And $500 billion in Medicare cuts with NO reductions in services ? That doesn't pass the logic test.

They GAO says medicare is a government run program that is highly susceptable to fraud. One estimate says it costs medicare $40 BILLION per year.

this from an NBC news report….

"MIAMI, Florida – On an FBI undercover tape, the fraud was plain to see: A patient came to a South Florida AIDS clinic, signed some papers, walked into an office and was handed $150 in cash. She politely thanked the workers and left, her visit to the doctor finished without ever receiving any treatment.

According to records seized by investigators, the office staff (who was assured of the patient's cooperation) used her name to fraudulently bill Medicare for a list of expensive treatment and medications.

Law enforcement officials said it's just one of the many widespread, organized and lucrative schemes to bilk Medicare out of an estimated $60 billion dollars a year — a staggering cost borne by American taxpayers."

from the story"….her visit to the doctor …."a doctor was involved?

I think there's always going to be a trade-off between wait times for treatment and universal coverage. Still, I agree with universal coverage. That's the moral thing to do, and Obama is right about uninsured people going to emergency rooms for more expensive treatment when it's not necessary.

With the exception of a few hundred privately funded surgical, cosmetic and medical-imaging clinics located mainly in British Columbia and Quebec, health-care delivery in Canada has remained largely in the public domain. Fears of two-tier medicine — including the migration of doctors and nurses to the more lucrative for-profit sector, lack of cost containment in a private system, and the gradual delisting of medically necessary services currently funded by the provinces — have helped maintain the status quo. After all, few would want to see Canada move toward a privatized U.S.-style model of health care, where about 50 million people are without medical insurance.

“Americanizing” our system may not be an answer. But critics of Canada’s existing medicare model say we should be considering a mix of health-care solutions from other countries. In places such as France, Switzerland and Germany — where private financing and for-profit providers play a greater role — wait times for elective surgeries are not an issue.

Actually, to one of the things I scanned as I started to write, I was reading that many Canadians who can't get timely medical treatment in their own country bypass the US due to high expenses and travel to countries like Mexico or India when they need to leave the country for treatment. (http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20080818_198706_198706) From what I understand, Americans do it, too, sometimes when they can't afford the cost of a given treatment in the US (http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/GeneralSurgery/6404) or for elective procedures that very few insurance policies cover and that are too expensive here in the states, like fertility and plastic surgery (http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~kyu/E4111/Fertility.pdf).

The Obama bill, even if a public option miraculously got through, will not affect the greedmongers for another 30 years. Hell, the plan won't start for 5 years, if they pass it.

This is being setup as a windfall giveaway…..domestic Halliburton kind of thing.

B,
Thanks. I thought there was some good info in the links too. That's why I posted it.

Rev,
The government mandate is so Obama and the Dems can say, "see, we provided health care coverage for all." Not so difficult to accomplish when the government uses force to implement it. Without the public option or an equivalent, you are correct, it's a big boon for the private health insurance companies, but I don't know how you can expect private health insurers to be on board with the public option, which has nothing to do with competition, because there is NO way for the private insurers to compete with the federal government. The public option is a means to destroy the private insurance companies. Do you seriously expect that industry to advocate for it's own destruction ?????? They'd be on board in a nanosecond if the public option is removed. Pharmaceutical companies are on board either way, because with or without the public option, they stand to benefit big time. It doesn't matter to the pharmaceutical manufacturers who the insurer is. The prescriptions get written anyway, and with universal coverage, a lot more will be written. That's why pharma is already on board.

Roy,
Thanks for the example of how the public option will destroy the private insurers. You are spot on. Thinking beyond level one (what's specifically in the bill) and into level two (what the bill will lead to) is definitely something that should be done. The other thing I know for sure at this point about ObamaCare is that I won't be able to purchase the kind of health insurance that I want (high deductible, catastrophic-only insurance that allows me to pay for my own routine health care – aka, what insurance is SUPPOSED to be for). ObamaCare is going to mandate one-size-fits-all coverage that will drive health insurance premiums way UP. This is anti-competitive in the extreme, and also what the government has been doing for decades, which, no surprise, has driven health care costs way up. If we had some true competition among insurers and a variety of different health care coverage options, we'd be able to start driving health care costs DOWN, but no, the big government types always see only themselves of the arbiters of what is right.

walter, why are you asking me a question I already answered in my post ? You want me to read a 1,017 bill, and you can't even be bothered to read the information I presented.

Ditto to Tbomb. The answer to your "death panels" question was contained in the Factcheck link.

Rev,
Good one about ObamaCare being a "Republican plan." I always enjoy the way you tell the exact opposite of the truth. Republicans didn't write the bill, Democrats did.
Your point about Canadians not "flocking" to the USA is pretty silly, nothing but a distraction. I mean, liberals keep telling me how lousy OUR medical system is, but I don't see liberals "flocking" to Canada for health care. The logistics of crossing the border (either way) for health care is mainly what prevents it. Find a new phony talking point.

I leaned more about it here than I have anywhere else. Thanks.

That bill is full of "not in so many words" but "could conceivably be interpreted some days" and it seems that most blind supporters just can't see beyond the day of passage. Think a bit.

With those words, Rev, you told me a lot that I tried to point out the weakness of your reasoning. Maybe our Congress needs to get their hands on the laws that the European countries have used to maintain both services. The wording to do that is not in any of the bills I have seen offered.

You are right about Canadians not flooding over the boundary line. The other day I heard one of them who when told he had about 97% blockage in all six heart arteries, and was also told that he would have to wait about 8 – 12 months for a bypass. I can promise you from personal experience that he didn't have that long unless care is rationed in Canada, and he wasn't going to last that long, anyway. The testing hospital took him to an ambulance, and hustled him over the line to Detroit where the surgery was performed. Naw, they don't have rationing in Canada and naw coming across the border never even enters their minds. Next day and 8 – 12 months sounds a bit rationed to me.

My sons work for a small business that has a few more than 100 employees in four different towns. The business is very large in terms of money taken in each year and is expanding a couple more dealerships (John Deere) every 5 years or so. Anyway let's just use 100 as a number of employees. They would come in over the $400,000 amount so get to pay the 8% fine. They only pay 1/2 of employees monthly insurance payments and that makes the single payment (most are married) about $2000 per year, in rounded numbers. If you figure that very low number for the 100 employees that amounts to about $200,000, I think. Figure the 8% or about $500,000 and you will get $40,000. You tell me which choice those capitalistic people will take. Even Rev and a couple of others here can see that the 8% won't be much of a penalty. In fact it may well be over $150,000 more profit per year.

If that example doesn't provide proof that pretty soon after this bill goes into effect there won't be any insurance companies in business, I don't know what it would take.

The words aren't there in the bill but the implications are very strong. I just got my AARP newspaper the other day and their arguments for this monstrosity are so ridiculous and full of holes that they convinced me that my membership that runs out this month won't be renewed. They aren't sticking up for those of us who are on Medicare because the law says we must be, but they are sticking up for Obamacare. Have you seen the CEO of AARP? I am wondering if there may be some racism involved there. I am constantly called racist because I didn't vote for Obama so maybe there is a form of it involved,

I did appreciate your post, however.

The mandate is FOR the sake of insurance and pharma companies. A public competitive option will, no doubt, NOT be in the final bill. Can kicking "triggers" are now all the rage with President Olympia Snowe.

So, what we'll get…..all things being equal….is what BIG MONEY wants. Mandated coverage with little restraints and no competition. A Republican plan mainly benefitting BIG MONEY….just like the GOP's Medicare Plan D. 40 million new customers added to an already overpriced, bloated industry…..and no countervailing competitive rival to keep any of it in check.

But you maintain…..that the bill will eliminate the private health insurance sector altogether. That hasn't happened in other countries where both private and public insurance exist side-by -side, but then…..America is exceptional, you know, not like other nations.