Again King, who needs it most? How do you decide that? By what methodology?

King says: I just think if we turn health care over to the government, the evidence says the waiting lines for treatment will get a lot longer, as they have everywhere else that government health care has been implemented. That isn't an improvement.

Yes…for SOME treatments – lines will form…How do you control costs without controlling the use of technology?

The creation of lines for SOME treatments does NOT mean the overall health system not improved…Those other places you speak of have by most measures BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR LESS MONEY THAN US.

Two final points:
1. Can there be a meaningful debate/solution that leaves 30% of the pie undiscussed and off the table? (End of life care).

2. I think – BASIC health care should NOT be commoditized…it should be as universal as public school. (and don't take off on public ed…it's a whole other set of variables).

Yes, as I'd be against any health care construct that denied care to those who need it most. I want to improve health care as much as everyone else does. I don't have any fealty to insurance companies. I just think if we turn health care over to the government, the evidence says the waiting lines for treatment will get a lot longer, as they have everywhere else that government health care has been implemented. That isn't an improvement.

Sorry about your mom…The elders in my family are all but gone & leaving fast, some/many of them suffered and clung and clung way past any chance of regaining any symbalance(sp) of independence or quality of life. My point: This is not an abstraction to me, I am upclose to this issue right now.

You talk about being more respectful to human life…I think maybe you should define RESPECT and LIFE. Do you call what we (typically) do with the chronically/terminally ill – respect? Life = can you fog a mirror?

Oft times laying up be-tubed, mostly unconcious and restrained until who knows when? That's respecting life?

You guys seem to think (as much of the nation), that because we CAN do something (medical technology), we should. That premise is flawed in too many ways to discuss here.

And how about this guys: accept the fact that you are going to die. The question is how. Me…I'm going out WIPING MY OWN BUTT if I have anything to do with it. YOU RUGGED INDIVIDUALS.

The irony here (and in this nation) is nothing short of poetic: You guys aren't brave or rugged…You are selfish and you are afraid.

Larry – Idunno, I throw 7 or 8 (I'm not counting), thoughts out and you light on one? And I'm a nazi creep…LMAO…keep up the good work.

King – One more question: Had your Mother's private insurance company denied treatment would you be ANTI private insurance??
I certainly understand the emotion behind your statement…It doesn't make it correct, proper, or reasonable.

And if you don't want anyone profiting off of sick people, that should include the government, so you should be applauding the fact that those health care benefits are not taxed (even though they WILL be if ObamaCare goes into effect).

Employers (and employees) pay no payroll taxes on health benefits, even though according to King, employees "earn" their health care. And so anyone who has employer paid health coverage is participating in a socialistic scam.

Some who are participating, like larry, have no problem with tax dollars being used to subsize him….he just doesn't want anyone else in on the scam.

And I always find the "for-profitting off the backs of the ill and suffering" lobby……I don't know…..endearing.

I think we should take a different tack. One that is respectful of human life. I don't want to go down the road where the government tells me when I should check out, based upon some financial calculation. My mother died last year, after being sick for three years, and I was pretty grateful to have those last few years with her. If the government had refused her treatment to save a few bucks, that might have turned me into an even more radical anti-government type than I already am. A lot more.

But you've given me an idea to write a post about what kind of health care reform I think we should make, not that my suggestions are worth anything. I don't get to decide. It would start with all but poor people paying for most of their own health care, like they pay for most of their own everything else. I'd reserve health insurance for only disastrous occasions (surgery, hospital stays), just as all other types of insurance are used. I mean, you don't make an auto insurance claim when you get your oil changed. You don't make a homeowner's insurance claim when you paint your house. Neither should you make a health insurance claim for a routine doctor's visit or a non-serious illness that only requires routine treatment. You should pay for it yourself. That simple act would eliminate much of the unnecessary tests and bureaucracy that dominate health care now. That would go for Medicare patients too, which would decrease the Medicare entitlement costs.

I don't know how much time we have to participate in comparison, frank. What are your surfing habits?

If you would just tell me what about my post that you dispute, I would answer. Do you not think that the present system burdens the private insurance companies with extra costs? Do you not think that a system which saddles US companies with significant costs not incurred by their rivals is bad for the economy?

As to the dispute about overhead costs. I didn't endorse Obama's plan. I am not even sure I knew what it was. What I suggested was an expanded version of Medicare without the limitations of coverage which vex roysoldboy, and with open enrollment. I pointed out that Medicare's overhead was agbout 4% while private insurance's was 20-30%. When you asked about the methodology under which the data was derived, I told you I did not know. You therefore rejected my assertion without seeking any proof.

From the frequency of your posts, I have to conclude that you have more time than I to participate. Once again, if you would be a bit more specific about your objections and maybe even citing your own sources of information, I'll try to respond.

Now, sir or madam, I can promise that I have had quite a bit of experience with bureaucratic run health care. The state Medicare boards decide what they will pay for and how much they think should be paid. One of Obama's preventive medicine bits would be my annual endoscopy to keep check on the advancement of what will someday become esophageal cancer. Well now those bureaucrats have decided that the physician who does the procedure should get $457 for his service although he asks for $725, Also, the hospital asks for about the same amount for the test which takes a private room for 1/2 a day and the room in which the procedure takes place. Well now, with Medicare involved i the procedure they get nearly $1000. The other day I talked with a woman who has no insurance and uses the same physician and hospital. Guess what she got to pay the a month at a time. By golly she had to pay exactly what they asked for from Medicare. I haven't talked to any insured people who got the same procedure for less that $1800. Is there any way a private insurance company can compete with the government on this kind of thing? I sure don't see it.

Obama is getting ready to slip it to us and all I can say is BOHICA. We are soon to be on socialized medicine and i won't have to worry about the annual endoscopy since saving an old bastard like me won't be allowed. Get a grip on things because one day you will also probably get old and not like what is left for you.

Lets do like the Germans; let rich folks option UP to a premium supplemental policy…WITHOUT opting out of the general pool.

There is an undiscussed (PINK ELEPHANT) in this discussion. (And the national discussion too). End of life care…somebody help – but do we spend something like 30% in the last 2 years of life?
Again…I ask for ORDER. (I know this is political suicide and it will never get solved until we simply bankrupt ourselves with this idiosy).

The other side of that debate is AMERICAN's tremendous fear of death. Very illogical for a country which, according to polls, 70% – 80% believe in heaven!?!?

I call them CHICKEN DO-DO CHRISTIANS! If the shoe fits…

All you nay sayers – what are you FOR?

On health care (for everybody), we all pay – one way or another for most of the folks who don't have it.

Anybody ever fly Southwest (experience the cattle call to the plane)? Everybody is going to get on…but the lack of ORDER was uncivilized and BROUGHT OUT THE WORST in many people.

Not a perfect analogy but I think it's helpful here.

Health care needs order…and yes..proper order means SOME will get less, some will get more – but all will GET!

We've all read here and elsewhere about the unisured in the emergency rooms with all the comensurate costs. PAYDAY SOME DAY!

Hey Larry: your snarkiness is amusing & you're good at that. It has no correlation to a reasoned perspective, however. But I do appreciate what you contribute. You make me LMAO.

King: You leave out the other side of saving money equation…the govt./bureaucrat DOES NOT STAND TO PROFIT…Huge difference…HUGE!

But "water runs downhill" is pretty much synonymous with "it just sounds good," so you've answered my question.

By the by, if you want to know how a government run healthcare system will operate a former HMO executive like Potter is a good example. He can blame "the system" or capitalism all he wants but it's all pure bureaucracy.

You say "Health Care (at a basic access level) should not be run by FOLKS WHO BENEFIT BY GIVING PATIENTS LESS."

I agree with you, but it doesn't matter if it's the government or private industry in that respect, because BOTH will benefit by giving people less. Obama is proposing Medicare cuts as part of his health care proposal. That gives people less. Government would have the same impetus to give patients less as insurance companies do – it controls costs. That's why nationalized health care plans (England, Canada, etc) ALL ration care. It's the only way to control costs. In England, they actually assign an amount to each patient, and they don't like to cover anything over that amount. That denies care to patients who need it the most.

We need health care reform, but I am not too impressed by what the President and Congress have proposed so far. They wouldn't even meet the goal of insuring everyone.

Those complacent should also take comfort that if private insurance is to compete with a public alternative, they won't have to again witness the spectacle of an insurance CEO drawing a $1 billion salary.

Perhaps they should also try to estimate the effect on the economy if employers were to lose the burden of providing health insurance. Every where that I have worked over the last 25 years has worked under staffed, preferring overtime expenses to additional employee benefits. Those are jobs and incomes lost.

larry d.,

Check out Wendell Potter at counterpunch.com

Government-sponsored health insurance is also no more a birth right than government-provided television sets. Again, so what?

As for pragmatism, it seems to me that everytime a government decides to ration something, an elite ruling class gets more and everyone else gets less. Capitalism has always provided the most for the most in my lifetime.

I think it comes down to ideology and/or pragmatism vs. ideology.

You guys that (think you) believe in the mythical american rugged individualist think that you shouldn't have to share or ration so others can just "have". BUT BUT BUT…you think it's okay for your company to PAY FOR YOURS!?!?! WOW…that's real rugged and individualistic.

I say cover everybody with the same basic plan (no matter who adminstrates it)…OR COVER NO ONE!

Further, what's the difference between some faceless govt. bureaucrat deciding what treatment you can get vs. some faceless PEON in the bowels of a corporation? For one, IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY – for the other, it's not ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Health Care (at a basic access level) should not be run by FOLKS WHO BENEFIT BY GIVING PATIENTS LESS.