Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you.

A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

Yes, I get it. Those who oppose healthcare reform don't want any reform and that includes insurance reform.

No, you obviously don't get it. Those who oppose, oppose government control. If the gov. wants to step in, they can pass some laws to regulate what the private industry can and cannot do in the healthcare field. But to start up yet another program that will bankrupt this country even further than Obama has already done thus far should not be an option. Most Americans have great health care insurance already and don't want anyone messing with it. If the government were to compete with the private sector, the whole country would eventually end up on the government plan for it will always be the least expensive premium and therefore the private companies would go out of business and then the people will NOT have a choice at all. They tell you that you can choose your own insurance and your own doctor, but what they don't tell you is that you can do that in the beginning, but that eventually their plan will destroy all the others and then in the end, they get what they wanted all along, which is a government run medical insurance for ALL in America.

How do you think the insurance companies got so powerful? By their incredible lobbying power and huge contributions to (mainly) the republicans. It's not that they don't want government run health care - because if they didn't - they would oppose medicare, medicaid and veteran's care.

They don't oppose gov. run ins. for the elderly, because it is with the elderly that they pay out so much for. They love that the people (tax revenue) have to pay for elderly care. So they don't want government run health care for the rest of Americans because they know they will lose their businesses if we do. Right there PROVES to you that Obama and Congress KNOW that when they say "you can keep your insurance that you have if you want to" and "you can keep your doctor" that they KNOW it will be short lived. Eventually ALL Americans will be forced to be on the government run plan.

But so far, I haven't seen any of the opponents have the balls to say they want to do away with grandma's medicare. And most of medicaid pays for grandma in nursing homes. Shall we throw her out in the street?

The reason the opponents don't want government run healthcare - available to all - is that it would compete against the greedy (see my link) insurance companies who might just have to be less profit motivated and fairer to patients. So - now read this slowly : A GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION WOULD BE REFORM FOR THE CORRUPT INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND REIN IN SOME OF THE "CRAP" THEY DO.

True, partially. But what it will really do is put private health care out of business and the only ins. left will be the government run plan. Americans LOSE their FREEDOM to choose. This is the thing that opponents don't want. It's not reform, it's government control.

The government is "we the people" and we have elected representatives. We don't have any such people representing us in the private health insurance industry.

These people that we elected have great power to write bills and regulations for the private industries. Let's talk to them about regulaing the insurance industry, not about taking it over.

We elect people to represent our interests and the people of this country spoke loudly that they wanted change: out of Iraq, healthcare for all, better education, cleaner and renewable energy,& reducing our dependence on oil, among other things.

I will trust a government run health plan before I trust the greed of the private insurance industry. Profits before people is their motto, and it shows.

The government is the most UNtrustworthy institution in this country! The majority of Politicians have become corrupt and greedy and self seeking. Their quest for riches and prestige and public recognition is sickening. Just as sickening as the greed of insurance companies. So I trust neither! BTW, "MY goals and wealth before the peoples" is the politicians motto.

BJEAN... "I am not quite so sure about tort reform. It sure depends on how it's done. I don't think we as patients should be barred from seeking retribution for malpractice. Now if you're talking about putting some caps on what can be awarded, then I'll listen."

I greatly disagree with you about establishing caps on retribution for malpractice. My son was left in my wife's birth canal and my wife told that the doctor would tell her when she was in labor and given medicine to stop delivery and some to help her sleep. My son was left there over night and his head was crushed. He lived for five days before we turned off life support after he was brain dead and his heart was failing. That doctor's indiscretion and lack of checking my wife's dilation as she requested killed my baby. We received no remorse from the doctor and when I asked what specifically killed my son he told me to ask the NICU since the baby died in there. I am suing that bastard as far as the legal system will allow me to. I do not care about how if benefits me financially. I want him to be held accountable by his bosses and insurance company. I want his malpractice insurance to go up significantly and I want him to be reminded in his paycheck that he left my son to die. I want him to think twice about refusing to check a woman that insists that she is in labor and the baby is coming and never to tell her that he will tell her when she is in labor. Now that I have said all that, I DO NOT SUPPORT MALPRACTICE SUIT CAPS TO PROTECT THE DOCTOR through an effort to control medical costs. Sometimes the practioner can be so wrong that the crap needs sued out of him!

Edited August 29, 200917 yr by jonsjourney
did not idicate a quote was being made

paycuts? tax cuts? You mean like the, what, $600 humongous tax rebate the last president gave you? Did you go spend it and did all Americans go out and spend theirs and regenerate the economy? That was such a meaningless display of generosity on the part of that president that it was laughable.

You've been listening to too many replays of Ronnie's "the only good government is no goverment" which was always amusing seeing as how he participated in government, both national and state government and under his "leadership", the government grew.

The whole concept of not wanting government at all is absurd and you know it.

I can understand why you want programs to be run as efficiently as possible, but to constantly bellow about getting rid of government is a waste of time and energy. You can't get rid of the government. If you want to made adjustments, work on them one program at a time. Just to holler about "government" being the demon of society is utterly wrong and simply making people feel disgruntled with their country as a whole. Because you sure can't have a country like the United States without goverment.

And if you think that it is a good thing to not take care of our own members of society, provide roads and schools and such, and you don't think that Americans are entitled to the best health care in the world, then what kind of person are you?

BJEAN... "I am not quite so sure about tort reform. It sure depends on how it's done. I don't think we as patients should be barred from seeking retribution for malpractice. Now if you're talking about putting some caps on what can be awarded, then I'll listen."

I greatly disagree with you about establishing caps on retribution for malpractice. My son was left in my wife's birth canal and my wife told that the doctor would tell her when she was in labor and given medicine to stop delivery and some to help her sleep. My son was left there over night and his head was crushed. He lived for five days before we turned off life support after he was brain dead and his heart was failing. That doctor's indiscretion and lack of checking my wife's dilation as she requested killed my baby. We received no remorse from the doctor and when I asked what specifically killed my son he told me to ask the NICU since the baby died in there. I am suing that bastard as far as the legal system will allow me to. I do not care about how if benefits me financially. I want him to be held accountable by his bosses and insurance company. I want his malpractice insurance to go up significantly and I want him to be reminded in his paycheck that he left my son to die. I want him to think twice about refusing to check a woman that insists that she is in labor and the baby is coming and never to tell her that he will tell her when she is in labor. Now that I have said all that, I DO NOT SUPPORT MALPRACTICE SUIT CAPS TO PROTECT THE DOCTOR through an effort to control medical costs. Sometimes the practioner can be so wrong that the crap needs sued out of him!

I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your baby. The doctor should lose his license for such a grave misuse of his medical knowledge. As you stated, no amount of money will bring your child back and therefore, you are not suing for the money, but to avenge the doctor in some way. The fact is, that it is the people in America who pay such high medical insurance premiums that you are really suing, because that is where the money comes from that you may receive, and they didn't do anything to cause your wife to lose your baby. This is why caps on lawsuit payouts need to be made. There are other ways that doctors can be penalized for their wrongs other than taking money from the American people. They can have their lisences suspended or lose them all together, or they, themselves, can be forced to set aside a lump sum of money from their own pockets each year in case of malpractice allegations that they will have to give up if they do wrong. But, these million dollar settlements need to cease. The American people can't afford to keep paying them. And, yes, we pay them in high medical ins. costs, not the doctors. They make plenty of money, and their high insurance costs are only passed on to the patients.

The sky is falling - the sky is falling !!!!

That's what they want you to believe (the big insurance compaines) - we need change. We need a better health care system.

What's a person to do who make minimum wage - how in the hell can they afford anything more than a merger living if that and their employers don't provide insurance..

You want to cut government jobs - oh well then there's another jump in the unemployment - that's the answer.. What about those pples jobs - their families.. Been to DMV lately - think the lines are long now - well cut half the jobs and see how long they are..

Cut the stupid spending of $100,000 to name a day after a gnat.. Those are the little things that add up - if I remember correctly Obama has 3/4 of the $$ for his proposal .. But again - I don't listen that closely - An ER doc recently said - hell give it a chance.. We are paying right now for all the uninsured - they still go to the hospital when sick..

What's the answer - hell I don't have the faintest - but I know that running around like chicken little yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling isn't the answer...

The way to regulate the health insurance industry is to make it compete with a plan that does not discriminate, is not profit motivated and runs with less of an administrative cost. That would be a government health care option. Frankly, I don't care if it would put the private insurance industry out of business. So what? Other countries have government run health care for all and their people are satisfied with it. And yes, you can always find anecdotal stories about so-and-so who had to wait for care, etc.. in any country and with any type of healthcare. Including and especially ours. That's not the point. If you favor competition, which all of you on the right say you do, then the private insurance industry should not be worried about competing with the government, who they claim can't run anything. Lower premiums, don't deny care, stop paying your CEO's obscene salaries and bonuses and be less profit motivated. That's what real competition is about. Health care should NOT be about maximizing profit. It should be about providing healthcare to all. Period. So, if the private insurance industry cannot compete with a government plan, so be it. I don't have a problem with that. It would be their own undoing.

If the government is so untrustworthy (and remember that the government is not some abstract entity ....it is we the people...so when you use the term government - substitute "we the people".) - then why do we trust them to protect us with the military? The CIA? The FBI? I think if they can handle that, they can handle doing a chest x-ray or giving a flu shot. People on socialized medicince (medicare) are quite happy with their care.

It was private, corporate america that created the economic downfall we are currently in. Their greed and corruption. Not the government. So, I have no faith in private anything. It's corporate america that is untrustworthy and we have the current economy to prove it.

It was private, corporate america that created the economic downfall we are currently in. Their greed and corruption. Not the government. So, I have no faith in private anything. It's corporate america that is untrustworthy and we have the current economy to prove it.

Love it !! So true so true ~~~

paycuts? tax cuts? You mean like the, what, $600 humongous tax rebate the last president gave you?

Yes, that's what I mean exactly. As I see it, they just returned our own money to us. When I speak of cuts, I'm refering to government jobs and wasteful spending on pet projects and pork.

Did you go spend it and did all Americans go out and spend theirs and regenerate the economy? That was such a meaningless display of generosity on the part of that president that it was laughable.

I agree. And when Obama does it, will you agree? Somehow I doubt it. You probably feel that paying for people to have new cars was a great idea? That cash for clunkers program was such a waste of money. Obama's generosity gives everybody who wanted a new car up to $4500. off of it. It fattened up the car industres pocket momentarily, but how did that help America? I just paid for someone else to get a break on the fee of a new vehicle. That was money I could have used to pay some of my own bills.

You've been listening to too many replays of Ronnie's "the only good government is no goverment" which was always amusing seeing as how he participated in government, both national and state government and under his "leadership", the government grew.

The whole concept of not wanting government at all is absurd and you know it.

Who said not wanting government "at all"? They need to stick to protecting America and a few other things, and get out of the banking and insurance businesses and MANY other things. The problem is that they are getting too big and we CAN'T afford them any more.

I can understand why you want programs to be run as efficiently as possible, but to constantly bellow about getting rid of government is a waste of time and energy. You can't get rid of the government. If you want to made adjustments, work on them one program at a time. Just to holler about "government" being the demon of society is utterly wrong and simply making people feel disgruntled with their country as a whole. Because you sure can't have a country like the United States without goverment.

And if you think that it is a good thing to not take care of our own members of society, provide roads and schools and such, and you don't think that Americans are entitled to the best health care in the world, then what kind of person are you?

The government of the US was initially a very good thing when our founding Father's established it, until it gradually over time became more and more corrupt and greedy. The government is needed, but needs to take a step back from all the controlling it is attempting to accomplish. I believe that the people have been steamrolling over the years in anger, but not lifting a voice because they felt they couldn't do anything about it all by themselves. They didn't know what they, just 1 person, could do to stop the WH from it's continual grab for control and their own loss of freedoms. It has gradually gotten out of hand and I believe the people are now starting to voice their anger over it together. Mostly because of Obama's rush to drastically change everything within his first 6 months of presidency. I know quite a few people who voted for Obama and are now regretting their choice for change, because it wasn't the change they thought they would be getting. It's not so much the health care reform, but everything he's doing so quickly since he got in. It has to do with government getting bigger and our paychecks getting smaller because of it.

The way to regulate the health insurance industry is to make it compete with a plan that does not discriminate, is not profit motivated and runs with less of an administrative cost. That would be a government health care option. Frankly, I don't care if it would put the private insurance industry out of business. So what?

So what?! Then you wouldn't have a choice. Once that happens, then the government can make all of your health care decisions. They alone make the rules and regulations and you have lost yet another freedom.

Other countries have government run health care for all and their people are satisfied with it. And yes, you can always find anecdotal stories about so-and-so who had to wait for care, etc.. in any country and with any type of healthcare. Including and especially ours. That's not the point. If you favor competition, which all of you on the right say you do, then the private insurance industry should not be worried about competing with the government, who they claim can't run anything. Lower premiums, don't deny care, stop paying your CEO's obscene salaries and bonuses and be less profit motivated. That's what real competition is about.

Exactly! Lets regulate them to do exactly that, WITHOUT a government run program to compete with them and force them to all go out of business and put America into bankruptcy! Congress has the power to make these laws.

Health care should NOT be about maximizing profit. It should be about providing healthcare to all. Period. So, if the private insurance industry cannot compete with a government plan, so be it. I don't have a problem with that. It would be their own undoing.

If the government is so untrustworthy (and remember that the government is not some abstract entity ....it is we the people...so when you use the term government - substitute "we the people".) - then why do we trust them to protect us with the military? The CIA? The FBI? I think if they can handle that, they can handle doing a chest x-ray or giving a flu shot. People on socialized medicince (medicare) are quite happy with their care.

It was private, corporate america that created the economic downfall we are currently in. Their greed and corruption. Not the government. So, I have no faith in private anything. It's corporate america that is untrustworthy and we have the current economy to prove it.

We have what's called free enterprise in this country and when you start to take it away from one you take it from others as well

The government of the US was initially a very good thing when our founding Father's established it, until it gradually over time became more and more corrupt and greedy. The government is needed, but needs to take a step back from all the controlling it is attempting to accomplish. I believe that the people have been steamrolling over the years in anger, but not lifting a voice because they felt they couldn't do anything about it all by themselves. They didn't know what they, just 1 person, could do to stop the WH from it's continual grab for control and their own loss of freedoms. It has gradually gotten out of hand and I believe the people are now starting to voice their anger over it together. Mostly because of Obama's rush to drastically change everything within his first 6 months of presidency. I know quite a few people who voted for Obama and are now regretting their choice for change, because it wasn't the change they thought they would be getting. It's not so much the health care reform, but everything he's doing so quickly since he got in. It has to do with government getting bigger and our paychecks getting smaller because of it.

First of all, middle class wage earners saw a reduction in withholding taxes back in April and therefore an INCREASE in their paychecks. If they are bringing home less money it is because their healtcare premiums have risen. This was a result of Obama's keeping his promise to reduce taxes on middle America. Second - wealthy americans have seen their income rise due to the tax cuts given them by the bush administration. Obama wants to roll back the their tax cuts to what they were in the Clinton administration. I support that.

Obama has a lot on his plate - a huge mess left over from the bush administration. The economy was number one. And all indications are that the stimulus is working - slowly - but working. Unemployment will be the last indicator to improve. But it's like if your basement is flooded up to the ceiling and someone comes with buckets to bail out the water to keep it from reaching your first floor living area. It helps avoid a bigger disaster but you still have a flooded basement. It will take time. I read everyday about towns that are depending on that stimulus money to keep from laying off workers or to do shovel ready projects.

Obama was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Had he not done anything for the economy - it would have gotten much worse. And people would have blamed him. What he had done is put money into the economy to stimulate it. And he gets blamed for that. He gives middle class america a tax cut and gets no credit.

Healthcare reform has to happen now. The time is right, in fact, long overdue. Obama knows that. If it seems like there it too much too soon it is because the bush administration ignored too many problems.

Now, about the free enterprise. After the depression, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed that separated investment and commercial banking activities. It was believed that commercial banks took too much risk with depositors money. This act worked well for over 50 years until 3 Republicans, a republican controlled congress and a republican president (bush) changed it in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which eliminated this act and its restrictions and paved the way for the economic disasters that happened on Wall Street last year.

You might remember Phil Gramm - the one who said the american people were whining about the economy.

Edited August 29, 200917 yr by Cleo's Mom

We have what's called free enterprise in this country and when you start to take it away from one you take it from others as well

There are many things that are socialized in our country - the military, medicare, medicaid, veteran's healthcare, schools, police and fire protection.

But this hasn't stopped private schools from existing. They are doing quite well. So, public (government) competiton would not be the downfall of private insurance if they offer a good product for a reasonable price, don't discriminate or reject people, pay reasonable, not obscene wages to their CEO's, and put people before profit.

There are many things that are socialized in our country - the military, medicare, medicaid, veteran's healthcare, schools, police and fire protection.

But this hasn't stopped private schools from existing. They are doing quite well. So, public (government) competiton would not be the downfall of private insurance if they offer a good product for a reasonable price, don't discriminate or reject people, pay reasonable, not obscene wages to their CEO's, and put people before profit.

Not really a good analogy. For it to really be comparable, the government would have to pay all the salaries of the teachers and administrators......and then the majority of the private schools would have to base their teacher pay on what the government pays.

Not really a good analogy. For it to really be comparable, the government would have to pay all the salaries of the teachers and administrators......and then the majority of the private schools would have to base their teacher pay on what the government pays.

The government does pay the salaries of teachers. It's local government taxes. And state and some federal. What the private schools pay their teachers depends on how competitive they want to be to attract the best teachers. It doesn't matter if we're talking about federal tax dollars or local tax dollars. Private schools compete with public schools and flourish in urban areas.

Debunking the top 5 myths of health care:

Sunday Forum: Why in the world can't we figure out health care?

With regard to myth #2: I waited 3 months to see my eye doctor and 3 months for a specialist for non-emergency care. I always have to wait to see specialists. I also have to wait two weeks to see my PCP if I am not having a serious problem. Even if I'm having a problem that has to be treated right away, I generally won't see him, I'll see the PA. In other words, you don't get to see him (right away) no way, no how.

My story is much worse than your's Cleo'smom. I spelled it all out in a post and in my frenzy, after typing it all out, I accidentally dumped it. I'm sure most of you are thrilled that you've been spared from my personal experiences trying to get medical care and my rant about my frustrations with it.

But I have to say that we need the government involved because that is the only way we the people are going to be able to get control our own health care again. We've spent the past 30 years or so becoming more and more dependent on insurance companies to pay for the astronomical costs of medical treatment and now THEY are in control of our medical care. And now, good healthcare has become difficult to obtain - and at this point, the best case scenario is IF we can even GET insurance coverage.

Good medical care is a life and death issue. It is not like boats or cars or houses or even public education. It is something that all Americans deserve. It is not something that would just be nice if everyone could have it. It should be as basic to our existence as citizens of this country as is our protection from the threat of war.

Nearly all other countries understand that basic premise. Americans are so under the influence of this current system that they have no idea what an abomination the healthcare system in America really is. When we became more and more dependent on the insurance companies to pay for the astronomical cost of healthcare, we became victims of the insurance companies bottom line, because you can be sure that the insurance companies aren't in the healthcare business as an act of charitable kindness. They're in it to make money and make money they darned sure do. Billions of dollars every year. And our health care suffers everytime they go up on our rates and slash our benefits. And we are frustrated and doctors are frustrated and it continues to decline. More people become uninsured everyday and when they do, they lose the ability to pay for medical care.

Why can't everyone understand this? Why have Americans bought into the concept that healthcare should be a "for profit business" instead of the life preserving and life saving proposition that we all should be able to have access to? Without government involvement, it is going to only get worse. That we know for a fact. We have a good long history that has brought us to this place. How can people doubt that we have a system of healthcare in America that is sadly inferior to several other countries and less than what Americans deserve?

Edited August 31, 200917 yr by BJean