What the hell were they thinking?

tonyb

Ok, instead of all of us bitchin' up a storm, how about idea's for solutions like Steve pointed out. Steve and I have talked about this on Polk Army, but here's my idea and feel free to shoot holes in it.

What if, we got rid of the middleman.....the insurance companies. You take your average hospital, it has groups of doctors that practice from every field. How about Hospitals or groups of doctors offer complete coverage for a price. Universal care so to speak for a yearly price. No paper work to go back and forth to authorities means a significant savings. No permission to ask, no bickering with insurance companies, no bills to keep track of or chase down. In essence, the group of doctors become the insurance company. If you move or get sick outside your normal zone, they could have a paypack system between the network of hospitals. The doctors also become self insured which means we would also need limits on litigation and get rid of these ambulance chaser attorneys. I would also give them, the hospitals, a period of maybe 5 years tax free to kick start it. Why not try something like this as a trial in one state and see how it works. That way you could work out the bugs, fine tune it, before rolling out to other states.

What this also does, is create a market based system for doctors themselves to bid on the customers they want by pricing their own universal care. You as a consumer can shop the pricing and compare prices to the kind of doctor you like. The power of care and price remains between you and the doctor. This may also give doctors the latitude to barter for care. Maybe an electrician who can barter his services for discounted prices and so on. Maybe an office cleaning company could do the same.

When you give people choice, latitude to work in, solutions arise. Put them in a pen, dictate to them, and all you get are rising costs and rationed care.

nooshinjohn

There are a bunch of problems with that Tony, not the least of which is that everybody in the chain, from the Doctors, the hospitals, insurance companies and the scum-suckers... err, lawyers, all have their hands out and trust me when I say that there are no doctors out there(or anyone else in that setup) willing to take a pay cut to make it work.

The system is so badly broken that it needs to be completely trashed and start over. We could try a reset perhaps, like going back to the way things were prior to LBJ **** with things and start there, taking into account inflation and such. At least then the system worked better than today. Another thing would be tort reform and malpractice reform, such as eliminating it (malpractice)altogether. Put the responsibility on the hospitals and the doctores to make sure they treat patients with the care they deserve rather than a number. Getting rid of the safety net the docs/hospitals have would certainly place the emphasis back on true care, and tort would reduce the burden as well.

cfrizz

You are dreaming Tony, You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people don't have a problem with paying their bills. You couldn't be more wrong! I work in a hospital and it is my job to ask people to pay their copays and deductibles, guess what? 95% flip out and start crying they have no money. $250.00 check or cc pymt & they will be covered 100% and they don't want to pay it, but they all want the services we offer. They promise to make payment plans and then stiff us.

You also seem to be under the impression that doctors are/would be willing to settle for less money...they are NOT! There is not one single American born doctor in the Internal medicine dept at my branch of Harvard Pilgram health plan. There aren't that many in the hospital I work at either. Everyone wants to be a high priced specialist, god forbid they be a general practioner or a common Internal medicine MD, but that is usually where the problems are found with a simple exam.

Your plan wouldn't work, because give people a choice and they all want the best for everything, well the best costs money in time, equipment, education, staff, and building costs. But when asked to pay for the best, everyone complains that is costs too much.

Doctors don't work by themselves, they have staff that they have to pay, and expensive medical equipment to buy, use and maintain. Plus there are the people that supply the doctors, do you think they are going to change their rates as well? Yeah right.

This is not the 1800's Tony, You can't go back to how things were done back then, and guess what, a whole lot of people died back then with lack of care as well because they couldn't afford it back then either.

bmbguy

Well, there are still some people out there willing to pay for their health care. And when this 'transformation' is complete, those people that are willing to pay will be the ones that get the best care. There will be a 'shadow' system of doctors willing to either go around or break away from the 'system' and take cash as payment, and people that will be happy to pay them for service.

amulford

The system is so badly broken that it needs to be completely trashed and start over.

You are right. Think of it like a pork farm. The hogs have been at the trough for so long and have gotten so fat they will attack you if you try to get between them and their slop. It's disgusting.

Reform is going to be a tough nut to crack. All of the players are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

But, sad to say it, the first thing we need to do is get rid of the current crop of politicians who passed this mess. So get out and vote this election.

tonyb

Your dancing around the root cause Cathy, Doctors behave that way why ? Because of the costs of doing buisness within their profession. Reduce those costs. It's not an 1800's mentality, it's taking the chains off that are crippling the system. Doctors do not have to settle for less money, they may even make more, if you just reduce their out of pocket expenses such as high insurance rates, paperwork, and some burdensome regulations. They could then offer their services at a much more competitive rate while still retaining a noteworthy income. With reduced employee head count from not having to deal with insurance companies or chase down bill payments, thats a considerable chunk of change. Let doctors operate like a small buisness instead of a slave is all I'm saying.

Sure, hospitals/doctors have a team around them. Supplies, equipment, all add into the costs of doing buisness. Each doctor/hospital has a different cost structure which will determine their pricing for universal care, thus you get to choose just like any other buisness.

There will be no co-pays, no deductables, you pay once a year for a universal plan, much like car insurance. The only difference is you and the doctor/hospital are in charge of it's costs,implement, and not a federal agency. That savings alone of not having to chase down, keep billing people, or keeping track would be astronomical to a hospitals bottom line. We have to start thinking outside the box, because the current box we are put in isn't working.

bmbguy

amulford wrote: »

Reform is going to be a tough nut to crack. All of the players are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

...the first thing we need to do is get rid of the current crop of politicians...

I think you can stop right there. There is a lot more broken than just health care!

nooshinjohn

double post deleted

nooshinjohn

bmbguy wrote: »

I think you can stop right there. There is a lot more broken than just health care!

Amen to that!:arrowu:

amulford

There will be no co-pays, no deductables, you pay once a year for a universal plan, much like car insurance.

Do you think the premiums are going to be like car insurance, too? I kind of doubt it.

They have something like that already in alot of countries. The goverments are involved and the tax rates are up over 30%. The care is rationed. No way the governments are going to allow that much cake on the table without their fingers in it.

tonyb

Here are just some of the tax implications.



Refundable tax credit: This is intended to be a form of assistance with the cost of premiums paid under a qualified health plan. Eligible individual’s incomes must exceed 100% but not more than 400% of the poverty level. The Treasury Department is tasked with prescribing rules for calculating the poverty level. Dependents aren’t eligible, and if married, you must file jointly otherwise you don’t qualify. This credit takes effect after Dec. 31, 2013.

Excise tax: This 2.3% tax on manufacturers, producers or importers on the sold price of a medical device is intended to help cover the cost of the sweeping legislation, but some experts worry it will create more paperwork and increase the costs of the goods. The tax goes into effect after Dec. 31, 2012.

Affordable choices of health benefit plans: Employers will be required to provide at least minimal benefits via a health plan to their employees , and additional benefits will be provided to individuals. In order to pay for the requirements, the federal government will make payments to states to set up exchanges. Then the states must make payments to plans on behalf of individuals to defray the cost of the additional benefits. There will be a reporting requirement from the states to the Secretary of the Treasury. A list of all taxpayers who qualify for the premium tax credit generated by plans that don’t provide essential minimum coverage or are not affordable will be provided to the Feds. This is a fail-safe to prevent fraud under the refundable tax credit listed above.

Reduction in deductibles: Individuals with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty level will enjoy reductions to their out-of-pocket health-care expenses by two-thirds, one-half, or one-third, depending on their income. These tax breaks go into effect after Dec. 31, 2013.

Small business requirement: The reform requires small business owners with more than 50 employees provide health insurance or face an “assessable payment” equal to one-twelfth of $2,000 times the number of full-time employees. Employers must also file a return documenting whether or not they have complied. Small business must be in compliance or face the fine beginning after December 31, 2013.

Patient-centered outcomes research trust fund: This organization was created to review pharmaceutical medicines to determine if they have sufficient quality and are relevant to patients’ needs. Funding for the organization will come from a $2 fee imposed on each health insurance policy or self-insured plan whose plan year ends after Sept. 30, 2012. The fee is then multiplied by the average number of participants covered in the plan, and will extend to Sept. 30, 2019.

More fees and excise taxes: According to a report generated by the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration (TIGTA), a whopping “40% excise tax will be imposed on high-cost, employer-sponsored coverage if the value of coverage exceeds $10,200 (self-only) or $27,500 (not self-only),” to be paid by the coverage provider. The tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts for payment of unqualified medical expenses increased to 20% from 10% prior to 2011. A hospital insurance tax of 0.9% will be levied on high-income taxpayers ($250,000 married filing joint, or $125,000 single) effective after Dec. 31, 2012.

Beginning in 2013 the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D will be eliminated. Also the threshold for deducting medical expenses will increase to 10% from 7.5% of adjusted gross income. So if your medical expenses total $10,000 and your adjusted gross income is $100,000, your medical deduction will be zero. Prior to 2013 you would have enjoyed a $2,500 tax deduction.

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

There will be no co-pays, no deductables, you pay once a year for a universal plan, much like car insurance. The only difference is you and the doctor/hospital are in charge of it's costs,implement, and not a federal agency. That savings alone of not having to chase down, keep billing people, or keeping track would be astronomical to a hospitals bottom line. We have to start thinking outside the box, because the current box we are put in isn't working.

You pay once a year???? Yeah ok, well what happens when your middle age heart has a heart attack, and needs bypass surgery, meds, physical therapy, and on & on.? Is that once a year payment going to cover all of that? I DON'T THINK SO!

Tony we are an aging population, and the older we get the more medical care we need, this is simply a fact. We all would like to make this as simple as possible, but the reality is that there is no simple solution to this problem, and eliminating the the paperwork, insurance companies, malpractice insurance etc isn't going to solve it either. Would you be willing to NOT sue your MD if you found out that he screwed up during that bypass surgery, that you needed up above? I doubt it.

And what about the pharmacutical companies? Do you think they are going to take less money for all of their life saving drugs? Of course not. Everytime you turn around, they are trying to get their medicines that have been out for 7 years and about to come off of their patent protected status renewed so they can stop generics from being released, which will save all of us money. Put an end to the patent protections of the drug companies, would also help with health care costs.

So many people here in the USA that live on the border are jumping over the line into Canada so that they can get their drugs without bankrupting themselves. We should be able to purchase our drugs from other countries to save ourselves some money, oh but that's illegal.

There are no simple solutions to this problem Tony no matter how much you and others think it would be to solve simply by getting the govt out of it.

Medicine and for profit do NOT belong together, because what ends up happening is people end up dying for lack of affordable care.

Drenis

cfrizz wrote: »

So many people here in the USA that live on the border are jumping over the line into Canada so that they can get their drugs without bankrupting themselves. We should be able to purchase our drugs from other countries to save ourselves some money, oh but that's illegal.

There is a huge market in providing medication for American users from Canada. The pharmaceutical industry is nuts here. However, I don't see people crossing the border always as its more convenient now a days to have them shipped.

tonyb

Never said there was an easy solution Cathy, but you have to start trying some things in a very different way to find what can work and what can't instead of just bandaiding the whole shebang all the time.

Just like some buisnesses, you put together research and development, pick a group to try your product, tweek it as necessary before floating it out to the general public. Stop the pre-conceived notions and run with some new idea's. Thats how progress is made, not pandering to special interest, class warfare. All we need is one state to do this, to stand up and bow out of the current system and start trying different things and I'll lay odds a better system will come out of it.

tonyb

amulford wrote: »

Do you think the premiums are going to be like car insurance, too? I kind of doubt it.

They have something like that already in alot of countries. The goverments are involved and the tax rates are up over 30%. The care is rationed. No way the governments are going to allow that much cake on the table without their fingers in it.

The whole point Antny, is to remove government from the equation alltogether.....or as best as we can anyway. However, I do agree with all the cake on the table aspect. If thats the case, if one assumes that will never change,can't change.....then one must then assume government only exists to consume profits from everywhere it can. Following that train of thought, then one must realize that also government has no notion of what is in your best interest, only it's self preservation. You want to tell me your satisfied with that thought ? If so, kick back and relax, if not then time to speak up.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

The whole point Antny, is to remove government from the equation alltogether.....or as best as we can anyway. However, I do agree with all the cake on the table aspect. If thats the case, if one assumes that will never change,can't change.....then one must then assume government only exists to consume profits from everywhere it can. Following that train of thought, then one must realize that also government has no notion of what is in your best interest, only it's self preservation.

This is 100% true. Our founders warned us of this very thing. When asked what form of government our fledging nation had, Benjamin Franklin replied, "We have given you a republic, if you can keep it."

We gave it away for just a bit of security, and now we have nothing.

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

Medicine and for profit do NOT belong together, because what ends up happening is people end up dying for lack of affordable care.

This is where we part company Cathy. There is a difference between "affordable" care and "free" care. Since you work in a hospital, how do you think your salary is paid for ? There's an old saying, charity begins at home, your asking for charity for millions, I'm seeking affordability for millions.

Like Steve pointed out, there is no free lunch, a service is provided someone has to pay. Would it not be in the consumers best interest to give him options on payment other than cash ? Would it not be in the consumers best interest to be able to get drugs at reduced prices ? Would it be in the doctors/hospitals best interest if they could eliminate alot of paperwork, head count, and regulations along with the high liability insurance ? Think that might interest a few ? Of course it would.....but as previously pointed out, it is not in the interest of government and lobbyists. So then the question is.....who needs to go ? The elitists in Washington and their lobbyist cronys, or a free market health system ? Like Pauly Walnuts used to say..." Somebody's gotta go", to make any progress.

nooshinjohn

This comes from Subaru in my old home town of Lafayette, Indiana.(wish I could go back sometimes...)

The bottom line of Thursday?s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the eyes of some major employers is this: Their health care costs are going to increase under the Affordable Care Act.

That?s according to Tom Easterday, executive vice president of Subaru of Indiana Automotive.

Easterday said the act?s expansion of coverage to employee dependents up to age 26 has prompted 200 adult children of SIA associates to sign up for the company?s health insurance plan.


That has added between $500,000 and $1 million to the Lafayette auto plant?s annual health care costs ? which add up to more than $40 million annually, or $13,000 per associate for medical insurance.

?The high cost of health care, government regulations and the highest corporate income taxes among developed nations put U.S. companies at a disadvantage with companies in other countries around the world,? Easterday said.

In Japan, Subaru?s parent country, insurance is provided more universally so companies don?t have to factor that cost in the same as businesses located in the U.S. Insurance companies in Japan don?t compete but rather charge fixed prices for drugs and services as set by negotiations with the Health Ministry every two years.

Connie Weaver, who leads Purdue?s Women?s Global Institute, said it?s too early to tell how health care changes under the Affordable Care Act will play into the larger context of global health care and economics.

?Many countries have better coverage of their citizens than the U.S. does, and many countries have cheaper labor than we do,? she said.

?On one level, it seems humane to have all our citizens taken care of at some level. It also worries me that in this period of unemployment, have we taken away a bunch more job opportunities??

Even if employers don?t pull back on hiring as the health care law goes into effect, Easterday said he has talked to executives who are thinking about dropping employee health insurance and simply paying the ACA-imposed $2,000 penalty per employee.

?With health insurance costs increasing 8 percent each year, some companies with 50 to 100 employees may find it is less expensive to pay the penalty and have employees purchase their own insurance from pools,? he said.

Easterday emphasized that SIA is not planning to go that route.

He said Congress seems to recognize that it must address the tax burden to get the economy moving again, but Easterday doesn?t expect significant changes in the area of health care in the next few years.

Easterday, as a member of the Indiana University Arnett Hospital board of directors, said he is working to apply some of the same streamlining methods used to cut manufacturing costs to the health care system.

?Health care providers need a much greater focus on lean techniques, implementing best practices, improving quality and safety.?

?The ACA does not address the problem of rising health care costs,? he said. But he believes providers can become more efficient, and at the same time, improve health care quality.

Advocates for the health care legislation argue that it will lower costs to consumers by increasing regulation of the health care system.

Many employers, such as SIA, are taking their own steps to lower health care costs by trying to improve overall employee health. Easterday said SIA is increasing its focus on wellness programs, prevention and case management of chronic illness and seeing positive outcomes as a result.

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

This is where we part company Cathy. There is a difference between "affordable" care and "free" care. Since you work in a hospital, how do you think your salary is paid for ? There's an old saying, charity begins at home, your asking for charity for millions, I'm seeking affordability for millions.

Like Steve pointed out, there is no free lunch, a service is provided someone has to pay. Would it not be in the consumers best interest to give him options on payment other than cash ? Would it not be in the consumers best interest to be able to get drugs at reduced prices ? Would it be in the doctors/hospitals best interest if they could eliminate alot of paperwork, head count, and regulations along with the high liability insurance ? Think that might interest a few ? Of course it would.....but as previously pointed out, it is not in the interest of government and lobbyists. So then the question is.....who needs to go ? The elitists in Washington and their lobbyist cronys, or a free market health system ? Like Pauly Walnuts used to say..." Somebody's gotta go", to make any progress.

I know exactly how my salary is paid for, it is the PATIENT'S who seem to think we are simply there to help them but don't want to pay their share of the cost for it. Are you going to convince the drug companies to charge less for their medicines so that we can afford to buy it? Sacrifices are going to have to be made from ALL the different entities that make up the health care system, but all of them are too busy trying to satisfy shareholders that they don't give a damn about the people they are taking money from. All of us are losing with the exceptions of the insurance & drug companies. They are able to hold everyone hostage while they rake in the money.

You keep wanting to blame the big useless govt, the govt wouldn't have gotten as big as it is if the majority of the large corporations could have been counted on to do the right thing, but they have proven time & time again that they can't be trusted to do so. They lay off millions of people here to get cheap labor outside of the USA to boost up their stock. Or they sell their companies to conglomerates located outside USA shores.

Since the dawn of time, corporations have operated with the sole purpose of making lots of money while trying to give a little back to consumers & their workforce. And govt has kept getting bigger to protect the rights of consumer & the workforce. Or maybe that is what you & others like you want, to go back to the treatment of third world countries where the only ones that have money have everything & the rest of the country live in poverty & work in slave conditions.

At the rate we are going with the businesses selling us down the drain that is exactly where we are going to end up.

gdb

cfrizz wrote: »

I know exactly how my salary is paid for, it is the PATIENT'S who seem to think we are simply there to help them but don't want to pay their share of the cost for it. Are you going to convince the drug companies to charge less for their medicines so that we can afford to buy it? Sacrifices are going to have to be made from ALL the different entities that make up the health care system, but all of them are too busy trying to satisfy shareholders that they don't give a damn about the people they are taking money from. All of us are losing with the exceptions of the insurance & drug companies. They are able to hold everyone hostage while they rake in the money.

You keep wanting to blame the big useless govt, the govt wouldn't have gotten as big as it is if the majority of the large corporations could have been counted on to do the right thing, but they have proven time & time again that they can't be trusted to do so. They lay off millions of people here to get cheap labor outside of the USA to boost up their stock. Or they sell their companies to conglomerates located outside USA shores.

Since the dawn of time, corporations have operated with the sole purpose of making lots of money while trying to give a little back to consumers & their workforce. And govt has kept getting bigger to protect the rights of consumer & the workforce. Or maybe that is what you & others like you want, to go back to the treatment of third world countries where the only ones that have money have everything & the rest of the country live in poverty & work in slave conditions.

At the rate we are going with the businesses selling us down the drain that is exactly where we are going to end up.

From out of the wilderness comes a voice of reason !!

tonyb

Your missing the point girlfriend, they hold everyone hostage and rake in the money because those in power allow it. If people had a choice in drugs, a choice in care, a choice in plans, competition takes hold and prices come down. Greed is going to be present in anything, but you can't limit choices and expect a stable price structure.

Lets look at it another way. Doesn't the government frown on any buisness holding a monopoly ? Why then would we allow them to hold a monopoly on healthcare....on drugs, to decide who gets what treatment and when and for how much ? Medicare is already taking up a good portion of our GDP, why on earth would we want to put more people on it ? Shouldn't the goal be to get people to be more self sufficient, not reliant on others to take care of them ?

You expressed some displeasure with those who do not want to pay even a couple hundred bucks. Those people will always be around, but just like a kid who cry's for a cookie, you have to say no sometimes. Otherwise....the kid keeps crying until he gets what he wants. Just like in buisness, we are always looking for ways to be more efficient. You can't do that if your hands are tied behind your back and thats what government does to the healthcare industry. Even more so now.

cfrizz

And there will always be people around to complain about how the govt is tying corrupt businesses hands to try to keep them from continuing to abuse their power.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

This is where we part company Cathy. There is a difference between "affordable" care and "free" care. Since you work in a hospital, how do you think your salary is paid for ? There's an old saying, charity begins at home, your asking for charity for millions, I'm seeking affordability for millions.

When you mentioned the word "charity", I was reminded of the "Charity Hospital System" in Louisiana. You can read about it's origins here:

Origin of Louisiana Indigent Healthcare System

The state of Louisiana is wealthy by no means, but it manages to provide high quality health care to every resident who can't afford it. It does this while maintaining some of the lowest income and property taxes in the nation. Of course, oil and gas revenues help out a lot.

This book chronicles the history of the Charity Hospital System:

"History of the Charity Hospitals of Louisiana: A Study of Poverty, Politics, Public Health and the Public Interest". Quote from publisher's description:

"This book is the first definitive, descriptive history of the Charity Hospital System of Louisiana, a story of how poverty, politics, public health, public interest, race, gender, and class, shaped the long history of one of the most storied public healthcare systems in the state and nation, to be published in a single volume. Over a period of more than 270 years, a total of ten charity hospitals were established in different venues of the state and evolved into one of the most celebrated public healthcare systems in the country."

The Louisiana Charity Hospital system was implemented in 1732.

The public hospitals in Louisiana are not just for the indigent. Anyone is welcome to use their facilities. If you have insurance and can pay for services, you pay. If you can document that you are unable to pay, the state picks up the tab. I have been covered by private insurance my entire life. However, I did require the services of a nearby Charity Hospital after an injury. The quality of care I received was courteous, professional and "top notch". The physicians, nurses and staff are well paid and well trained. In fact, many doctors, nurses and other health care professionals prefer to work in the public hospital system because they can make a generous salary and still have a standard workday/workweek with an excellent balance between work and private life. Doctors working in the public hospital system also do not have the financial pressure of paying for a staff and insurance. They also are not under financial pressure to recommend a more expensive course of medical treatment.

Some statistics on patient satisfaction for the Shreveport, Louisiana Charity Hospital can be found here:

U.S. News Profile-LSU Medical Center-Shreveport,LA

The point I am making is that a government run hospital system, in the state of Louisiana, provides high quality health care to residents regardless of their ability to pay. The public system peacefully coexists with a number of private hospitals and hospital systems. It is a fact that some insured patients will drive out of their way for care at a Charity Hospital rather than use the services of a nearby private hospital. The perception in such cases is that they will receive a higher standard of care than what is available at their local private hospital.

I would have preferred that the federal government provided incentives for each state to implement a public healthcare system comparable to the one in Louisiana. The individual states are in a better position to implement and manage public healthcare for their residents. Since all states are required to have balanced budgets, I expect that state-run healthcare systems would not have the rampant mismanagement, waste and cost overruns that seem to plague so many federal entitlement programs. The focus on fiscal management and restraint seems to go away when you have the legal authority to print money and borrow trillions of dollars.

Healthcare, like education, should not be a rancorous politicized issue.

txcoastal1

While running for office Obama admitted that Medicade/Medicare program was a mess, and cleaning that mess up would pay for a new health care plan so let's start there, especially one's fraudulently abusing the private and gov't plans.

Lets open the insurance competition and tort reform....we need to get to the core of why medical care, insurance, and drugs are so expensive in the US, this plan is nothing but throwing tax payers money at problems like the bail outs instead of going after the cause.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Healthcare, like education, should not be a rancorous politicized issue.

Exactly. I expect the government, local and federal, to provide basic services that benefit everyone, such as national defense, fire, police, education, roads, social security, and health care. The only debate should be on how to best achieve these goals. For example, thanks to the craziness after 9/11 the defense budget is way past what is needed, and needs a big cutback. The TSA is useless, and out of control, and needs to be eliminated. Health care needs to be modified to be single-payer, and the insurance companies need to find others they can gouge, and screw over.

bsoko2

Same arguents were said when social security was made a law. How many of you are glad you have social security?

Conradicles

I love these discussions and glad this thread has been kept open. Wish we could have religious discussions too.

DarqueKnight

Why?

exalted512

bsoko2 wrote: »

Same arguents were said when social security was made a law. How many of you are glad you have social security?

I love paying for something I'll never get.
-Cody

markmarc

Raife has shown a great long term example of how gov't and private business can work together. Romney for all his dancing on the issue is correct that the state level is the correct way to implement health care change. The federal govt should be limited to allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines and block grants of monies. Beyond that too much corruption and inertia crushes the system.