff for getting the AARP to support this, so the AARP can sell more insurance, so again, the american people get screwed.

Why has none of the Republican plans been debated, instead we are getting one viewpoint railroaded down our throats, congress is again violating its own rules, threats, intimidation and payoffs rule the day, Someone threaten Liebermans wife, someone is threatening ND Senator with closing Offuit AFB, Landreu gets a 300 million payoff, and for what, 1.2 trillion in new debt, and still 24 million uninsured. Tell me again that this is a good deal.

Andrea, do a search on the Cloward Piven Strategy and the people who are now advocating it, and learn what is really behind all this. And what it means for freedom.

As for Da Kings ideas – states that have tort reform does not mean they will save customers a dime . Just look at Texas – Tort reform there did not pass any savings on to customers only to the doctors . Texas one of the most expensive states for health care HAS Tort reform . YES they do ! So by having it more doctors go to Texas and enjoy cheaper insurance but no savings to consumers. And if your doctor screws up and you are dead , well tuff luck , who cares – hes not going to be held accountable.
You actually think they will just hand over a savings to us with NO government regulation?
You can have more free free clinics sure -but if you do not mandate people to take on a health care plan and pay something towards it – whose going to pay for the free clinic? Oh my, I guess it is US –
#4 doesn't help the poor to be able to afford health care, it only helps those who are well off. And right now you can deduct your out of pocket health care expenses if over a certain amt compared to what you earn .#6 might sound like a good idea- although I seem to recall many republicans not liking that one . And there is also safety issues – who will check these drugs to make sure they are what they are supposed to be?
And 9 #10 is in the Obama plan – that what the republican are fighting against when Obama says he making cuts in medicare – this is the cost savings he proposed.
Having a government run health care plan to compete with PR insurance would have brought down the price because a government plan would have a large pool of people . The only reason why some government run programs are not as successful as private ones is because YOU want them for FREE . You want them to run on AIR – and not pay taxes.
As for your question I cant answer it because I have no clue where you get such statements from . All I can say is right now we pay about 10 – 20 times more
for their health care when they go to the ER for care than we would if
they were to go to a primary care physician.