Returning Your Health Care To You

Da King writes Forcing us to buy health care is massive government intrusion. Did ever occur to you that is one intrusion people with NO health care might find life saving when they find out now they can afford to see a doctor ?
Social security also then was one BIG massive intrusion forcing you to collect money when your retire. But you don't want to give it up do you ? Face it da king your argument is really about YOU , you dont want to help pay for " them" to have affordable health care. And you really dont give a peep that many Americans cant afford it.
Your fear is that reform means you will be forced to pay for those who have less. This argument the GOP has is really about greedy, selfish, self-centered people with an everyone for themselves attitude. But the short-sightedness is that people like you fail to realize that they may fall victim to misfortune and may suddenly find themselves without the incomes they now enjoy or a family member might one day be in need of health care, but without the means to obtain it, and they too will suddenly be at the mercy of a public that turns their back on you like YOU are doing now to them .

Your solution for them is tax credits ? To help WHO – YOU ? You and what about the person who was laid off from their job – How the heck can he get health care insurance on 4k ?
How the heck can we afford to give every single person a 4 k tax credit for their health insurance as if a someone earning 2 million dollars a year actually needs 4k anyway – what a waste of money to make rich richer. Meanwhile the poor unemployed who lost his job because no fault of his own is being thrown peanuts will still find it hard to get health care. When the average cost of health care insurance PER PERSON IS ATLEAST 15 K what the heck is he going to do with your 4 k ?
This plan helps the rich get richer and doesn't help us reduce the deficit.
The person who cant afford health care will still be without. The rich will have more money in their pocket. American GREED Party=GOP and thats saying it as it really is. But one thing you are nto thinking about is when people do nto have insurance we all shoulder the burden of the costs of uncompensated care, the effects of medical bankruptcies, and denials of insurance coverage through our higher premiums. So think asbout that one .

Andrea,
I think it would be helpful if you actually read and thought about what I wrote instead of operating off of your own silly biases on autopilot. My proposal has EVERY AMERICAN getting money to buy health care with, whether they are working or not. It also wouldn't allow insurance companies to deny coverage.

There is nothing for me to think about.

But there is a major difference between a right and a duty. The rights to an attorney to communicate with or receive communications from someone, the right to own a gun etc. , all those guaranteed rights are also the right NOT to. I would say that a DUTY to have a healthcare plan is an intrusion. Social Security's mandatory mnature was where we went wrong. The government MAKES everybody contribute to it and then takes the $$ and spends it on new office buildings etc. That was when old King Log died and the storks began taking over.

Frye,
It always astounds me when people (like Andrea) deem Social Security to be a successful government program, when in actuality it has been the biggest ripoff of the American public ever perpetrated. Congress spends the SS Trust Fund systematically, year after year. They should all be in jail, just like Bernie Madoff.

For purposes of this post, I accepted as a premise the goal of providing health insurance for every American. I just wanted to illustrate a far better way of reaching that goal than ObamaCare provides.

Andrea asks, ". When the average cost of health care insurance PER PERSON IS ATLEAST 15 K what the heck is he going to do with your 4 k ?"

Your information is way wrong. The average annual cost of a person's health insurance was $4,800 in 2009. With my proposals of tort reform, nationwide competition, and other cost-saving methods I didn't get into, we could reduce that number. Even if we didn't, an unemployed person would only have to pay $800 annually out-of-pocket for his/her insurance. Right now, under COBRA or somewhere else, he/she has to pay it all.

Or perhaps you are suffering from the liberal delusion that health insurance should be free, a total impossibility.

King

I work for a fortune 500 company. The average blended rate for healthcare (Single, Family, High deductible is over $900 dollars per month. That is over $10,800 per year. So your wage increase is actually $2,800 dollar wage decrease.

Why would US companies hire more workers at this time? Because costs are lower? That won't happen. They will just take that extra profit and move it to the bottom line. That will increase stock price there by increasing CEO compensation.

In publically traded companies everything is about Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't care if there is 10% unemployment in the US. Wall Street just wants to gamble and make money by using their client's money. Who cares if they lose it is not their money.

Lots of good ideas here, which is why it would never have a chance of succeeding in Congress. No special interests are served so it's unlikely you would get any support. The government is not really interested in fixing the problem – it's a simple power grab.

If we want to stay in fantasyland though, I would add a provision that if a person decided to remain uninsured in your scenario that if they went to the ER without coverage they must either pay in advance out of pocket or be automatically enrolled in a 'default' policy that will cover their care. That eliminates unfunded catastrophic care costs that hospitals would still be forced to cover.

A follow up question though – do you envision a full tax rebate (up to $8k) regardless of what type of insurance plan a person or family actually purchased? If so, then high deductible policies still make sense for some. There would seem to be some mandate needed that all policies carry some form a catastrophic care coverage.

Da King I obviously made a error by writing per person – should be per family and I was taking in to account all health related costs which people face . CBS news says the figure is 8k per person. NY times says a family premiums today is 13 k – you can check it
So your plan once again favors the people who can afford it now – the ones who cant still will will not be able to .
How would your plan run without tax increases anyway ? Your going to give away tax credits to every American – you are going to wipe our medicare while NOT forcing people to get insurance . So the insurance companies have really no incentive to reduce their costs to any of us as far as I can see under your plan .
Here in NY we have strict laws for the health insurance companies to abide by – so they will pull out of NY and go into Delaware where the laws are weak …So Delaware will have lots of companies to choose from while here in NY we will be left with a handful if that. Also since health insurance is more expensive in NY we still will get the same as a person in Idaho – . So NY will have more people with no health care under your plan -or be forced to go along with less regulation.
And I am pretty sure medicare operates cheaper than private insurance companies – so why not expand medicare for all instead of getting rid of it?

Andrea perhaps you should take some time and actually read what he wrote before going off on your nonsensical rants.

1. Tax Deduction are not equal to Tax Credits. Learn the difference
2. Not allowing insurance companies to group people by company means they will have to compete for customers thus lowering prices, by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines you will open up even more competition
3. Wiping out medicare will save taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars that could be used to subsidize insurance for low income families

King, if your proposal is so super duper( sorry, I was channeling Sarah) then why haven't your Republican heroes come up with it before?

TBomb -

The proposal is fantasy. I don't believe the Republicans truly want to see healthcare fixed when the Democratic regime is in power. Doing nothing is still better than the misguided approach the Democrats are trying to force everyone to accept. However, the Dems are using their typical 'crisis' approach to incite fear while dragging out examples of unfortunate people to play the role of victim in this kabuki theatre. Sounds like they're channeling Al Gore., doesn't it?

I am supposed to listen to a man that uses his experience of a particular incident with his insurance company to convince me he should be in charge of my health care? First of all he made the story up and secondly the story proved that he has no concept of even the simplest facts of auto insurance. Whats next handing out judgeships in exchange for votes for his health care bill?

camackey says, "The average blended rate for healthcare (Single, Family, High deductible is over $900 dollars per month. That is over $10,800 per year. So your wage increase is actually $2,800 dollar wage decrease."

Wrong. If your company picks up the entire tab for your family's health care (pretty rare these days), and that costs them $10,800 per year, that $10,800 is PART OF YOUR COMPENSATION as a worker. They know it, and you know it. If the company could unload ALL of that, don't you think they'd have to increase your salary by at least the $2,800 difference ? I say they will be OVERJOYED to do so, because it saves them a bundle of money. It could even be a requirement in the health care legislation that they do it. No business will complain. Multiply that bundle of savings times the number of workers a company has, and it should be obvious that the company would be in a better position to hire more workers, raise salaries, increase profitability (also good for the economy), or all of the above.

Irrev,
It would be in every person's best interest to have major medical insurance with this plan. It doesn't make economic sense not to do so. Because the primary function of any type of insurance is to lower risk (of major financial losss or bankruptcy following a catastrophic event), then yes, all policies should include catastrophic coverage. It wouldn't make sense any other way.

I agree that if someone went to the ER without coverage under this plan, the onus would be on them to pay the bill.

Andrea,
Yes, the average annual family health insurance rate in 2009 was about $13K. Under this plan, you'd get $8K paid for you. You'd also get an additional wage increase from your employer if your employer currently pays for your health care insurance to help cover the rest of the cost. If your employer doesn't pay for your health insurance, you'd still save $8K per year on coverage that you currently pay out-of-pocket. Ditto for the unemployed. This plan doesn't help those who can afford it the most, it helps those who CAN'T currently afford health insurance the most.

And your comments about NY versus Delaware don't make sense. We'd have NATIONWIDE insurance competition under this plan. It won't matter where you live. That will reduce costs, but it would also require health care regulation to take place at the federal level.

I still think you haven't actually read or thought about what I proposed here.

Tbomb asks, "King, if your proposal is so super duper( sorry, I was channeling Sarah) then why haven't your Republican heroes come up with it before?"

My Republican heroes ???? Which ones are those ?

In any case, some of these ideas have been proposed by Republicans, including the tax credits, which are included in the Paul Ryan (R-WI) plan. You probably don't know about that plan, because your liberal websites haven't bothered to mention it, preferring instead to pretend that the Republicans have no ideas on health care. Ryan's plan doesn't go nearly as far as mine, but his also gives everyone the ability to acquire health insurance, and is revenue neutral.

My plan just goes further than any existing plans by either Dems or GOPers. I have the ability to think for myself. You should try it.

Yeah, Medicare voutures, that Ryan is a genius!

Mr. King,
Although I see problems with nearly all of your proposals, I sincerely applaud your efforts at applying independent thought to this subject. As a reader, it is easy to tell when someone is regurgitating what they have read from their preferred political sources and when they have actually bothered at independent thinking. Too often, the contributors to these and other blogs sound as if they were Viking fans debating Colts fans which quarterback is better, Farve or Manning. Lots of hyperbolic rah rah for for the home team ( be it Dems or Reps), little objective thought. But, rather than critique your proposals, I would like to take the discussion into another direction.

As I see it, the political gamesmanship being played out on the health care front is illustrative of the underlying problem of our country. That problem is that the two political parties, who have erected insurmountable barriers to competition from a third party, have run out of ideas. The Republicans, who you correctly identify as the party of NO, can only offer tax cuts skewed towards wealthy and corporate campaign donors, while fueling and exploiting the fears, whether legitimate or not, of the populace. Their embrace of supply side economics, religious zealots, and exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy to eviscerate civil liberties and advance an agenda of global hegemony all run counter to conservative political ideals. As a result, what is now touted as conservatism must have Adam Smith, Russell Kirk, Buckley, Goldwater, and those who shared their principals, rolling in their graves.

Likewise, the Democratic party, with its domination by the Democratic Leadership Council, has abandoned any meaningful defense of the middle and poorer classes which it once championed in favor of campaign contributions from the corporate and wealthy contributors it deems as necessary for political survival. This is how it has come to embrace "free" trade, welfare "reform", an international role policed by a military industrial complex which is neither needed nor affordable. The Democrats are no more liberal than the Republicans are conservative. The lack of guiding principles of conservatism or liberalism results in a situation where the competition for votes is really a competition for campaign funds as opposed to a competition of ideas, philosophy, or even competence.

So, what we have is a situation where nothing can be solved, even when there is universal recognition of the problem. Both sides are boxed in by their lack of principles, previous positions, and especially by their political calculations.

By taking on the problem of lack of affordable health care, Democrats have calculated that they can gain the votes of those affected. But this also runs counter to their embrace of the moneyed interests whose monetary support they rely upon. Their solution has been to propose halfway measures which do not solve the problem but do not offend their corporate patrons. The Republicans have responded by refusal to even address the problem, calculating that by denying the Democrats a political victory, demonization of the process, and defense of the status quo, they can garner more corporate support and votes than the Democrats in upcoming elections. This strategy actually serves the Democrats, too. By continually ceding effective measures in an apparently foolish quest for bipartisanship despite obvious Republican intransigence, Obama can claim blame Republicans for blocking effective legislation while championing a bill which does more to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries than address the underlying problem, attracting the monetary support for future campaigns. It is a win-win situation for all involved except the American people.

I would suggest that one could roughly apply this same scenario to virtually every problem which can be addressed in the world of politics. In almost all political races, those who can raise the most money win. The result is that both political parties will continue to support an economic and geopolitical paradigm which is unsustainable.

Tbomb says, "Yeah, Medicare voutures, that Ryan is a genius!"

Speaking of genius, what's a "vouture" ?

frank,
While I appreciate your attempt to show the disingenuousness of both parties (which I agree with up to a point) and the entrenched interests of the two parties, it occurs to me that all your arguments come from the viewpoint of a committed leftist. You argue against free trade (what is the alternative ?), against business profits (crucial to our economy), against tax cuts (which keep more of a worker's money in the hands of the worker), against welfare reform (while more Americans than ever are dependent on the government), against the military, against perceived restrictions of civil liberties (which are really tools used to fight terrorism), etc. Your underlying premise is that of all liberals – that only your ideas are the right ones, and any contrary suggestions are nothing but obstructionism and rhetorical misdirection (used generally to favor "the rich"). I disagree, to say the least.

I'd also take issue with your statement that the Republicans have no ideas on health care reform. In my opinion, the Republicans have the best ideas for health care reform, and I incorporated some of them in my own version, presented here. I just took things further (and in my opinion, better) than what the Republicans or Democrats have proposed.

As to your larger point, if we truly had a bipartisan government, which as you pointed out, we don't, then the best ideas from both sides would be incorporated into a health care solution that would benefit the entire country, as I believe the one I laid out would. Because that has not happened, we have a partisan health care reform bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject, and we have Obama urging Congress to pass the bill via reconciliation, which the majority of Americans also reject. This renders Obama's former promise of a post-partisan America a cruel joke. He is just the opposite, a man bent on exerting his power at all costs, which in turn explains the barrage of lies he has spouted regarding health care reform. What little credibility the man used to have with me is now completely gone. Now, I only want him out of the White House, and control wrested from the Democrats in Congress. I've barely heard an honest word from the Democratic leadership in months.

Frank usually does the "both sides are disingenuous ideologues" thing for a paragraph or two, then writes his own disingenuous ideologue thing in paragraphs three through six. It's best to just skim, really.

But aside from what Frank might like to see instead of what we have, he's pretty accurate in picking at the present.

As to the created impossibility of a 3rd party, I wonder if we're really that far up Shinola Creek. Maybe bloggers like DAK & Rev could start canvasing for suggested 3rd party candidates. You can't hyave the Governator because he's not US Born, and he only appeals to Republicans anyway. The problem with the Tea Party is it's already taken over by ultracons, who probably had not much competition from centrist democrats who may be just a tad less discontented right now, being theoretically in power presently. Personally I would nominate Bill Belichek for President with some relatively inconsequential person for VP. Almost anyone would do for that, say Wolf Blitzer or Tony Kornheiser for an opener?

Seriously, the first thing you have to do is define the problem. Is it unavailability of healthcare? No because there are loads of insurers who would love to sell you a policy. The problem is; they want to be paid for it, and the way insurance works is the insuror has to be able to calculate odds well enough to set the rates where he can make a profit. So mostly we have employees insured through group policies, and that brings us to the real problem. People have to be employed. There have to be jobs available, and the wannabe employees have to be able to do them. Bring back the jobs and a large number of those in need will have what they need. JOBS are more important than insurance of any kind. It doesn't do any good to create jobs if the next Board of Directors is going to ship them to China rather than pay the next round of minimum wage increases. It's about jobs, and the lack of jobs is going to drop Obama down the tubes (Squeals of glee competing with cries of rascism) regardless of what is or is not done about health care.

Frye,
I like it when you comment, but……Bill Belichick ??? The coach ??? You left the LOL out around that sentence.

I agree with you about jobs, which is why my fantasyland health care plan was designed with job creation in mind. Maybe you should support me for President. They don't do background checks, do they ? Then again, Bush and Obama got in, so they must not.

In my ideal world, a 3rd party beats out both the Democrats and Republicans. In the real world, that is no easy task, and may have the opposite of it's intended consequences. In any case, I can't imagine what type of party the Reverend and I could come together to advocate. We agree on about two or three issues out of thirty. Maybe we could call ourselves Socialists For Limited Government, or something equally oxymoronic.

Would you settle for VP? I think you could probably beat out Kornheiser.

frank described things perfectly.

America's entire federal government representation system has been compromised by the money-dynamic that frank wrote about. It's not going to get better. Only worse. The best we can expect now is a few crumbs kicked off the government-corporate table. We're paralyzed.

Correct me if I'm, you know, wrong…..but doesn't violence usually follow a failed government?

larry d.,
Thanks for another example of your "writing style", the two sentence snarky ad hominem attack. Thanks also for disclosing your reading style. Here I thought that you had a reading comprehension problem, but now I know you only skim. It explains a lot about you.

Mr. King,
Did you take reading lessons from larry? Because I didn't argue for or against any of the topics you mention. Some of those topics weren't even mentioned in my post. You even call me a "committed leftist". Is that a milder form of calling someone a pinko or commie or socialist? And, you completely missed my "underlying premise". So, I'll try again.

I was trying to point out that neither party follows a liberal or conservative philosophy. A true liberal would not support welfare "reform" or "free" trade. A true conservative would not support supply side economics or piss on the Constitution to exploits the fears of the people.

Neither party is advancing a coherent philosophy but merely jockeying for the campaign contributions to keep themselves in power. On health care and most other issues, solving the problem is a secondary consideration to using the problem to gain political advantage. The Republicans propose ending the insurance companies antitrust exemption to stimulate nationwide competition and tort "reform". Neither would do much to lower costs, but the main reason for tort "reform" is to punish traditional Democrat donors, the trial lawyers. But the point is that despite Obama already ceding everything to the Republicans, none will vote for any measures lest they give the Democrats a political victory. Likewise, Obama has negotiated everything away, not for some quixotic attempt at bipartisanship, but to put the pharmaceutical and insurance campaign contributions in the pockets of Democrats. Meanwhile, he can blame Republican intransigence for the lousy bill. Whether it passes or not, Obama wins politically. So once again, I say that both parties are more interested in using the issue for political advantage than actually solving the problem. I would also say that this scenario applies to all issues facing this country.

"Neither party is advancing a coherent philosophy but merely jockeying for the campaign contributions to keep themselves in power. On health care and most other issues, solving the problem is a secondary consideration to using the problem to gain political advantage" –

frank, this sums up our whole political system right now. The sad thing is that people aren't recognizing this and demanding more from their representatives. They have us clawing at each other over false talking points. It feels as though they are just throwing us some scraps. Another thing I am finding is that they are trying to squeeze out all wealth creation opportunities as well as making it difficult for new business start-ups (this is at all levels of govt)yet they are leaving the laws created for the big players alone. They are also boldly lying their asses and skewing the economic indicators to make things look better than they are. We are actually near 16% unemployment and if it weren't for the hiring of thousands of census workers where would we be>

I didn't mean to offend you, frank. It's just that your posts are so predictable. It's like you're repeating what every other soft-headed lefty over at DemocraticUnderground is saying, except in four times as many words.

Frye,
Maybe I should settle for VP, because I feel a little slow at this moment, like Biden. It just dawned on me what the N.E. in N.E. Frye probably stands for. Okay….Belichick for President !

But when Coach Bill was with the Brownies, he couldn't have gotten elected dogcatcher.

Rev asks, "Correct me if I'm, you know, wrong…..but doesn't violence usually follow a failed government?"

Or we can elect a new government. That's the beauty of democracy, but it requires an engaged citizenry, like the, you know, Tea Party movement.

There's one interesting dynamic starting to happen in America about which rising numbers of liberals, conservatives, and moderates can agree – the government is broken. I've felt this way for years and years, which is where my Libertarian bent of limiting government, lowering taxes, etc came from. What I don't understand is where liberals get the notion that the answer to our big, out of control, broken government is to make it even bigger and more powerful, and have it take over private industry and make our life decisions for us. Such ideas scares the bejesus out of me, having seen time and again what that leads to in the 20th and 21st centuries. Never once has it led anywhere good.

frank,
I don't think I misrepresented your comment at all. Which specific item did I get wrong ? Every issue I mentioned was one you listed specifically as an example of what is wrong with the parties, and the "error" was invariably an example of liberalism being strayed from.

But I agree politicians of both parties are looking out for themselves. That isn't new. That also explains why Obama's problem on health care reform isn't really with Republicans. It's with Democrats whose constituents are against ObamaCare and are letting their representatives know it. Obama might as well forget about Republican support. That isn't going to happen as long as ObamaCare includes a mandate to purchase health insurance and adds tens of millions to the welfare rolls. There's nothing conservative about ObamaCare, so why would you be surprised Republicans don't support it ?

At this point, when I look at health care reform, which is crucial, I make the following decision…is the idea a good one, or a bad one ? That decision is based mainly upon answering the following question – Will the reform lower health care costs and/or expand health care access without harming the health care industry and the overall American economy ? That's what I used to design my health care reform plan. It's all the REST that is politics and catering to special interests, including statements like yours that claim tort reform only exists to harm Democratic donors. Who cares ? That's not even a concern. I'm not worried about the poor destitute trial lawyers. Why are you ?

larry d.,
No offense taken. But given your predilection to attempt to insult other contributors, I sometimes cannot resist the impulse to try to tweak you using your own methods. My theme was that even when there is agreement that a problem exists, solving the problem is of secondary importance to using it for political advantage. I thought that this was the proper lens through which to view the health care debate and nearly every other political issue. This is not something I read anywhere. In fact, I've never read the Democrat Underground. I'm sorry that you think my posts are long, I am simply trying to make points understood. Yet, I obviously fail with Mr. King, so maybe I don't use enough words. You've already told me what I "really mean" about certain topics by simply skimming the posts, so I'm going to assume that I don't need to struggle to bring it down to bumpersticker size.

Mr. King,
You asserted that I was arguing against certain topics. What I really did was to show the meaninglessness of the labels conserative and liberal as applied to the political parties. Republicans used to have the conservative position against deficit spending. They've certainly abandoned that position during the Reagan-Bush years. The Democrats used to have the liberal position of supporting organized labor, which they abandoned when the Democrat Leadership Council came to dominate the party. You also asserted that I thought that I, alone among liberals, had the proper ideas. Since I didn't propose any solutions, I don't know how you reached this conclusion.

If anything, I'm more closely aligned with the Republicans on this one. I think that this bill is worse than the status quo and should be scrapped and the process started over. But what I was attempting to write about is how the goal of affordable health care for all has long ago become secondary to the goal of political advantage that each party plays against the other.

The Republicans have obviously calculated that supporting the status quo will please corporate donors and that they can lie enough to demonize the bill in the minds of their base. Accordingly, they will oppose anything the Democrats propose rather than permit a political victory by them. The Democrats are offering a bill which protects and provides a huge number of new customers for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, while freeing them of the most costly of their customers. It is obvious that Obama and Rahm Emmanuel are making a bid to make these industries reliable corporate supporters of Democrats. For some time time the administration has been pressuring their rank and file to vote for anything rather than lose a political contest.

By the way, I'm not concerned about the wellbeing of trial lawyers, but of those whom they represent. Do you really think that tort "reform" would be an issue for Republicans if the trial lawyers were reliable contributors to the Republican rather than the Democratic party?

"the goal of affordable health care for all has long ago become secondary to the goal of political advantage that each party plays against the other."

There you go, frank. You see, it only takes one sentence to convey such a commonsense, oft-repeated and even cliched idea.

frank,
If you ask me, the lies about ObamaCare are mostly coming from the Democrats. They lied about the costs. That's all smoke and mirrors. They lied about the urgency, since their bill wouldn't even take full effect until 2018. Theye lied about bending the cost curve down. They lied about cutting Medicare, which they are doing while they pretend they aren't. ObamaCare, at it's core, is… forcing Americans to buy health insurance and creating a huge new welfare program, accompanied by large tax increases. Same Democrat modus operandi as always. The Republicans have been virtually shut out of the process, and the Democrats have lied about that too.

And I hate to break it to you, but the "corporate interests" are now mostly donating money to the Democrats, but that will change if the Republicans regain power. The money follows the power for the most part.

You ask, "Do you really think that tort "reform" would be an issue for Republicans if the trial lawyers were reliable contributors to the Republican rather than the Democratic party?"

I have no way of knowing. Trial lawyers do donate some money to Republicans (mostly when Republicans are in power), so I guess the answer is yes. I only know that tort reform would bring down health care costs, and therefore should be implemented.

I do agree with your general point that both parties take care of their own interests, as I said before.

Mr. King,
Of course the Democrats lied. As they gave more and more away, they inflated the efficacy of what was left. But, the Republicans shut out? Give me a break! This has been the longest attempt at "bipartisanship" on record.

If you had understood my post, you would realize that you needen't alert me about the role of corporate money with the parties. You are wrong, however, about money following power. Power follows money. The corporate money bet on the Democrats before the election for various reasons, primarily because they thought they would get a better return on their investment. The Republicans will regain power when corporate America decides that they will provide a better return on the money.

If you cannot answer my question about tort "reform", campaign contributions and Republicans, you are either incredibly naive or being disingenuous.

p.s.
Californians years ago placed caps on medical malpractice awards. Their premiums were unaffected.

end Medicare………let's say that I'm 58 yo and have been making payments to the "unfunded" Medicare plan thru forced payroll deductions for 40 years. Now under your plan….what happens to my 40 years of payments?

I saw a news report on the teevee the other day and it was a story about how different the charges were from one hospital to the next. While we force insurance companies to become more competitive by opening up the interstate insurance business we should also force hospitals to post their rates upfront

what about the money that I have already paid into Medicare? What are you going to do with that?

Walter -

The money you paid into Medicare has already been spent on others. You should be fine with that, it's not like it is your personal HSA or anything. You seem to feel very self entitled for a collectivist. Welcome to the downside of relying on the government instead of yourself…

not relevent reverand…….I guess your answer just goes to show that neither you nor King have the answer

certainly not very well thought out