We can do more to improve the system. The bill passed/signed did not help the system. Let's start with clear pricing of medical services and plans where everyone pays somethine at the point of service. It is not free and if people have to pay something, they may look at other options.

If this administration had tried to pass HCR one step at a time it would have worked a lot better.

Instead, in their infinite wisdom, they shoved the whole kit and kaboodle pos bill down our throats and up the other end at the same time.

Thank you Nancy "we have to pass it to see what's in it" Pelosi and everyone else who didn't have a clue.

Talk about a totally screwed up survey through too much ambiguity in an attempt to generate supportive sounding results.

"Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral."

The bottom line is that only 30% supported it, what more do you need to tell you that it shouldn't exist?

I also think it should have "done more"... repealing itself for example.

There are, ultimately, only two choices: Universal Care or Privatized Care. Care based on what everyone gets, no matter how good or bad that is; or, care that is based on how much money you have. Take your pick.

And it took them six months of polling to find a sample of 1251 to say that. Better yet, this survey is supposed to wipe out the other 1251 polls run that say 50 - 58% of Americans want this bill repealed.

Isn't that like the losing sports team runing off the field claiming victory because the other team and officials are wrong.

Can I be the first to say:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not claim to be an "expert" when it comes to Healthcare. Although, I have worked in and seen the administration side of a hospital and I studied healthcare for 3 years.

From everything I have seen, the government only makes things worse. Although it is true that some people like their "free" healthcare in Canada and in the UK, they pay for it in taxes and the quality of the care and the accessibility of the care they have is nowhere close to being comparable to our healthcare facilities/processes here in America. Again, I am no "expert" but I did live in Canada for two years and because of what I was doing there I had plenty of opportunities to visit hospitals and to speak with people about how they felt about their healthcare system. I would much rather be taken care of by our healthcare system here in America, believe me!

Our healthcare system is expensive and I would be the first to admit that the third payer system is broken and allowing for costs to skyrocket. But, the government has done more than enough over the past 40 years to prove that the government is not the solution to this problem. To say that the government should be doing more to fix our healthcare system is like saying the forest fire that is out of control just needs some more gasoline on it to help put it out.

All anyone has to do is read the comments. It doesn't look like anything unanimous to me. I still see 61% favoring repeal. I never saw a majority favoring HCR's passage ever. I would imagine some Dems are campaigning on it somewhere, but most want no parts of it as a campaign issue. We all know that if you ask the right questions of the right people you'll get the answers that you're looking for. That's all polls including the one that I mentioned. This election will be the public's first crack at telling our congress what we think of what they've done. It's just not good for anybody. There's a lot of pent up anger out there. It'll be interesting.

Simple to me. Make Health Insurance companies non-profit, open up competition by creating a Central Market Place for Insurers and lastly create a fund that covers children with diseases and life threatening injuries.

Health Care is not a right, is it a moral obligation? I dunno, but its not a right!

One other thing, we need to stop treating illness and start preventing it. There are way to many obese people and folks who don't take care of themselves. That's a personal choice and I don't want to pay for that.

Also reduce all these Pharma drugs that treat symptoms. How about more to fix the problem.

Of all the polls I hear being taken, why am I never asked? I mean really--not one.

But since no one asked, I'm going to tell them anyway. Yes, we need healthcare INSURANCE reform (not healthcare reform). I wish that distinction would start being made.

Yes, insurance needs to be affordable for all. (Medicare has a number of different plans, although I think some of them are a bit out there, but there are different ones.) Most pre-existing condition insurance caveats are bogus. (This is where the govenment needs to fill the hole.) And just dropping someone or refusing to pay for the needed appropriate care is just criminal. (This is where the government needs to prosecute.) Something deemed "experimental" by the insurance companies, and it's not, then the government needs to step up to the plate. I think this is called REGULATION. These are just places to start. If insurance companies know that big brother is watching, and will call them to be accountable, guess what, I think the ducks might start to line up.

Yes, I know--very simplistic. But it's a place to start. Overhauling the whole industry isn't necessary. Tweaking it is. The current legislation is so incomprehensible and unwieldy, that people (in need of the appropriate insurance coverage) will die in droves before they can get to the page that concerns them, and actually understand what the legislation says.

Next we need tort reform. Yes, some of the malpractice suits are very appropriate, and the awards are, too. On the other hand, many are just ambulance chasing, and those are the ones that ruin it for everyone. Tort reform would put an end to that nonsense.

The greed of insurance companies needs to be curbed. Yes, some folks actually earn their salaries. On the other hand, multi-million bonuses for denying coverage is criminal. Those companies need to be watched, regulated and handled by the government. Yes, insurance companies are in business to make money, most businesses are. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people paying for their services and then being denied their coverage because someone continually uses the shredder at the other end of the fax machine. (Been there, done that.) (BTW, for everyone, make multiple copies of everything. Call and follow up within a day, get names when you do.)

So there's some my two cents worth, maybe a cent and a half. So much more positive things can be done, but the current legislation is not functional in the real world. Get some real insurance reform and regulation in place, consistently follow up, and call the offenders onto the carpet with real penalties, and I think a major turnaround will be seen. As it is now, most will be dead before they get through 2400 page of the original "manual," (that currently has 4000 pages of explanation for the the first 500 pages.)

I agree, what ever happened to affordable?

While requiring by law those without coverage to buy it, in exchange for insurance companies not dening insurance for high usage, high cost, poor health individuals, there's nothing about affordability.

We can't afford it now, heck we probably couldn't afford it 10 years ago, so I don't see where affordability is.

the most basic health insurance policy offered by insurance companies costs $180.00 per month and doesn't cover a lot except catostrophic injuries. By law, I have to buy it. With auto, at least if I don't drive, I don't have to buy it. So where's the affordability, when I'm now going to have to spend $180.00 a month out of my pocket, that I would otherwise spend on a new car or other consumer stuff.

While many clamor over they can get insurance, finally, when they have been denied insurance, wait until they get the premium bill. While I get that a $500.00 a month permium is miniscule compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, $500.00 a month is a lot of money to take out of someone's pocket that they otherwise would spend on consumer goods.

There has been no one pushing back on the prices for decades. Any necessity price that rises 3 times the rate of inflation for 30 years would be checked. But not healthcare insurance, it just doubles every 10 years and people say that their employer pays for it, so who cares. We ALL should care because we ALL pay for it.

The "affordable" part was taken away by the insurance companies years ago. We need a single payer federal program that covers ALL Americans. Notice the tea republicans DON'T want to require coverage for all, very telling of whats to come if they take power.

It's time for the media campaigning for the democrats. It couldn't have been more obvious in my local paper this morning - must've been some code word that went out Friday. The free "advertising" the dems get puts the new unbridled corps to shame.

There will NEVER be affordable healthcare until there is insurance and tort law reform. It is the insurance companies that dictate to the healthcare workers what is and isn't allowed and what is and isn't cost effective. Yet they sit back increase their rates and smile when the rest of the country gripes about the healthcare industry. Nurses and Doctors are sick of it! Tort Law is also a huge problem with the cost of healthcare and with the quality of healthcare. It costs the healthcare industry a huge amount to suffer through litigation after litigation that is then passed on to the consumer. I understand and agree that some litigation is necessary and even right as a form of checks and balances upon the industry, but it has gotten out of hand. Free the hands of the workers in the healthcare industry, move for insurance and tort reform and watch as miraculously the healthcare industry is reformed!

kevinoffsite

One other thing, we need to stop treating illness and start preventing it. There are way to many obese people and folks who don't take care of themselves. That's a personal choice and I don't want to pay for that.

Agree Kevin, but where do we draw the line? You smoke and get lung cancer…so it’s your fault? You sit on the couch all day and get no exercise so you have a heart attack, so it’s your fault. You gorge yourself on cookies, candy, chips and soda all day and get diabetes, so it’s your fault. You drink like a fish and get cirrhosis of the liver, so it’s your fault.

It’s also someone’s personal choice to refuse to work, yet we are expected to support them?

***Notice I said refuse, not can’t. When does it end?

NetCom:

I think this poll is a load of manure!!!

Was this a poll of this administration???? I bet it was.

I would like to know what questions were asked and how they asked them. I scanned through the article looking for a link and didn't see one. Any poll can be made to say anything you want. You just have to ask the right questions the right way. Anyone who's had a basic psychology class can tell you that as can any statistician.

Truthinator1234321, you are completely wrong. Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands do not have single payer healthcare system. They do have compulsory enrollment in priivate healthcare, much like most U.S. states regulate their auto insurance, but there is no single payer.

Sorry AKRandy. Nothing to do with the administration. AP and Stanford University conducted the poll. If you dont like the way it's written on this website than go to Fox's web site. You will see it on the front page there.

Why is it that people point to poll's when they support there argument but dismiss them when they prove them wrong.

This article is propaganda ...

We don't have the funds to pay for this program. Therefore, the only way to pay for this is raise premiums and raise taxes.

There will be a housecleaning on capitol hill come election time. People are still really angry that Obama forced this legislation on Americans when the majority didn't want it.

The height if incompetence was when Pelosi said "you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it"

My car is junk why should i have to insure it. I don't care about your car I only care about how much it costs me in insurance. If you are afraid of me hitting you stay home. ME Me ME Me!

Too think that your bacteria and virus's can spread to me?

zapper45701...I nominate you for health care czar!

Jeff D.-546398This article is propaganda ...

We don't have the funds to pay for this program.

We don't have the funds to pay for Iraq either but you didn't bitch about that now did ya?

This IS nothing more than the regimes Pravda -msnbc, etal- coming to rescue the newly formed socialists party who are currently in power ... until Jan 2011. And then the American people, who still believe in this country, will take it back, and we will restore it... It's that simple!!

I know well over a hundred people and not one of them support this unconstitutional legislation. So if I were to take a poll, 100% of the people surveyed are against the O'bama plan.

All polls nowadays are BS. Why? Because YOU don't really get to answer the poll. You have to choose from pre-selected answers that ALWAYS tilt the results to what the pollsters want to prove. Some jag-off pollster from the Reagan era (forgot his name) came up with the program and it stuck like schnit to the wall!

I don't get sick I catch what you have. I should be able to sue you. If your sick, due us a favor and lock your self in a sealed closet.

Polls going back 30 years have shown a majority support Single Payer but they never mention this on even the supposedly liberal MSNBC. Here is something from Wikipedia about polls in just the last 7 years:

Wikipedia:

Public opinion in the United States

In a 2009 New York Times/CBS News Poll, Americans supported a single-payer system.

Between 2003 to 2009, 17 opinion polls showed a simple majority of the public supports a single-payer system in the United States.[17] These polls are from sources such as CNN,[44] AP-Yahoo,[45][46] Quinnipiac,[47] New York Times/CBS News Poll,[48][49][50] Washington Post/ABC News Poll,[51] Kaiser Family Foundation[52] and the Civil Society Institute.[53]

People who want 'free' health care in this country are completely uninformed. The reason why life expectancy (not only in this country but in many nations around the world) has increased is because competition has driven research and development. That costs money.

Plus, when people have free health care, what motivation will they have to take care of themselves, ie. preventive care? Not much. This country is already in trouble with obesity (and don't tell me that's a disease -it's mostly lazy people who don't want to exercise). Yeah, that's going reform a whole lot.

Stewart Piddas…. Some jag-off pollster from the Reagan era (forgot his name) came up with the program and it stuck like schnit to the wall!

Hahahaha…made me wet my pants! Have not heard that since I was a little kid. You must be from Pittsburgh!

Free Health Care? Who thinks health care will ever be free?

I would like to not pay 144 dollars every two weeks for insurance and when I go to the doctor I pay another 350 to cover what the insurance won't after I prove it isn't a pre existing condition. I ask you how do I prove it isn't a pre existing condition. I am not a doctor?

How come I get a CT scan and it costs 1300 the next person it costs 800 the next it costs medicaid 300. Reform is what we need.

How come we have politicians with brains but no balls and then politicians with big balls but no brains.

Ironically, my mother called me today to tell me that her friend who voted for Obama was told she had arthritis and needed to see a Rheumatologist. She called one of the doctors that I used to work for, a VERY good one I might add….however, she was told that Dr. _________no longer is accepting Medicare patients! She called my mother to tell her she thinks she made a BIG mistake!

Unfortunately, a lot more patients are going to be told the same thing.

Once again the idiots on the right had to see this. It has been that way since the inception of the plan. In fact in polling done here in Ohio it ran almost 3-1 that those opposed to the plan said it did not do enough. Universal health care (which is not free HC but everyone paying into it ) Single payer etc are all sticking points with some people. Progressives went the other route and said we are not going to be able to get everything we want in one swoop so they decided to get at least a working plan and work on changing as we we went along and saw yes it does work. So now the right wing is out there broadcasting they want to repeal a plan that in effect saves tax payers money since you the tax payer are paying for 30-40 million Americans very expensive HC because they go to the most expensive doctors and nurses in the business and thats the emergency room. This is a progressive bill and it is hated by some factions of the HC industry and thats why you hear such vocal opposition to it not that the people oppose it because it is bad but because they think its not goo enough to suit them. No system is a good system that punishes 1/8-1/6 of the people in America and makes them take life risks they should not have to take with their families and their children. Thats just wrong so some people can get rich.

The media spin is so far out of touch (and spinning) because the media simply parrots the talking points of a so far out of touch (and spinning) administration. As most Americans know, say and will vote in few days they want the anti-health, full-insurance-industry-protection act REPEALED. The government takes a bad situation and makes it worse. Think the deep hole America was in in 2008 and now think of the MUCH deeper hole in 2010 after $1.5 Ttttttttttrrrrrrrrilllllllllllionnnnnnnn of wasteful and ineffective government spending. Healthcare is already in deep decline WITHOUT government meddling. Can you imagine not only the healthcare rationing - but also all the UNADMITTED and HIDDEN new costs that taxpayers will SUFFER - to say nothing of the new "TAKINGS" from taxpayers - if the anti-health DMV-clerks-as-medical-care-scheme is not REPEALED?

Vote out the incumbents in 2010. And 2012.

They must have taken this poll in San FranCisco ... and they still couldnt get the numbers to come out right lol

I have been trying to tell anyone who would listen, electing obama will turn the whole country in to chicago( where I live ) in the political sense. Well, I guess I was RIGHT. Every one loving the hope and change? Change, reminds me of what my father used to say "son, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it"

I look at it like this! Welfare pays for some people to stay home and sell drugs plus gives them plenty of time to plot how they are going to steal things from people who work and pay for their welfare.

But with out jobs for them to take dropping welfare would send families on the streets and those welfare recipients aren't going to simply crawl under a rock and die.

I don't give a toot about political parties I want a working government. Equality isn't a linear equation.

In november line up and vote for your anti-democrat and anti-republican parties.

be careful what you ask for, you might just get it"

That's an answer for people who make vain threats. Not an answer for realistic goals, To bad he didn't clarify that for you.

More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured

To the best I recall, when obama first started this program there were nearly 30 million people without health care. After he got it rolling there were over 30 million. About the time it was shoved up our a$$e$ it was over 33 million. In the matter of months the U.S. was able to breed 3 million more people without care.

Now they say that the 30 million won't be cover for almost 10 more years and by that time there will be another 20 million without coverage. So where are these 50 million coming from? And people think rabbits breed fast!

Health care rationing = death panels. Thanks, Barry.

If Billionaires paid their employees more which would cause their employees to purchase more increasing demand inturn increasing the need for supply creating jobs.

I'm really sick of posts like this:

"This IS nothing more than the regimes Pravda -msnbc, etal- coming to rescue the newly formed socialists party who are currently in power ... until Jan 2011. And then the American people, who still believe in this country, will take it back, and we will restore it... It's that simple!!

Obviously all you believe are news sources that are clearly lying to you (Fox, conservative talk radio, conservative blogs) simply because they agree with your ideology. You clearly don't know what propaganda is. It's a shame that with a wealth of technology, so many chose ignorance. Try to practice some critical rational thought and educate yourself.

Please do not confuse health insurance with health care. They are two completely separate unrelated entities. By including the insurance industry in the mix, your own costs are driven upward to provide their ever increasing profit margin. You get absolutely nothing in return for that portion of your premium. Now, if you truly enjoy giving your money away for no reason whatsoever, please feel free to continue to do so. Whatever makes you happy is fine with me. Obviously, to be cost effective the insurance industry must someday be phased out of the picture. Just how I really don't care as long as it is. I'm more than willing to make monthly payments directly to the collective health care consortiums if that is what it takes, but the third, completely useless money grubbing wheel must be removed if we indeed intend to make any real progress in this problem area. I am more than willing to listen to any ideas that might improve this current mess. Thank you.

The AP poll is seriously flawed and, once again, biased to the left. It lies!

From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's own web site:

The RWJF Multicultural Newsroom offers a variety of health-related resources for journalists whose coverage primarily serves African-American and Latino audiences.
Source: http://www.rwjf.org/multicultural/

Yep, gotta love those polls from an organization feeding the media their bias (propaganda), especially information from and about their target groups. It is beyond me why MSNBC would publish such an article so biased, but what would one expect ? And, results of the rest of the poll were not mentioned (see below).

AP Poll: The AP poll was conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_poll

Time Poll: ".....survey respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62%), make everything about health care more complicated (65%) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56%)." Source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html

These are only two examples.

Why doesn't MSNBC query an unbiased poll and publish the results ?? Probably because it would paint a completely different picture.

And what about the Administration's claim that the Universal Health Care Reform would cover everyone, when in fact approximately 20,000,000 folks will remain uninsured ??

I apologize for my cynical 1.51 comment. It should of read.

If Billionaires paid their employees more which would cause their employees to purchase more increasing demand inturn increasing the need for supply creating jobs in CHINA.

We are screwed get your bible and load your guns. :)~

Everybody wants lots of services paid for with other peoples money. I want only catastrophic care, I don't want anything else and will pay for nothing else. US should look at New Zealand's system and others that really do control costs. I will not pay, I will not participate, in this NAZI scheme.

I had been contacted by Gallup for the 2008 election, didn't answer the phone. Years ago, I took an extensive telephone poll for someone, like 45 minutes to an hour long. When it ended, I asked "do I get a prize for this", "no, just our thanks". Since HCR passed, one poster quoted $2,000 a month for pre-existing conditions. Another stated that his company group insurance rose $4,200 for the next contract year. BO admitted they only tried to slow down rising insurance rates----close to the inflation rate at best. The 18/20 states that challenged HCR are getting the case moved along. DOJ tried to get a dismissal----no good. Remember when you're hospitalized and pay $1,500-$2,000 for a semi private room and every doctor that walks in charges a $500 exam fee. Every $10,000,000 settlement you see gets passed on. The health care delivery system is so over priced that's a big part of the problem.

Let's just SPEND, SPEND,and SPEND so more, even though our country's poor.

Spending like a drunken whore, it doesn't matter anymore.

Our deficit is insanely high, but there our things we need to buy,

tensions running awfully high, but what is my share of the pie?

Our jobs are gone the're overseas, it's the stockholders we must please,

CEO's are all at ease, they feel no pain from this disease.

The world is catching up with us fast, union salaries will be a thing of the past,

Bloated pensions cannot last, repercussions will be vast.

We went from times of being needy, turned them into being greedy,

politicians are so damn seedy, we went to thin from being meaty.

Now we have to live in pain, re-adjust our lives again,

Our times of being oh so vain,

Are now a thought down memory lane.

Nice work!

I am going to balance the system with my current cynical mood. When my unemployment runs out I will steal from people on welfare now they don't have much so I will use the law of large numbers and steal from all of them making me Rich!

Love peace and happiness to all except people who don't have a job or health insurance.

What is the most sure fire way to make money, first there needs to be a need, does living fit that requirement, YES, so lets look at this from this stand point, your loved one has a medical problem wouldn't you pay anything to prolong their life, YES, Now if I was a greedy basta_d like I know there are many of that invested whom has invested in Liquor and Cigarettes because can't beat a product that's habit forming, that is one way of insuring that the want and need is there, now look at where the republicans have their money invested, that shows you why they are so much against requlations, Oh and lets not for get OIL ........ the truth just scares them, why it takes away the sure fire way to get into peoples pockets ....... They will attempt to sound sincere but that is only because they don't want the people to see them as some kind of blood sucking leach, but when you do what they do that is the actions of a leach ain't it ......

The U.S. is the only developed nation lacking universal single-payor coverage.

So what?

You say that like it was a bad thing.

The law is not perfect, remember the Dems caved in, to the Republicans and took a lot out of the bill to include a public option. The law is a start however. Polls are showing most Americans want more from the law, Republicans are vowing to repeal it. If Americans think the republicans will come up with a better idea when they never did while in power, you better think again. We will be back at square one... It is up to us to ensure this law is not repealed by ensuring republicans don't gain control of any congressional chamber in November..

The original law, proposed by the house, would have cut health care costs somewhat. What happened is that industry lobbiests managed to gut the bill, so what we have left will not reduce costs. Baccus is partially to blame for this, because he's a bought insurance man. What we got is what we deserve, because we didn't have the guts to push through the real deal. Changes won't happen fast enough to keep the health care bubble from bursting, even if the psycobilcans were to agree to every fix we needed. The time to fix heath care was 1995, and we blew it, so hold on, the ride gets bumpy from here.

I for one am sick of all the damned socialism talk and accusations. Since every one in this country seems to hate "socialism" so damned much, I think it is high time we did away with all forms of socialism in this Country. Start with Social Security, that's socialist, move on to medicare/medicaid, more Socialism, and then abolish the public school system, including state operated colleges, because guess what folks, THAT is socialism as well!

Oh wait, we like THAT socialism!

Socialism, to varying degrees, has been a part of American society from the very beginning. In fact up until McCarthyism(sp?) and the cold war, the US had and even elected leaders from both a Socialist Party, and a Communist Party. But Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh say "Socialism is bad, MMMKAY!" So the sheep say "Baaaaa, yes master Beck" The Cold War is over folks, we won, chill out already.

It is up to us to ensure this law is not repealed by ensuring republicans don't gain control of any congressional chamber in November..

Actually it is up to us to make sure that this country isn't driven back into recession, or into bankruptcy, so that CEO's can take home multi billion dollar bonuses, by ensuring that republicans are voted out. we had a good start in 08, but somehow a few of them slipped through the cracks.

After we manage to get rid of all the Republicans, the very next step is to get rid of all Democrats, then permanently ban both parties. (Sorry Tea Party, you fall under the Republican umbrella, so you have to go first with the rest of your cronies.)

Rick. People may look at other options. Like what? Suicide?

Plain old mis-informed...period!

Where to start? Death panels, that's a good one. As if the greedy insurance companires care about you? Yeah right! As it stood before last week, the insurance "death panel" had the right to cut you off when you got too expensive.

Now, Canadian helthcare, nobody likes it? Another lie, I wonder whch network? My wife is Canadian, 95% of her family lives there, all of them are happy with their healthcare. In reality, they are happy they don't have our healthcare system.

When will you people realize that the poor in this country have had free healthcare on your dime for some time now? It's the working class that supports them, and when the working middle class runs into tough times, we stand to lose our homes over an unfortunate health problem. When you lose your house, tell me how cheap the old way was.

One last thing, as many conservatives seem to be spriritual, religious, or whatever you want to call it, do those teachings and beliefs actually teach you to so against helping out the less fortunate than you are? The system the conservatives want and fight for, helps only the ones who can afford it.

I figured since religion is brought in to many topics that I feel strongly about, where religion does not belong, let's bring it into this one. Would god be proud of you denying people healthcare? Would god be proud of your greed?

In europe we have had Universal health care for the past 50 years and we love it !

Because it is government runned, it is affordable, we choose our own doctors, medical decisions are made between doctors and patients, the government is never involved in our decisions, all it does, is pay the bills, and there is very little waiting time. It has worked very well and for the morons who will suggest that Universal health care is the cause of our debts, this is a big fat lie!

Funny how republicans claim to be so prolife yet, will let 40 000 of their own citizens suffer and die, because they can't afford this outrageous health care system of their's.

THIS IS A DISGRACE and none of these morons should be in politics!

Republicans fascists are lying to you! If what they say was true, all countries with universal health care would have been bankrupt long ago. In france UHC has been working for over 50 years!

The very same weak tea Einsteins who said Obamacare would destroy the universe NOW want it to do MORE?!?!? When I open my dictionary to the word 'idiot' it shows me pictures of everyone who calls Speaker Pelosi an idiot! I guess that's why it comes with a big magnifying glass.

FedupwithFed - #1.37

Humor works well with insanity!

Pittsburgh, eh? Close. Many moons ago I worked with someone who lived/worked there for a good while. As for me, I'm a native Ohioan.

Republicans: Truth Seekers They Are Not

Have you ever wondered why it's so hard to get through to a right winger? Does it seem like the more wrong they are, the more closed-minded they become? For anyone who has ever tried to get through to a Republican, this article may help explain some of the frustrations felt by the thinking community.

The fundamental difference between Republicans and the thinking community is they have different goals. One side, for example, may want to reach an agreement on something that will make the world a better place. The other side just wants to win.

Average Republicans and Teabaggers (they are one in the same) are not interested in forming cogent arguments or in fact-based reasoning. Truth seekers they are not. Republicans don't want actual debate, they simply want to win the argument. They want to be the last one standing in a shouting match.

Their blind allegiance to FOX's propaganda channel is so they don't get exposed to information accidentally. Facts don't sit well with Republicans because facts don't further their agenda. Facts are the things that "evil Liberals" use to discredit Republicans; to them, facts are bad. Fortunately for Republicans, FOX has little to do with facts.

FOX does, however, provide a never ending litany of neo-conservative talking points, great sounding lies and sound bites that average Republicans need to shut down actual discussion and reasoning. Republicans watch FOX propaganda because it is useful. FOX propaganda not only provides the ammunition Republicans need, it also makes them impervious to reason.

A good analogy is to think of "Republican" as a religion. Religion has a totally different approach to knowledge, just like Republicans. Trying to use facts and reasoning with a Republican is like trying to prove to someone that their religion is 'wrong'. Facts that don't fit with what they already "know" must be dismissed as 'wrong'.

A typical Republican technique is to accuse others of precisely that which they themselves are guilty. If you want to know what Republicans are up to, just see what they are accusing Democrats of doing. Are Republicans running up the deficit? Accuse Democrats of running up the deficit. Are the Republicans filibustering bills that help the economy? Accuse Democrats of stifling debate. And of hurting the economy.

It's that easy. Here, you try this one:

Republicans want to give tax breaks to the richest 1% and pay for it by increasing the deficit.

If you said "Democrats are driving up the deficit" good job. And if you added "Democrats are killing jobs" then you could be a Republican Senator!

Once the party in power decided that any legislation is better than none, the public got screwed; this so called health care reform was nothing but a redistribution of medical care to the uninsured, illegal aliens, paid for by working Americans, Medicare payees and the cost now controlled by mandatory private insurance, with no cap, control, or oversight of premiums; all it is is redistribution of health care from the halves to the halve not's; without a government option it will be held un-constitutional !

harbinger, please.

Bush's last pre-recession deficit was only $165B, and going down each year. Obama's best deficit is nearly 10x that high, and going up.

When Democratic senators Baucus and Grassley voted for the Bush tax cuts, they correctly pointed out that "Entrepreneurs and small businesses ... will receive 80% of the tax relief...Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business' cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor." In fact, the tax cuts worked - small businesses (not large ones, who didn't benefit) added many more jobs than any other type of employer. Our recession today would be far worse without the numerous jobs added by small businesses. The reason employment has languished is that bigger companies who did not benefit from the tax cuts trimmed payrolls more than the small businesses added to theirs.

The real answer isn't to punish the heroic small businesses who dutifully added to their payrolls during all the 2000's, the answer is to bring our highest-on-the-planet big corporate tax rates in line with the rest of the world, increasing our competitiveness and attracting jobs, investment, and manufacturing back to our shores.

There are two way to try and reduce the deficit: Tax the crap out of everything that moves, creating a real disincentive against those activities, or actually encourage growth and prosperity with low rates and have the government share in the success when it comes. Both ways could in theory reduce deficits, but only one creates an environment of sustainable innovation, growth and shared prosperity.

Akguy 1.2, completely broken? I seem to recall during the healthcare legislation debate that 85% of the people said they were satisfied with their healthcare.

To Dayraptor, It got hijacked by the "minority party"! The just say "NO" crowd, the ones with no "plan", and no "skin" in the game. The "rules" in Congress need to be reformed to reward the "winners" a chance to actually enact the "changes" that the "People" voted for! If they are the ones that have to take "responsibility" for their agenda, then they should be able to control the outcome. Then, if their plan doesn't work, the "people" can vote them out. We will continue to have problems until we get campaign reform that takes the money out of the equation and we get people in Congress that will vote the agenda that "we" sent them there to do!

The AP poll is seriously flawed and, once again, biased to the left. It lies!

of course, because as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias...

Bush's last pre-recession deficit was only $165B, and going down each year

Not true. Bush's last deficit was $1.4T in 2009. Oh I see, you included the disqualifier "pre-recession," which basically means you're comparing apples to oranges.

Gee, you mean "pre-recession" deficits were less than "post-recession" deficits? You don't say...

Job1

I agree with lookatmycastle- The French do a have one of the best health care systems in the world. Last year, a friend of mind was vacationing in France and while there, she got very sick and many tests were needed. Well, the treatment and care she received was first class and the cost to her was no more than 200 dollars U.S.

In the United States, we need the public option or single payer.

Bush's last pre-recession deficit was only $165B, and going down each year

Not true. Bush's last deficit was $1.4T in 2009. Oh I see, you included the disqualifier "pre-recession," which basically means you're comparing apples to oranges.

Let's not forget two wars that were never paid for or on the books until now. Funny how that money didn't count back then, but does now.

This just shows how utterly out of touch with Main Street the GOBP, Party of No is.

Americans want reliable and affordable healthcare for their family, their neighbors, and themselves.

Why is it so hard for Republicons to understand this?

Maybe, it is because they are fighting tooth and nail to make the richest 15% even richer.

What a lovely group of people.

Not even the top 15%, the top 2%!

And the funny part is, they get about half of the bottom 98% fooled into thinking they are here for their interests.

If this crap keeps up, we will basically have only the rich and poor one day. 2% making literal slaves of the 98% that will have survived this.

I'm getting really tired of people calling Obama's plan "free health care." It is NOT free health care. It does not GIVE you health care. It MANDATES that you MUST buy health care WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. I can't believe there are still people out there that think Obama's plan is free health care or universal health care. IT'S NOT, and the uninsured STILL won't be able to afford it, mandate or no!

Its not a right, its something you have to work for....

Sorry.

You would make your children work before they could receive healthcare, GimDan?

Stunning.

It's not free, you know. We all pay our share so that we can take care of our fellow humans.

Why Republicons hate helping their fellow man is beyond me.

Nope, that's a parents responsibility.

Cry me a river.

And definitely not a Republican nor Dem.... Middle of the road my friend.

Vince-545056, you wrote:

>>Truthinator1234321, you are completely wrong. Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands do not have single payer healthcare system. They do have compulsory enrollment in priivate healthcare, much like most U.S. states regulate their auto insurance, but there is no single payer.<<

Universal healthcare is the term I intended to use. And I believe that it is single-payor. If I'm wrong, then the people who wrote this article are wrong. What's your source?

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

Truthinator

Oops, my bad Vince-545056. I didn't even read my own source carefully. You're right that in some of these countries the government isn't the only payor.

But what's telling is that the U.S. is the ONLY one of the developed nations without universal coverage. And even Obama's reform doesn't get us there.

The United States cannot be a great nation as long as between 50 and 100 million people here suffer and die prematurely because they can't afford to pay for their healthcare.

This isn't rocket science.

T.

yeah... that would be nice... IN TWENTY YEARS

I think YOU have an idiot health plan. Good thing you're not involved.

But it IS a good idea. I believe Obama's already planning that.

OH YEAH- And that "GUN TO PEOPLE'S HEADS" was a VOTE THAT A MAJORITY WANTED

Why would you want to add more doctors if you intend on being more proactive with peoples' health thus eliminating their need for the expensive surgeries and hospital visits? To me the biggest problem with the healthcare industry is that it is a for profit industry that's greed driven. You have a bunch of doctors that are prescribing several times more prescriptions than just 20 years ago. You have doctors that are prescribing unnecessary surgeries knowing how inflated the costs for these surgeries are. No one wants to deal with this "little monster" because the medical industry/pharmaceutical companies have big money lobbyists trying to keep this from taking place. Again the interests of special interest groups are put ahead of the interests of the people. The whole system needs an overhaul and I'm not just referring to the medical/pharmaceutical system.

Rob, sadly, FAR TOO MANY Americans seem incapable (or unwilling) to think in the bigger perspective about what is needed to improve the health care system in the United States. The new health care legislation, while far from perfect, goes a pretty long way in addressing many of the major problems with the current health care system, pre-exisiting conditions being a major one. It also allows people who traditionally are forced to wait until their condition becomes critical which forces them to go an emergency room (the cost of which is shared by PAYING health care subscribers) to get well-care to PREVENT expensive health care interventions.

If ANYONE thinks the system BEFORE this new health care reform "worked" they were either on the board of Blue Cross, Aetna, etc, in denial, or just plain stupid. I have always found those who object to Americans being "forced" to purchase health care coverage as unfair, making not a PEEP about the fact that most states require Americans to purchase auto insurance just plain IRRATIONAL. Apparently, they think replacing an auto is VASTLY more expensive (are far more important) that treating a patient in the hospital, or better YET, preventing the need for that patient to GO to a hospital by early health care.

Why do you need to add more doctors? We were facing a physician shortage BEFORE adding an additional 30 million people to the system without addressing HOW we are going to care for them. Look at Massachusetts. They passed universal health care and what happened? ER visits increased because it took too long to see a physician. Why don't you ask yourself WHY are the physicians prescribing unnecessary procedures, tests, etc? It's probably because if they didn't do it, they would get sued if something went wrong. Most physicians can barely afford to go to medical school, let alone get sued by greedy lawyers. That problem is a huge reason why health care costs are out of control, something Obamacare forgot to deal with.

Health care is not our governments problem. Food is just as important if not more so than health care but no one is pushing for food insurance. It is a persons own job to secure the services of those they need and or want help from. Why am I the only person who thinks I am to blame for having or not having what I want?

how can you be so blind? when you walk into a food store, you see the food and the cost. your reach into your pocket and if you can afford it you buy it. done. can't be done for health care. you think you bought health care but didn't take the time to read the fine print. there are so many exceptions in the plans you have no idea what to do. prices can go up on food but there are options that are cheaper and still provide you with enough food to stay alive. not health options. you are right about being the only person but it is about knowing what you are talking about...and you don't.

And you don't know until the bill comes, and then it is too late.

WOW spend LOTS more to pay for doctors schooling???? Those guys with the supercars, big houses and fine wives. Yeah they need it more than I...

Governmentforthepeople.........our health care may be better for those who can get it, how about the large number that are totally excluded ! That is what this bill was about, giving everyone a chance to buy some kind of health insurance. Many people get their health insurance through their employer and so have no experience with dealing with health insurance companies as an individual. The shaft you every chance they get, refuse to cover claims, jack up rates, and then if you get sick, they just dump you. Those in group plans do not have to deal wit this because they have the economic power of the entire group working in their behalf. Insurance companies consider the entire value of all people in the group when making decisions about paying claims. If you are not covered under a group policy, you are screwed.

I grew up with a "socialized healthcare" (which, for the rednecks among you, has NOTHING to do with communism, duh) and it worked quite well. Nobody was forced to take any kind of coverage, you could get your own and if you could not afford it, the government would subsidize your premiums. They also did not allow insurance companies blacklisting people based on existing conditions to completely shut them out.

I think the GOP just likes to use the bill as another club to beat Obama with. Funny, when our last president was in office they reminded us daily -despite W's epic failures- that it was important to rally around our elected leader and remain united.

Wonder why they forgot that principle so very quickly. Hmmmm. ;)

OK, then amend the bill to address the issue total repeal is ridiculous.

First place it aint Obamas plan. I know you idiots from the right need his name to focus your opinionated base but this is a plan that has been in the works for over 20 years and some of the ideas in it are from people who are not with us any longer. Ove a third and close to 25% of it is pure republican ideas. Most of that was back when they were real Republicans not this mish mash of do as I say or die idiots we have today. It is a word that cannot be uttered in the presence of the ne right wing leadership and that is a compromise bill. A compromise bill with both real Republican imput and Democratic imput to solve a major problem we face here in America. Face with a never ending shrinking of our job base a stagnant wage base the loss of their assets because of one recession after another and the financial people stealing everything we have the HC situation in America is untenable. Something had to be done and it was done. It will not be overturned thats just another in a multitude of right wing political lies for the weak. Try some thing different for a change. Roll up your sleeves and help work it until it is good for all of us. I know you people are not used to helping Americans and would rather spend our money conquering the world and rebuilding far off country's infrastructures once we a re done bombing them but just once pitch in or you can continue to wear the flag draped around you for warmth as you have done for years. Patriotic you are not.

**TAP TAP TAP** Hello ..... McFly .... for those of you who completely missed it .... ObamaCare wasn't about fixing anything ... it was about CONTROL.

a VOTE THAT A MAJORITY WANTED

Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral.

How is 30% a majority?

fjtorres,

We are not adding 30 MILLION people to the system. They are already being seen in emergency rooms, doctor's offices, and hospitals across this country. The problem is they CANNOT pay, so you and I are being charged exorbitant physician and hospital fees to make up for this. (Most doctor's offices will not see you a second or third time if you do not pay, but ER's and hospitals cannot turn you away.)

My husband is an ER physician and 20% of the patients he sees cannot pay. The hospital is already subsidized by the gov't to offset these uncollectable fees, ER doctors are not. So, the unrealistic argument that we are adding 30 million people to the "system" just does not cut it. We are paying a very high price for this already.

This is what happens when something leaves the control of the individual and into the collective.

Heath insurance should be like auto insurance period. Pick what you want covered, what copays and deductible you would like and go for it. Start having docs and hospitals put up a menu of services down to the penny and let people get control back.

This really is not rocket science.

Gang, the 30 million uninsured figure has been raised to 50 million. It was posted and commented on in these blogs. Either the 2010 census figures or some government agency did the recalculation. T thought "just a slight miscalculation".

Angie1994 in KY.........once more , you do not understand the new law, it has nothing to do with people who have no assets or who cannot aford to pay. What it does is make it possible for people to buy health insurance who could not buy it before. Only people who can pay the premiums will be able to buy it. The free health care you refer to is Medicaid which has been around for decades and is unchanged by this law, and a law passed many years ago which made it illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency care based on someones inability to pay. Neither of those two are affected by this law, they existed before and they will continue to exist.

The fundamental problem with Obama's idiot health plan is....

That Republicans couldn't come up with a way to pass Health Care reform,(which most people want, and our system desperately needs,) without pissing off their pocket-liners and purchasers in the pharmacuetical and health insurance industry. If they could have figured out how to make sure the filthy rich fat-cats and CEO's could continue to make huge profits from the backs and misfortunes of the "lower" classes, The bill would have passed with a 100% yes from Republicans.

Any person who makes less than $300,000 a year, and thinks the Republicans give a $hit about them or their opinions, needs a serious wake-up call.

A few rights, a few wrongs. Under HCR, everyone will have/purchase health insurance in some way. The government will subsidize those folks who can't pay it all, but you will pay what you can afford to pay. If you are poor/low income, yes, you will remain on Medicaid. As for the Repubs and big money, CNBC just did a poll on the 50 richest congressmen. 27 were Dems. The average net worth in the house was $680,000. A lot of Americans have that. The Senate was 1.7 million----double the house and more. Most people didn't want HCR and still don't. I haven't seen 1 poll to the contrary. Right now, I'm seeing a 61% repeal percentage. Initially, it had at best a 40-45% approval rating---if that. 300K a year is middle class? Then, I've been poor my whole life.

middle class? i was talking about the uppercrust. Most people dont want health primarily due to lies that have been spread about it. As I said elsewhere before; "Baaaaa, Yes Master Beck."

I don't watch Beck or listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly. The $250,000 and under is being used for middle class by BO and the Dems. That's their figures, not mine. Is that rich for you? When you say most people don't want HCR due to the lies about it, I would reply that the more they learn about it the less they want it. If it was that great why would you pass it now and implement it in 2014? Why is it they don't even want to talk about it on the campaign trail. Note, I used no sarcasm and I gave you a respectful answer.

I wasn't necessarily implying that you personally were one of those sheep, it was more of a statement to the public at large. I make around $48,000 a year, so yes, i would call $250K flat rolling in it. I am not lazy, nor stupid, I have worked from the age of 13, and every time i start to get ahead just a little bit, all it takes is one illness to put me back in debt for years. I do not live beyond my means, i have no Credit debt other than my $60,000 home and my spouses medical expenses. when the cost of just one medical test can exceed $5000, and although we have insurance, they pay what they want when they want, and I am stuck with the rest.

No i do not think that the current health care bill is perfect, with a little work, and less whining from Republicans, and their multi-billion dollar Big business buddies, it can be far, far better than the system we have now. If I were wealthy, and could afford to spend as I wanted I am sure the current system would be fine for me. I am not saying you should take from the wealthy and give to the less fortunate, I am saying it is time to stop taking from the less fortunate and giving it to the wealthy.

I disagree completely with your previous statement, that the more we learn about the bill the less we will like it. The more TRUTH i learn about it the MORE I like it, and the same for most people I know. The problem is, the truth is getting very hard to find in politics these days.

It was passed now and implemented later for two primary reasons, one was to allow time to deal with the logistical changes,and allow time for refinements, and the second was Republicans insisted on the delay hoping that they would win more seats in the future and be able to repeal it.

Jim, what you guys on the left keep trying to have us adopt is a system like what Canada and much of Europe has been using for the past 50-60 years. If it is such a superior system why are Canada, France, Germany, England and other countries moving toward partially or completely privatizing their health care systems and stating that their current national systems are bankrupting them as the reason? What have they found out that you fools on the left don't know?

The reality is you are in love with the idea and, as such, refuse to consider the obvious and inescapable problems with a nationalized health care system.

Amen to that brother!

jtriggs, you don't know what your are talking about. Poll after poll of Canadians and Brits reveal that they love their system of health care.

As for bankrupting a nation... the Bushkovites and Raygunites have already done that to America.

@Bad bob-533642

Can we see these polls please. Otherwise, poll after poll of Canadians and Brits reveal that they hate their health care system.

If you let the government control health care, we will be faced with poor to terrible health services. I have lived in countries that have government control. Ten minutes with a doctor and the waiting room is packed. Doctors don't even have time to learn your name, much less treat what is wrong. It is time for people to think, instead of what can I get out of this. This country is dead.

Isn't it easy to look at other countries and say "well they have universal healthcare we should too"? Universal healthcare is unsustainable in America and will remain unsustainable as long as we promote welfare and give handouts at every corner, allow foreigners to enter the country and leech from the system at staggering amounts, have ineffective, incompetent government workers who allow fraud to run rampant, play world cop and world charity giver for every country who cannot manage to support themselves. Next time you look at other countries be sure to include looking at how much they donate to foreign countries annually? How many illegal immigrants reside in their borders? How much welfare do they pay out per person?.....change their numbers to match America's and you will see that they could not afford Universal coverage either. Until we clean up our other massive costs attempting to socialize healthcare will only bankrupt us further.

If you people would quit parroting the garbage and do some research on your own you might have better views.

Optorectumitis = when brain nerves between the eye and @ss get crossed and you get a sh!tty outlook on life.

The US rah rah rah we're number one forces so much down the others throats they the may be failing at the same things we are.

Get the *big pharmas" out.
[that begins by the Patent & trade office getting a clue - nothing for medicine or software]
Stop the high cost of education to be a service provider [doctor, teacher] [screw the lawyers]
Insurance WTF - it was a scam when first contrived by the rich hundred of years ago
[think death insurance - you get nothing out of it]
Term limits on Congress Critters
.........

many other things really need fixing first the health care will come in line

Pro heath care reform people had to never live over seas in said system. Its freaking awful, takes forever to get seen by specialist, lack of medical support and government hand in it is always worse for any industry. they care more about profit margin then the private sector does. I live in Europe for 3 years and speak of experience.

For your reading pleasure:

Kidney cancer patients denied
life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE

Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.

The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments.

It has reversed its position on just one, Sutent, which will now be allowed for patients with advanced cancer. But campaigners who fought NICE's original blanket ban said this was not enough. They said some patients with heart problems cannot tolerate Sutent.

Kate Spall, head of the Pamela Northcott Fund campaign group, said the ruling meant that fewer than half of newly diagnosed patients would be eligible for therapy.

She added: 'Families will be denied time together and doctors will be unable to give patients the best treatment.'

Campaigners are angry that NICE appears to have ignored new official guidelines widening access to life-prolonging drugs.

Sutent, also known as sunitinib, can double the life expectancy of patients, to 28 months, compared with standard interferon treatment. It costs around £24,000 a year.

The rejected drugs - bevacizumab (Avastin), sorafenib (Nexavar) and temsirolimus (Torisel) - have similar costs and are used in other countries.

Nicole Farmer, of Bayer Schering Pharma Oncology, which makes Nexavar, said: 'This shows why the UK sits 16 out of 18 EU countries with regard to cancer outcomes'.

Dr Thomas Powles, Clinical Senior Lecturer, at Barts and The London NHS Trust, said the 'one size fits all' policy would disadvantage many of the 7,000 patients diagnosed each year with kidney cancer.

He said: 'This one dimensional approach will leave some patients without potentially beneficial treatments, indeed some patients will not be eligible for any effective treatments whatsoever.'

Stella Pendleton, executive director of the Rarer Cancers Forum, said: 'This decision contradicts the spirit of the recommendations made by Professor Mike Richards on improving access to medicines for NHS patients, and highlights flaws in the current system for appraising drugs.

'We call on Nice to reverse this decision.'

Girl, 3, has heart operation canceled
three times because of bed shortage

A three-year-old girl awaiting heart surgery has had her operation cancelled three times this month because of a shortage of beds.

Ella Cotterell was due to have aorta-widening surgery on Monday at the Children's Hospital, Bristol. But 48 hours beforehand, the operation was cancelled for the third time as all 15 beds in the intensive care unit were occupied, her parents said.

A hospital spokesman said that procedures would be reviewed, but the case highlights a growing problem of cancelled operations in the NHS.

More than 57,000 surgeries were postponed for non-clinical reasons, including a lack of beds, last year – 10 per cent more than the previous year.

Latest figures show that the problem persists. At least 43,000 operations were cancelled in the first nine months of 2008-09, with nearly 1,800 patients not being treated within 28 days of their original scheduled date.

Among the excuses for cancellation the previous year were a hospital running out of shavers to prepare patients for surgery, a surgeon going missing following a fire alarm, and a patient's translator failing to turn up.

Ella needed open heart surgery when she was nine days old to repair her aorta, the body's main artery, which had not formed properly in the womb.

At 18 months old she suffered a stroke after falling down the stairs at her home and banging her head, temporarily paralysing the left side of her body.

Her parents, Ian Cotterell and Rachel Davis, were told last October that she would need an operation within 12 to 18 months.

Doctors carried out two angioplasties, where small balloons are inserted and inflated to clear a blocked blood vessel, but neither was successful.

Further surgery was initially planned for April 2 but was cancelled because of emergency cases and rearranged for four days later, the couple said. However, the operation was cancelled again for the same reason.

A third date was arranged for April 20 and last Thursday Ella went to the hospital for tests. On Saturday her parents received another call explaining her operation would have to be cancelled.

Ms Davis, who works part-time as an accident and emergency nurse at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, said that she was devastated when she was told there were not enough beds.

"My husband and I were in tears," she said. "When our six-year-old son Liam asked what was wrong we told him Ella's operation had been cancelled again and he said we should tell Gordon Brown."

The family are waiting for another surgery date. In the meantime, Ella is having to take adult doses of medication to control her blood pressure.

"We have asked the doctors if she really needs the surgery as she is so happy at the moment and is running around like a normal little girl, but she could drop down dead at any moment," Ms Davis said.

"Twice I have been told that she may not make it through the night and there have been times when I have gone into her room in the morning and wondered whether she'd still be breathing.

She called on the Government to put more money into the NHS before a child died on the waiting list.

"I have worked in the NHS for 22 years so I know what happens in hospitals," she said. "I cannot fault the doctors and nurses for all they have done for Ella – she would not be alive today without them.

"I believe Ella is the tip of the iceberg and that there are many other families out there that have had their operations cancelled many more times but have not spoken out about it.

"This is a national problem, there are not enough resources in the NHS and it is about prioritising.

"It is a matter of time before a child dies on the waiting list and I don't want it to be Ella. If that does happen the Government will have blood on their hands."

Michele Narey, of the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, said that she could not discuss individual cases.

She added: "The decision to cancel any patient for any procedure is taken extremely seriously but is sometimes unavoidable because of the need to effectively manage emergency patients requiring beds on a day-to-day basis.

"We know that cancelling procedures can cause additional stress for patients so we will always seek to avoid this wherever possible."

Cancer survivor confronts the
health secretary on 62-day wait

WAITING times for cancer treatment need to be cut, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
The Scotland Against Cancer conference in Glasgow heard Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, setting out what was being done to improve cancer care for Scottish patients.

But one cancer survivor, who spoke at the Cancer Research UK event, challenged ministers to be more ambitious in reducing the time patients have to wait before starting treatment.

Cancer experts later said that patients elsewhere in Europe would be "outraged" by having to wait two months to start treatment, with most being seen within two weeks.

The current target of 62 days from urgent referral by a doctor to starting treatment has still not been met in Scotland, despite that originally being the target figure for 2005.

Ms Sturgeon stressed that the 62-day target was a maximum wait and many patients would start treatment much sooner.

Heather Goodare, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1986 when living in West Sussex, thanked Ms Sturgeon for the initiatives she had put in place to improve cancer care. But she challenged her over the "very unambitious" 62-day target.

"For some slow-growing cancers 31 days is perfectly OK, but for others it is just not acceptable at all," she told the health secretary.

Mrs Goodare, who now lives in Edinburgh, said when she was diagnosed over 22 years ago, she had to wait only two weeks before having surgery to remove the lump from her breast.

"I don't understand why things have gone backwards," she said.

Ms Sturgeon said everyone in the NHS had worked together to reduce waiting times and they were now very close to hitting the 62-day mark.

Guyontheleft, here is just one excerpt from the New York Time (that far right wing paper, right???) about the Canadian system:

Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton...

1,000 villagers wait for a dentist after
just one NHS practice opens

The parlous state of NHS dentistry under Labour was exposed last night after it was revealed 1,000 people in a village ended up on a waiting list for a dentist.

Nearly one in ten of the 11,500-strong population of Tadley were forced to wait after a single NHS practice opened in the Hampshire village.

Their alternatives were paying privately, travelling miles to another NHS dentist - or going without treatment.

Local councillor Nigel Quelch said: 'When I phoned, they said they had a waiting list of 1,000. It shows what a huge demand there is for Health Service dentistry.

'But we're very grateful to the dentist for opening in Tadley.'

In 1999, Tony Blair promised that within two years everyone would have access to an NHS dentist.

Eight years later he admitted failure. A new contract, introduced three years ago to increase numbers of NHS dentists, has also been judged to have made the situation worse - with 1,000 dentists fleeing the NHS.

It means the remaining NHS dentists are overwhelmed and can't take new patients - as the Tadley case shows.

LibDem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: 'We cannot continue with a postcode lottery where people like the Tadley residents can't have access to NHS dentistry.'

Hampshire primary care trust confirmed the list had hit 1,000 in December but has since been cleared.

It said the practice now has 7,000 patients and can't take more - meaning over 4,000 have no dentist in the village.

Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs

The NHS was told today to stop relying on charities to fill funding gaps after figures revealed many trusts would not pay the full cost of electric wheelchairs for disabled children.

Freedom of information figures obtained by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign found children were subject to a postcode lottery in terms of equipment.

Statistics from 54% of NHS trusts in England and Scotland revealed that disabled children in England are forced to wait five months on average for a wheelchair.

The worst performing primary care trust (PCT), East Lancashire, in the north-west of England, had an average wait of two years for an electric wheelchair.

The survey showed 58% of children in England had to wait at least three months for an electric wheelchair and 14% waited more than six months.

In the case of Westminster and Islington PCTs in London, children living just four miles apart could have a difference of 11 months in waiting time.

Overall, 50% of the PCTs that responded said they did not fund the full cost of a powered wheelchair for a disabled child.

Westminster PCT made an average contribution of only £700 towards the cost of a child's powered wheelchair, it said.

Almost all PCTs contacted by the charity said the cost of a wheelchair was around £2,000 but in fact the true cost of a basic electric wheelchair would be around £3,000.

A separate patient survey of 237 children found one in three did not receive any funding at all for their wheelchair.

Philip Butcher, chief executive of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said: "Today's figures are nothing short of a national scandal.

"It is a damning indictment of the NHS that so many families across the UK are forced to rely on charities or be driven into financial hardship just to receive vital, life-improving equipment for their disabled children.

"It's time the NHS stopped relying on charities to fill the gaps left by its inadequate funding."

Two PCTs in the West Midlands – Birmingham East and North, and South Birmingham – have waiting times for a powered wheelchair of 18 months compared to a national average of just under five months, the report said.

Georgia-Jim,

I agree 100%. Universal Healthcare is the only way to lower healthcare costs. The only possible way to get Universal Healthcare is for Republican/Conservative/Tea Party/Blue Dog obstructionists to get voted out of congress and Progressive Democrats to have a super majority in both houses of Congress working for middle class, working class and poor Americans.

Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws
their too expensive drugs'

Hundreds of patients with a rare lung disease will be sentenced to death by plans to stop doctors prescribing a range of drugs on the NHS, it was claimed last night.

Campaigners have condemned proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to withdraw the drugs because they are too expensive.

The condition, pulmonary hypertension, affects an estimated 4,000 people in the UK.

Only a quarter of these need the most expensive level of treatment.

Yet the plans by NICE, the Government's drug rationing body, mean no life-extending therapies will be available to new patients because the cost of the most expensive exceeds its threshold of £30,000 per head.

Only the cheapest drug used to combat the condition will remain available for patients.

The impotence drug Viagra is valuable in combating pulmonary hypertension's symptoms of breathlessness but sufferers say it will not prevent the heart failure the disease can induce.

Lung specialists currently combine it with inhaled or infused drugs such as prostacyclins for the most seriously affected, which can add £40,000 a year to the £12,000 cost.

Another group of drugs, endothelin receptor antagonists, are also under threat.

The cost of the most expensive treatments is on a par with approved HIV treatments or keeping one criminal in prison for a year.

The final decision, to be taken in July, will apply to England but doctors believe Scotland will follow suit.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension are usually diagnosed in their 40s and 50s and the time from diagnosis to death is only 30 months without effective treatment.

The disease causes blood pressure in the pulmonary artery to rise. Those who go downhill need hospital care - with a lung transplant the only other option.

Professor Andrew Peacock, one of the world's leading experts on the condition at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow, said: "One of the drugs we routinely use for the very sickest of the sick patients, prostacyclin, we're not going to be able to use at all.

"We're going to have to say to people, 'Sorry, no treatment. You're just going to have to have palliative care and you're going to die basically'."

Anna Baker, 25, a mother, from Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire, was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension just over a year ago.

"This medication has given me my life back," she said. "I have to take the drug via a small pump 24 hours a day. I still get tired and have to limit what I do, but I have the confidence to do normal everyday things that just weren't possible last year."

As an existing patient, Mrs Baker will continue to get the expensive drugs prescribed on the NHS.

But she said: "I think it's outrageous that people with pulmonary hypertension in future might be denied the treatment."

NICE said its appraisal recommendations are preliminary and "may change after consultation".

One in eight patients waiting
over a year for treatment, admits minister

One in eight NHS hospital patients still has to wait more than a year for treatment, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the full truth about health service queues in England.

A Department of Health analysis of 208,000 people admitted to hospital in March showed 48% were wheeled into the operating theatre within 18 weeks of a GP sending them for hospital diagnosis. But 30% waited more than 30 weeks and 12.4% more than a year.

In a key manifesto pledge at the 2005 general election, the government promised that by December next year all patients would be treated within 18 weeks.

The health minister, Andy Burnham, said the analysis showed the NHS was "firmly on course to achieve the historic goal to end waiting in its 60th anniversary year". But he acknowledged that the target was the most challenging ever set for the health service. Under successive governments, the NHS measured outpatient and inpatient waiting times separately. The outpatient clock started ticking when a GP made a referral and stopped when the patient went in for a first appointment with a consultant. The maximum delay at this stage is 13 weeks in England.

The inpatient clock started when the consultant decided hospital treatment was needed and stopped when the patient was treated. The maximum inpatient delay is six months. Until now, the NHS did not measure the time patients waited after the first outpatient appointment before going on the inpatient list. This "hidden" delay could last months.

By promising to complete the entire "patient journey" within 18 weeks, the government has begun to expose the hidden waits unknown to NHS managers.

The NHS performs about 4m operations a year. If the March treatment list was typical, about 500,000 of these patients will have waited longer after being referred by a GP. Most of the long waits were for orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, gynaecology, ear nose and throat, and general surgery.

Performance varied widely across England. In Swindon and in Brighton less than a quarter of patients were treated within 18 weeks, but in Leicester, where health secretary Patricia Hewitt has her parliamentary constituency, the proportion was 98%. Mr Burnham said all but eight trusts reduced waiting times last year. They were: Barking, Havering and Redbridge; Whipps Cross, London; Peterborough and Stamford foundation trust; Swindon and Marlborough; Moorfields Eye foundation trust, London; Worthing and Southlands; University College London; and Weston Area Healthcare, Somerset.

In December, the department estimated that 35% of patients were treated within 18 weeks. The March census showed this increased to 48%. But officials admitted that the NHS cannot yet track all patient journeys and the figures are provisional.

Some primary care trusts ordered hospitals to go slow in March to avoid overspending. The analysis measured the waits of people who were treated during the month without estimating the extra waiting experienced by those still in the queue.

The shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, said the figures revealed "a postcode lottery in access to care". For many treatments, the 18-week target was not ambitious enough. "On the continent waits of this kind would be regarded as outrageous. But a one-size-fits-all target will distort clinical care and damage the NHS."

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "Behind the statistics, thousands of sick people are still waiting more than a year for hospital treatment. This is a daily tragedy."

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King's Fund health thinktank, said: "It is a credit to the health service that waiting times have continued to fall steadily at a time of financial pressure."

NHS waiting times

% NHS patients treated within 18 weeks of GP referral

Bottom 10

Swindon 22%

Brighton & Hove 23%

Mid Essex 25%

Enfield 26%

West Hertfordshire 27%

Hull 29%

Hastings & Rother 29%

Coventry 31%

Medway 31%

Hounslow 32%

Top 10

Leicester City 98%

Solihull Care 94%

South Birmingham 94%

Heart of Birmingham 93%

Leicester County & Rutland 90%

Tower Hamlets 87%

Telford & Wrekin 86%

Leeds 85%

Sandwell 85%

Milton Keynes 73%

The drugs the NHS won't give you

Suninitib (Sutent)
For kidney cancer.
Licensed, but the Department of Health has yet to refer it to Nice for a recommendation.

John Quance, 57

The former fireman was told he could not have the drug Sutent because the NHS would not pay for it.

Mr Quance, who has been diagnosed with kidney cancer, cashed in his pension and remortgaged his house to pay for it privately, but fears that he may have to sell his home unless the NHS steps in. Cornwall Primary Care Trust said it was not prepared to pay the £22,000-a-year cost of the drug until it was approved by Nice.

Mr Quance said: "I have worked all my life, I have been in the forces, the prison service and the fire service for 30-odd years and I feel a little bit abandoned.

"The staff and the hospital have been excellent but it is a little disappointing not to get funding when it has been proved [the drug] is working."

Bevacizumab (Avastin)
For bowel cancer.
Licensed for colon cancer in January 2005, but turned down on the grounds of cost-effectiveness in January.

Victoria Otley, 56

Miss Otley was diagnosed with bowel cancer at the end of 2005. She had complained of being in pain but doctors told her that it was nothing to worry about.

By the time her cancer was diagnosed it had spread. She took other drugs and later asked about getting Avastin after her sister read about it on the internet. Yesterday, Miss Otley, a former hairdresser from Dagenham, said: "I asked my consultant but he said it wasn't available on the NHS."

She and her sister paid £15,000 for a course of Avastin and the cancer shrunk, however they cannot afford to pay for any more. "You work all your life and pay your taxes and this is what you get. I think it's disgusting."

Cetuximab (Erbitux)
For bowel cancer.
Licensed in June 2004 and turned down by Nice in January this year.

Ian MacDonald

The former bridge inspector's doctor told him that he would have liked to have prescribed Erbitux, but that he could not because it was not available on the NHS.

Mr Macdonald has tried various drugs and radiotherapy since being diagnosed with bowel cancer in the year 2000.

His wife Catherine, who has given up work to care for him full-time, said yesterday: "My husband has worked all his life in this country and never had a day off sick and yet he is refused a drug that might stabilise or shrink his tumour.

"I can't understand why it is not available here but it is in other countries. It's awful."

Erlotinib (Tarceva)
For non-small cell lung cancer.
Licensed in Sept 2005, approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium in June last year and rejected by Nice in March on the grounds that it was not clinically or cost effective. Manufacturers Roche are appealing against the decision.

Susan Allen, 43

She was told she had ten months to live after being diagnosed with lung cancer in December 2005.

A non-smoker, whose hobbies include cycling and running, the mother-of-one underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy and was prescribed Tarceva by her oncologist in October last year. She had to pay for the daily pills herself initially, at a cost of £70 per day, until her local health authority eventually changed its mind.

She said: "Denying the drug is condemning patients to death."

(Bortezomib) Velcade
For bone marrow cancer patients who have had at least one earlier therapy or are unsuitable for a bone marrow transplant.
Nice has agreed to review its rejection of the drug in March. Patients in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been able to get it since last year.

George King, 57

Mr King, who is terminally ill with bone marrow cancer was forced to consider moving to Scotland to get access to Velcade in an attempt to prolong his life.

Mr King, an electrical engineer from Teesside, said earlier this year: "People with terminal illnesses shouldn't have to fight for treatment. It's so frustrating. This drug is available not only in Europe, but just a few miles north of where I live. I don't have any option but to move away from my family, friends and the people who have helped me through the cancer until now."

Pemetrexed (Alimta)
For mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, and small-cell lung cancer.
Patient groups are waiting for the results of an appeal against Nice's rejection of the treatment in February for lung cancer. A decision on funding for mesothelioma is expected in September.

Bernard Hoyland

The retired mechanical fitter spent the last years of his life fighting to make Alimta available for patients in his area.

After he was diagnosed with mesothelioma he was told his primary care trust would not pay for him to receive Alimta because it was too expensive. He launched a legal attempt for compensation against his former employers, began travelling to London every three weeks to receive cancer treatment and joined a campaign to force NHS bosses in Teesside to fund Alimta. Six months after funding was agreed, Nice ruled that it was too costly.

Mr Hoyland, who called the decision "simply unacceptable", died last November.

His son Paul said: "He ended up having to travel to central London after finding he could get the chemotherapy down there. He was a victim of the postcode lottery."

For those of you that are so avid at calling Canada into your arguments:

Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?

More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here.

Most of the heart patients who have been sent south since 2003 typically show up in Ontario hospitals, where they are given clot-busting drugs. If those drugs fail to open their clogged arteries, the scramble to locate angioplasty in the United States begins…

…While other provinces have sent patients out of country – British Columbia has sent 75 pregnant women or their babies to Washington State since February, 2007 – nowhere is the problem as acute as in Ontario.

At least 188 neurosurgery patients and 421 emergency cardiac patients have been sent to the United States from Ontario since the 2003-2004 fiscal year to Feb. 21 this year. Add to that 25 women with high-risk pregnancies sent south of the border in 2007.

Although Queen's Park says it is ensuring patients receive emergency care when they need it, Progressive Conservative health critic Elizabeth Witmer says it reflects poor planning.

That is particularly the case with neurosurgery, she said, noting that four reports since 2003 have predicted a looming shortage.

"This province and the number of people going outside for care – it's increasing in every area," Ms. Witmer said.

"I definitely believe that it is very bad planning. …We're simply unable to meet the demand, but we don't even know what the demand is."

Read that last line again: "We're simply unable to meet the demand, but we don't even know what the demand is."

Well, that's a confidence builder.

The Canadian system is supposedly one of the main models upon which the coming American health care revolution will be based. And yet this wondrous Canadian system seems to be more and more incapable of providing relatively common medical procedures to Canadian citizens, even in Canada's most populous province. Because the system is controlled by a bureaucracy, it doesn't respond to market pressures (goodness knows that most of the time, bureaucracies barely respond to political pressure) and in fact can't even figure out what the market is demanding. All of this results in the Canadian government relying on the supposedly inferior US system to provide lifesaving care in many instances. No wonder 3 out of 4 Canadians live within easy driving distance of the US border.

So what happens if we decide to go down the path toward single-payer health care in the US? You'd have to be a fool to think that we could try the same thing that the Europeans and Canadians have done and get different results. No, in the long run, we'll experience the same sorts of inefficiencies, quality and supply problems that plague the government systems, and yes, more Canadians will die, because the safety net that currently exists for the Canadian system here in the United States will be gone.

Name calling shows lack of a coherent thought process.

Health care is a very complex issue. I have lived in England and the health care system there is vastly superior to the US, the people love it, and the government is not going to a US style model.

I owned a business for 10 years with a number of employees and I certainly do not see why the US expects a business to supply health care insurance. At the same time people need medical care just as they need food and shelter. MOST cannot afford it so it both a Christian and a rational economic thing to provide a safety net level of care for all of God’s children.

Dtruthwillsetufree- You make no sense. Majority of the US time after time have voted and polled in disapproval of the health care bill. The issue is that this poll was intentionally skewed and very targeted. Just over 1000 people were polled. MSN had a real poll a while back where millions polled with a 93% disapproval of the heath care bill. So.... yeah....... :-)

jim, you are correct. don't let the other side spout "facts" that they make up not facts that can be traced. to gimdan, there isn't a poll existing that found 93% agreed on anything except in a communist election. d'oh!

Gim Dan - can just imagine the proponent's side sticking their fingers in their ears, unterling (loudly) "la, la, la, la, .............

I'd rather wait for service than not recieve it at all. People don't go bankrupt or have their coverage dropped in Canada and Europe like they do in our for profit system.

I realize universalizing health care will have it's problems, but these are problems that can be dealt with and fixed.

GimDam

Get a freaking grip. If I were diagnosed with ANY cancer right now in the US I would go home and wait to die. End story. I can't afford the cost of that sort of health care and there is no way I would burden my son for the rest of his life with the costs if I died. As it stands now millions of Americans have no chance in hell of any sort of care and you go on and on about how people in other countries are not getting enough even though they have a chance of getting some? Gawd..get a clue!

Gee I wonder who gim dan works for....

People!!!! Let's not forget that if we have universal healthcare here in the USA, The for profit companies will still be able to do business here. They will just have to lower their prices in order to compete. All you people on the right, stop drinking the Fox News kool-ade. Remember Jim Jones?

Jim

Universal health care is not the only way to make it affordable for all. Countries with Universal systems average 40% income taxes, which in our regressive system about 30% of the population is footing the bill for the other 70% as well as their own. That would create a huge burden on those people. You may think the liberal party line of taxing the rich is a good idea, but those are the people that are creating the jobs in this country. The less money they have the tighter their businesses need to run, which means less job creation. There are many different ways to tackle health care, unfortunately this administration went at this in a terrible manor. We do need reform, but reforms geared at creating true competition among providers, cheaper malpractice insurance, a reduction in undocumented aliens abusing the system for free, and more incentive for business to offer health coverage instead of being mandated too.

Yes GimDam you may not be able to afford it without insurance. Get a job!!! Try those many different cancer resources out there like my mom did when she had cancer. My family is the lower half of middle class and we still manage to pay our health care bills. Or you can go with Universal Health Care and wait to die because there is only one choice in which the government will decide that it costs too much to treat you and too many people are ahead of you who are waiting to die. Good luck.

I'm going to take a WILD guess and say we've got some professional trolls for the medical field in here.

The new Health Care Law is good, but, like the article said, it didn't go far enough.

I'm happy we have something though.

I think it best i just wait and die,,, and on my tombstone it shall read ... "buried here, a poor worthless peasant, made poorer by a corrupt, even more worthless government"...

Georgia-Jim is right--should have had universal health care in thre and the bill should have gone into effect in 2011, not 2014.

All we can say is the truth is now out there for all to see and for sure the right wing that has been beating this to death had to know it. Another way they have decieved the American public.

Hmmmm ... lets see ..... Private Insurance system (which could be viewed as rationed healthcare ... in a "I haven't got any money" kind of way) where I am free to live as I choose, eat what I want and salt the crap out of my food if I wish, choose my own doctor and health plans or ObamaCare .... where I am not free to chose what I eat (look it up before you open those traps, the healthcards are in the works and if you do not know about them ... get to researching), I wont be able to salt my food (attacks on salt have already started via the White House) where I may not be able to keep my doctor and I wont be able to puirchase what I choose to at the supermarket (did I mention those Health cards yet??) .... oh my ... this is a tough one ..... Freedom of choice or government tyranny ...... let me think now ... this is really hard .... freedom or govt shackles ........ hmmmmmm ...... oh heck think I will take freedom every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I can tell most of the responders have absolutely NO IDEA about universal, single-payer health plans. I almost get the feeling some of them must be working for the insurance companies by how they foam at the lips against a universal plan which would severely crimp those companies' style and profits. I've lived in and have relatives in several other countries (all of them have government heath care) and those people are much healthier than we are. They also are quite happy with their system. Yes, it costs, and it's paid for through taxes. But I am almost certain that it will cost less than the $1100 a month I'm paying for so-so coverage now (for me and 1 child). Some of you may have employer-provided health plans but they are getting rarer and rarer. Some may choose not to get coverage because they are younger and/or haven't had serious health problems that would break their bank accounts. Some probably don't have coverage because the perceived benefit just doesn't seem to be there. But I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would like to have the security afforded by health care coverage if they could just afford it. Health care costs are out of control and affects everyone. I know for a fact that insurance premiums are high because health care providers have to overcharge for their products and services for two big reasons: we demand the latest and greatest technologies which are astronomically expensive (and have to be paid for whether we actually need them for ourselves or not) and the providers want to make up for the losses incurred for treating those that cannot or will not pay for their care (of which there are many--probably most of the 40 million+ with no coverage). It doesn't matter whether you're "liberal" or "conservative" (whatever the hell those labels are supposed to mean--everybody seems to have their own definition). I totally agree that the new health-care reforms didn't go nearly far enough but a lot of thick-headed people tried to block every effort to legislate a more effective plan.

Anyone that thinks the shortfalls, waiting, lack of proper diagnosis/care, denials, etc don't happen in this country obviously don't keep up with the news. It doesn't just happen in countries with national health-care systems!

We don't need to change our current heathcare system! Those "for profit" insurance companies care soooo much for your health. If you can't pay, they'll step up and take care of you. (Please note sarcasm)

Deny deny deny... Bonus bonus bonus.... Yeah right! Insurance companies have your healthcare as their top priority! LOL

jtrigss comment personifies everything wrong with the Republican argument against Universal coverage. Propagating inaccurate information in public forums and media outlets has been the only tool used by the right since the beginning of this debate.

There are no industrialized western nations looking to drop their universal coverage. The is no more than an inaccurate lie. Perhaps their citizens do wait for treatment. 1 in 8 waiting for treatment is better than 1 in 5 not receiving treatment procedures at all because of lack of health coverage or red tape by the insurance industry.

It is this simple: Providing medical treatment should not be a for profit endeavor for anyone except a doctor working for a paycheck. Hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies should all be designated as not for profit organizations. This does NOT mean their employees should not receive adequate compensation. It means there should not be a group of shareholders wagering on the profitability of a company making decisions about whether people live or die based on shareholder returns.

Call it "socialized" or "socialism" all you want. It is the right thing to do. Unfortunately those pesky morals and human decency keep getting in the way of personal profit for so many. Then they turn around and scream about their Christian beliefs and values. Quite pathetic really.

AppleUSN- If you read the article (U.S.N. typical navy retard)you would see its against the health care issue. So, with that said I work my ass of and pay for a Cadillac plan and again if you read I much desire the dejects of our country to get off their asses and work. Buts its okay, navy people are special.

mark shipp- I disagree with your assumption that the EU/English system is superior.

The reason being that my father in law had to pay 20,000 euro's to get put on a cancer patient list and pays for each treatment since its not covered by the social health care system. (Yes, I am married to a European) If he did not have the money to be put on the list (still had to wait for treatment) and to pay for treatments then he would be dead right now. But thanks to his nest egg he has saved up all his life he was able to seek treatment in a system where "health care" is supposedly provided for all. Nice try but those who really, I mean really know the system, understand that is a death trap and breeds all that is wrong with medical care.

In that regards the they pay a much higher personnel tax to support such social programs. For example France, you have to forfeit 53% of you earned wage and if you work over time it goes up to 70%+. Canada also has a similar tax penalty for overtime.....

Grass is always greener on the other side till you get there....

mark shipp- I disagree with your assumption that the EU/English system is superior.

The reason being that my father in law had to pay 20,000 euro's to get put on a cancer patient list and pays for each treatment since its not covered by the social health care system. (Yes, I am married to a European) If he did not have the money to be put on the list (still had to wait for treatment) and to pay for treatments then he would be dead right now. But thanks to his nest egg he has saved up all his life he was able to seek treatment in a system where "health care" is supposedly provided for all. Nice try but those who really, I mean really know the system, understand that is a death trap and breeds all that is wrong with medical care.

I'm sorry about your father-in-law, but if you don't think that thousands of cancer patients don't go without care IN THIS COUNTRY everyday, you're sorely mistaken.

Even worse, talk to a cancer patient in this country who has been dropped from his/her coverage as soon as they found out they HAD cancer after paying ridiculously high premiums their entire lives...

Grass is always greener on the other side till you get there....

Agreed, and I think you should take your own advice.

DrowningGrover- I have seen both side, live overseas (3 years) in the system and live back in the US now. I will not disagree with you that our system has its flaws when it comes to dropped coverage "IF" in fact you are covered for it. Yes, it's actually an option that you have to opt for when you get insurance for pre-existing conditions. Most people I hate to say don't even read what they are covered for and cry wolf when it was all there in the first place.

Despite what many people think, care cannot be refused by a hospital, you get a large bill afterwards if you in fact don't have coverage. A very dear friend of mine has been fighting crones since he was diagnosed back when we were in high school here in the US. He get the treatments he needs by already federal programs in place for those truly in need of assistance.

Another thing about our free market medical system that is always overlooked by people in our country is how advanced treatment is along with new age medical treatment with the best doctors and staff worldwide. Hence the reason why people come worldwide to seek medical treatment.

Lauren-1076120- what you don't understand is that the bill forces you to get it despite how much it will cost you under penalty of the law. That's right, you will be fined for not having it thousands of dollars every year despite your social class.

To say you would rather die then pay for medical services show where your priorities are and most likely the reason why you don't pay for insurance in the first place.

You mean to tell me that you can not afford 250 dollars a month for a decent plan? Its sad that people complain when think they should be handing things on a platter.... Get a education that is relevant to the job market and you would not have any problems....

Entitlement is a serious problem in this country right now.

GimDan:

Girl, 3, has heart operation canceled
three times because of bed shortage

And here in the US, under our current system that story would go like this:

Girl, 3, never even has life-saving heart operation scheduled, because parents don't have $700,000 to pay for it. Although there are plenty of empty beds, and doctors are not too busy, she is from a working middle class family, and her insurance company decided that because she was born with a heart condition,(pre-existing condition) they don't have to pay, so the "Death Panel"(A.K.A. Insurance Company), has decided to just let her die, so they can afford to give their CEO a $275 billion bonus this year, on top of his $700 million salary.

At least the girl in your story has a chance of eventually getting her operation.

Here she will just die, unless her parents suddenly win the lottery, Or we change the way our health care system operates.

Both suck, but I will take some chance over no chance, any day.

AfghanWarVet- actually you need to know what you're talking about. Research before you post fellow vet.

$700,000 is quite astronomically crazy....
Most heart surgery cost right around $20,000 and up to $60,000 for serious cases. That's a $640,000 variance in your calculation.

And here are a few facts about it that you are obviously not understanding. Under the bill you have to buy coverage under penalty of Law, and it will cost you more to buy it under the system then it cost now. The insurance rates are expected to jump 25% next year and 30% the following based of the health care legislation. It's not free health care buddy, you still pay for it and now you get crap.....

AfghanWarVet- By the way, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Also your comment about the death panel is pathetic, if you really knew about NHC and how it works in other countries then you would understand why our system is better. My stepfather had to pay 20,000 euro's just to get put on a list for treatment for cancer even though he lives in universal health care system. (France) To add he also has to pay for each treatment out of pocket becuase the social system refuses to pay for it.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway

10 year old data...... nice! Plus picking the first google article always is a bad idea....

The last time my grandfather had open-heart bypass surgery, the total of all the bills combined to just over $695,000.

I don't know which propaganda source you are drawing your figures from, I'm getting mine from actual hospital bills.

And your reference to emergency care does not apply here. hospital emergency rooms are required to administer emergency stabilization treatment, and no more. A heart transplant does NOT fall into that category.

Save your rhetoric for the campaign trail.

You are right. MSNBC is just a progressive site with no attempt to be unbiased. MSNBC connstanty LIES in their news stories. I hope Comcast fires everyone at MSNBC, and I mean everyone from the receptionist on up.

your arrogance is freekin amazing

Since you clearly didn't understand the article, let me help you out here.

The thesis of the article is that contained within those "oppose" numbers are a larger number of people who disapprove of Obamacare because the bill didn't go far enough. It's not Canadian enough for them. They are disappointed and they wish the government had taken a firmer hand with the insurance and health care industry.

You just assume that everyone who opposes the bill opposes it because they want SMALLER government. You are wrong about that. More people want government involvement regulating insurance and health care than don't. That is the point of the article, and frankly your generalized poll numbers do nothing to dispel that perspective.

Very nice cut and paste Riggs. Nice. Boring. But nice.

You are correct triggs - There results of polls and surveys can be "coached" by using the right buzz words, and detach the question from all negatives - you can get ANY results.

What the poll is saying is that people would like changes - not the ones they were given. Instead of this poll being a positive to the Health Care Law it actually indicts the democrats as being out of touch.

Yankee Boy, hey, they are statistics. If you want excitement you can try doing what liberals do instead. Totally make $h!t up and outright lie. Maybe that would be more exciting to you.

What is it going to take for people to finally realize that everything the federal government touches turns to schit. EVERYTHING!

Since he said 'EVERYTHING', that includes:

• the army
• the navy
• the marines
• the air force
• the FAA
• the FCC
• the local fire department
• the EPA
• the FDA
• the local police department
• the mint
• etc etc etc

Some people bitch with a tit in their mouth.

I hope Comcast fires everyone at MSNBC, and I mean everyone from the receptionist on up.

What the hell does the receptionist have to do with anything?

You're just looking for an excuse of you inner rage.

HINT: Your hatred will consume you. Too bad though, Republicans consider that a pre-existing condition.

Jtriggs,

You accuse liberals of lieing??????? Well Mr. Republican brain trust, Where are those WMDs?

Yankee Boy, hey, they are statistics. If you want excitement you can try doing what liberals do instead. Totally make $h!t up and outright lie. Maybe that would be more exciting to you.

You mean like what FixedNoise and various Teabaggers do? Sorry, you guys have waaaayyy too big of a head start in that area.

Howard, Jason,,, those WMDs are still in the Mideast, and they're aimed right at you... Happy? Now go to bed. BO is still in charge,,, for now.

LMAO! Where in the middle east are they? Last time I checked we didn't even find a super soaker!

First, all Dems were told by the DNC to campaign on local issues and stay away from the national agenda. Most are staying away from BO anyway they can. Now, I'm reading some Dems are distancing themselves from the DNC. If HCR was the greatest piece of legislation some say it is, why aren't the Dems shouting from the top of the hills "Look what I've done for you"? The 18/20 states that challenged it are moving it up despite the DOJ's request for a dismissal. The case has merit and will be in the Supreme court. No, I agree there's parts of it long needed, no pre-existing condition exclusion, no cancellation for claims, but the rates are on the rise.

@Bri

You are right. MSNBC is just a progressive site with no attempt to be unbiased. MSNBC connstanty LIES in their news stories

Bri, aren't you the teabagger who made the obviously FALSE claim about Canada's health care system at #16 ?

That was a LIE, wasn't it? Or was it just willful ignorance, arising from bias?

You need to listen to the the reasons that people state for opposing HCR. Most of them oppose it because """"IT DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH"""

Jim, the pre-existing clause says that no insurance company can deny you coverage if you want to buy a policy and have a per-existing condition. Where the problem really comes in is that the government will allow individuals to opt out of buying insurance if they pay a small fine instead. That allows someone to pay the fine and not the much more expensive policy premiums until they get a major illness and then buy a policy only when they need it because they can't be turned down. It is like having the government telling a casino that everybody has to win even if they aren't gambling. It will bankrupt the insurance companies since the only time most people will pay for insurance is when they need the coverage.

Of course, that was the plan all along. Obama knows he can't get a government run health system past the American people so they engineered it so that they can run the insurance companies out of business and then the government will be the only choice and can take over the entire system. And if that happens watch out. The entire health care system of this country, the best in the world, will be destroyed.

See, Obama and the progressives don't care about quality. It's all about government control of every aspect of your life.

I wish we had that coverage option for car insurance and home owners. Had a claim get insurance, canel after the claim is paid. Another claim, go get insurance.

The "cancel & then buy" strategy for buying health insurance would NOT be like waiting to buy auto insurance until after an accident. Yes, if you're healthy, you MIGHT save money if you don't buy insurance & then decide you want it after getting diagnosed with a pre-exisiting condition (such as diabetes).

But, if you don't have insurance & then have an emergency (such as an accident or heart attack), you're not going to be able to buy a policy & then get reimbursed for treatment you had BEFORE buying the policy. The law would require insurers to sell you a policy for FUTURE treatment, but
of course you would then be in a higher risk pool & would pay a higher rate. And would still be stuck with the charges for the treatment you had while uninsured.

We aren't anywhere near government control of health care. Obama is just trying to stop the egregious abuses of the health care industry who have been cheating sick patients to save money.

Abuses like:

Insurance companies that take your money for years and then when you become ill, they drop you. It shouldn't be legal, but it happens regularly, especially if the illness is long term.

Insurance companies that won't take you if you have a pre existing condition. Imagine for a moment that you get your insurance from work and you are diagnosed with a heart condition. Now you are trapped in that job. If you switch jobs, you lose the insurance and your new employer's health plan doesn't have to take you. So you are left to pay for that heart condition on your own for the rest of your life if you don't stay with your current employer. That isn't right and it's bad for capitalism and your personal freedom. With no pre-existing condition denial, you are free to switch jobs (and insurerers) and build your career without concern that you will be wiped out by your heart condition.

Someone explain to me why that is bad.

LA2000, BS. Go back to the Obama interviews and videos from the early 2000's up until recently. Obama clearly wants a government controlled health care system. His main objective is single payer and he is on record defending this as early as this year. You guys can claim anything you want but the evidence is there for all to see and it is in Obama's own words and not just someone else putting words in his mouth.

LA2000 - Your point on taking the money for years and not covering a expense is not really addressed in the bill. The plans need to be clear what is covered and what is not. Too many people think they are covered and the insurance company says no you are not. If it was one or two people, I would say it is the individual's fault, but too many people have that problem. It must be the insurance company.

I think that if you have insurance, pre existing conditions should be covered by a new company. Not sure I agree with someone who is not insured.

First off, no one can buy insurance to treat an accident after the fact. There is nothing that allows for that. That is just disinformation.

But here is the problem with your perspective on pre-existing conditions like heart problems and diabetes:

You are going to pay for them anyway.

When a patient with a pre-existing condition is forced to obtain emergency care, the costs are staggering. A simple broken leg, treated without insurance, runs approximately $14,000. The median income in the United States is in the low $50K range. You do the math. If someone has to pay almost 1/3 of everything they gross that year just to treat a broken leg, what happens if it's a serious, long term condition like Multiple Sclerosis (which doesn't appear until you are in your 30's or 40's)? Those patients will get treated, but they will be unable to pay. They will be forced into bankruptcy and the hospital will make up the difference by raising YOUR rates. Why do you think that health care costs are rising at many multiples the rate of inflation? They are making up for the money they don't make on people who can't afford to pay and they are passing the costs on to you.

Creating a system where everyone is encouraged (or mandated) to purchase insurance is the only fair way to go. No free rides. That can't happen if the most expensive to treat aren't allowed to even purchase insurance in the first place and are instead encouraged by the current system to only seek emergency treatment at YOUR expense.

jtriggs......re pre existing condition. Even with this new law they still will not cover you for a pre existing condition, it is just that the condition will not prevent you from buying health insurance that would cover other conditions and illnesses. There is a one year wait before the pre existing condition would be covered, so people will still not be able to pay the fines for being uninsured, and then jump into the insurance pool when they get sick and pile up the claims. They will need to wait a year before they can get treatment for a condition that existed before they bought the insurance. At some point that waiting period gets shortened, I believe to six months but I do not recall when that gets phased in, I think it is in 2014 but am not 100% sure of that date.

the national debt has already exceeded that of Bush

Bush ran up a total bill of 6.1 trillion dollars and Obama is at aroun 1 trillion. How in the hell is that exceeding Bush. You know something there are several charts showing the national debt by President. Guess who is responsible for over 70% of it? Republicans!

Stop reading those poison emails and reading right wing blogs they think you are a fool and you just proved you are.

Go to Treasury Direct. Check the National Debt for Bush from 1/2001 to 1/2009----when he took office and when he left it. Do BO from 1/2009 until 9/2010. You'll find figures a lot different than yours and that is the US Treasury. Granted, the first year of a new President's budget is set by his predecessor, but that's the same for everyone. Also GWB left 400 billion in unused TARP money for BO. Wars are paid for. They come out of the DOD budget. No, BO hasn't exceeded Bush yet, but Bushs is for 8 years. BO's is for 2 and a projected 2011.

When bush left, the economy was in a free fall.

The economy has been growing since July 2009. When bush left , the DOW was at 6,400.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DJIA

10,812

Change

-48.14 -0.44%

Volume

Volume 143.43m

Sep 27, 2010 4:03 p.m.

/quotes/comstock/10w!i:dji/delayed
Previous close

10,860

10,812

Change

-48.14 -0.44%

Day low

Day high

10,810

10,873

Open: 10,860

52 week low

52 week high 11,258

9,430

You got it, Ron. The poll must have been taken among the "hands out for a freebie" sector of society. Instead of free medical for everybody, why not eliminate all government healthcare, except for the military and VA programs, and start over again with "everybody pay as you go". That worked in this country for a couple of centuries.

Most of those people who don't pay federal income taxes are retired senior citizens--and they already get government health care at your expense.

Pay as you go! For a $100,000 operation? That is why we are the only industrialized country where you can go bankrupt for medical reasons. Or, I suppose you could just die.

You folks do realize that the 47% (the "hands out for a freebie" group) includes millions on Americans who don't pay income taxes because ... they are 1. children too young to earn taxable income and
2. senior citizens who paid taxes all their lives but who now are under the income limit for taxes ??

You do realize this, yes?

Or do you want freeloading 80-year-olds to go back to work?

Moxie, sorry but that is incorrect. The numbers are based on those of working age and on actual tax returns. In other words, the percentages are compiled based on IRS returns. It is 47% of the people that filed tax returns during that given year. Nice try though.

Thanks, Riggs, but I am sure you are aware that many don't embrace the truth.

B7, many seniors do not file tax returns because they do not meet the filing requirements.

Are you aware that many of those that do not pay income taxes, also, receive a refund of thousands of dollars although they paid no federal tax? I fear you don't care and that tells me what people who do care (and pay) are up against.

Ron Adolph........actually, that is probably not true. Remember that people with low incomes already qualify for medicaid, that has been true for decades and this law does not change that at all, they still get free medicaid health coverage just as they have been getting. Other people without sufficient assets to pay still cannot be turned down for treatment in emergency situations, so that covers another large number of the people you refer to as not paying any federal taxes. Then there are a lot of seniors who pay no federal taxes and they qualify for medicare, no change there either, so the people this law would allow to buy coverage are likely paying federal taxes. Once you pull the impoverished, the low income qualifying for medicaid, the elderly qualifying for medicare and children qualifying for medicade, you have pretty much included all of that 47% not paying federal taxes. There could be a few others, but not very many. Remember, this law is not about free insurance or free healthcare, it is about allowing people to buy coverage. The free and almost free coverage has been out there for decades and is not affected by this new law in any way.

People who pay no income tax dont make enough to do so what was your point anyway. BTW 43% of businesses dont pay a dime either.

gldnlvr, please show us the quotes of republicans vowing to fight everything this president has tried to do. I know this is a common assertion from those on the left but it seems that such statements only exist in the imaginations of liberals. Certainly no republican in congress has made anything approaching that sentiment so I'd like to see some documentation from you supporting your absurd accusations. Please make them exact quotes and provide you sources.

Every time a republican was asked about anything they said "NO' or Hell NO" Those are exact quotes.

Ahetch, let's see the source for your quotes. Show us where we can verify this or you are just a liar, right? Who said that, when and where did they say it, and who documented it.

Republicans have opposed almost every piece of legislation presented by the Democrats or the administration...so much for verbal sources....and as for the comments about msnbc.....there has never been a so called news organization so thoroughly and unabashedly biased, with all analysts, talking heads, and designated attack dogs in non-stop assault on a sitting administration as Fox news...they have never presented a story in a favorable light or had a complimentary postion concerning any event pertaining to the Obama administration....never seen any thing like it in my entire life...they openly donate large funds to Republican campaigns ....they no longer have any credibility as a neutral legitimate news organization..

If Fox news was a newspaper I would use it for toilet paper.

gldnlvr, please show us the quotes of republicans vowing to fight everything this president has tried to do.

Not necessary. Talk is cheap. Who cares what Republicans did or did not say in a public venue?

A simple examination of voting records in the House and Senate shows VERY clearly that Republicans have vowed to oppose every bill put forward by the current administration.

They may not have said as much with their mouths, But their actions speak VERY CLEARLY!

AfghanWarVet- talk is cheap but the votes simply prove that the crap the dem are trying to ram thru despite a majority of pubilc opposition. Understand you miss tri-care but you have to get wake up.

Toasty, what "vital statistics" were those? I must have missed them because I didn't see anything other than the plurality of Americans in this poll are still against ObamaCare and then some anecdotal examples of a few people who said they wanted ObamaCare to have done more.

However, if you want to talk about "vital statistics" go back and review post #4 which shows the majority of the public and every poll is opposed to ObamaCare.

You didn't even bother reading the story, did you?

Although I will admit, I found it funny (if frustrating) back during the health care debate when the teabaggers would say that "such and such percent of Americans don't like the bill," counting the people who were upset that it didn't go further in their statistic.

Toasty that doesn't make sense. The polls shown in post # 4 are the percentage of people who want ObamaCare repealed. By it's very nature that would not include people who didn't think it went far enough because they would be for the bill but want it to have an even more detrimental effect on our care system

You teabaggers can dish it out, but you don't take criticism to well, huh Bri?

It interesting that you teabaggers always bring race into the discussion.

Seriously, where did that come from, Bri?

Bad bob:

1. I take criticism just fine. It's extreme liberal bulls**t that I can't stomach.

2. We can't use the race card; the left has used it so often they finally got a copyright on it.

Did you ever wonder why that is? Maybe it's because republican policies tend to hurt minorities and civil liberties in general.

That was a long time agao now it encompasses all of middle America and every moderate that still calls himself a Republican. Soon they will be walking around in uniforms and black boots.

Whaaaaaat???????

It's extreme liberal bulls**t that I can't stomach.

That is all fine and fair, as long as you remember that extreme conservative BS is equally ridiculous.

Agreed.

Agreed

agreed

agreed

Absolutely correct

Repeal it. I want corporations controlling my heathcare. That is why we already have the greatest healthcare on the planet.

Eric, apparently you are on a different planet than Earth. Do some research. We may be innovative in treatments, but we don't care for our people well overall and we pay the most for it.

Raoul......exactly !

Cheney said that we have the greatest health care in the world. But then Cheney can afford it.

Give me one good reason that I should have to pay for your insurance. You want the govenrment to take care of you needs? Why not trying to take care of your own needs? The government that you are so proud of does nothing to generate income except forcefully take money from people who have earned it and give it to others who have not. It is welfare and entitlement mentality like yours that is going to destroy this country.

My Mom lives in Belgium. She had to have a fracture before the government would approve Fosamax to be given to her to build up her bones. She was in the hospital septic at age 79 with a blood infection and the doctors approached me and said they have a pill to give her to end her suffering, We of coarse said no..She is 84 now alert and on few meds .Just needed some antibiotics, Google it yourself,,Belgium and euthanasia.

agreed

Give me one good reason that I should have to pay for your insurance.

You either have been snookered by someone or the most misinformed person on the planet if you believe you have to. But let me clue you in on a fact. You I and every tax payer are now paying for the HC of 30-40 million people.....right now before the bill goes into effect after it does we will not have to. Now thats real tax relief.

Kristyc3......since you obviously do not understand the new law you probably should not comment. This is not about giving anyone free coverage, those programs have been around for decades ( Medicaid ) and have nothing to do with this law. This law will allow people to buy and pay for health insurance, people who have been prevented from buying health insurance in the past because they had a claim or illness. This insurance will not however pay for any claims relating to the past illness or pre existing condition until a year waiting period has passed. It will cover other illnesses that are not pre existing, and the people getting the insurance will pay the premiums for it.

The government does not run health care. The Single Payer system was not in the bill, remember?

And how can you say the government STOLE tha auto companies? They bailed them out. With MONEY. OUR money. We the people BOUGHT the companies, and have made a profit from them repaying our bailout so that they can be independent again.

And lastly, do you know who else doesn't pay taxes? The teabag favorite: Exxon. In fact, they get government subsidies. But by all means, keep on prattling on about socialism...

I actually think you have a valid point. I don't understand why so many don't pay taxes. I am not in the over $250K bracket, either. I don't expect anything for nothing, and I don't see why anyone should. IMHO, they need to go to a progressive flat tax and forget all these deductions, especially for making babies. People with 5 kids making $35K a year are pushing the tax burden onto everyone else.

Where is the profit from the auto companies? We will not make a profit. As for stealing the companies: Unsecured creditors (bond holders) recieved assets that should have gone to secured creditors (Union and Government). This has not happened before.

Toasty: If you call GM still owing 43 billion to the American tax-payer making a profit. You must run one heck of a business.

Jim. "tax the rich out of existence? that's hilarious. They seem to have done well under Ike, paying 91%. hahaha

Jim - The US pays the highest per capita health care costs in the world compared to other western countries. 20% to 50% without having significantly improved health. We are paying way to much for the care that we have been getting.

This legislation dose affect costs. Typically insurers are able to profit .30 per dollar to cost. The new rate will be .15 per dollar.

Be nince if anything in you post was true but since there is nothing there but BS I will pass....jim4789657899 or whatever login you are using tonight

Toasty McGrath......you need to check your facts. The government has not made any profit on the loans to GM and Chrysler. They made a profit on some of the money they gave the banks, not the auto companies, and they are not likely to ever make a profit on the auto bailouts however it might keep a vital industry going in the country and keep hundreds of thousands of tax paying jobs here, so long term it might be a good thing, but profits, no way.

How do we do that with congress taking the payout. Not just Republicans but blue dog dems.

Keep the unions out also!

If the unions would have had as much 'to do' with it as the ranting tea baggers we would have had a public option. Instead we had town halls with the angry tea baggers ranting 'NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE AND KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE".

Rich - I am sorry to hear about your premiums but I think your real issue is with the Health Insurance industry. In most states they are allowed to take .30 for every dollar to go towards profit. The new Health care law limits this to .15. If you feel as I do that you are being gouged you should contact your state insurance commissioners office.

HC costs have averaged 20% increases for over ten years what was your point. With addition of 30 million plus people into the system costs should drop. If they do not then we get tougher.

If they want to fix things, they definitely don't want to switch to the American system.

Tommy Douglas, the man credited with Canada's health care system, died in 1986. He was a strong advocate up until the end.

I also learned that the vast majority of Canadians don't want privatization. Most economists predict that doing so would raise costs and reduce access.

Teabaggers really are ignorant.

So the troll Bri is telling us a dead man is panning the Canadian HC system. I will not bother but I bet if you google it it will lead to a right wing blog that is in error as a usual.

Maybe not capped, but consistent with the rest of the world.

Agreed. Some years ago, My sister went to a hospital for a partial hysterectomy, threw down her insurance card, and had it done the next day. A month later she received paperwork stating her bills totaled some $35K. When she called the hospital to get an itemized bill, they told her not to worry about it; just submit the paperwork to the insurance company. Knowing she had an annual limit, she had to get the state attorney general involved to get an itemized bill. The insurance company rewarded her with $$$ when she finally got to go through the bill line by line. IMHO, they've cut us out of the process on purpose.

Cindy, when you cap prices you get shortages and rationing. You can verify this as historical fact. The reason why drug prices are cheaper overseas is because congress passed a law many years ago requiring that any drugs sold domestically had to be offered overseas as well. However, since Canada and Europe have price controls on drugs that law ends up forcing the drug companies to sell their products for below cost overseas. In order to compensate for the loss they shift the cost to us in the U.S. so we, in effect, end up subsidizing the overseas market.

Look at the drug companies based in Europe. There is almost no research and development of new drugs there. They simply wait until the drug innovations developed by U.S. drug companies go off patten and then make generic copies of them. If you imposed price controls here there would be no research into new drugs because there would be no profit in it.

I agree.

jtriggs - I understand that they need ot be offered overseas, but why is there such a price difference? Subsidies?

Rick, because we subsidize Europe's, Canada's, and Mexico's (among other countries) lower prices by paying more here. It is dictated by congress and that is why we cannot import drugs from overseas because if we were able to do that we would no longer be subsidizing the overseas market and the whole thing would break down.

Thanks jtriggs. Looks like congress has cause many of these healthcare issues that they want to solve. No surprise there.

Here is an example. I just recently along with most of my family suffered through an upper respitory attack and was prescribed 6 pills 2 the firs day then one for four days. A local supermarket has a 4 buck antibiotic program so I stopped there and was informed it was not on their list so I asked how much the pills were and they sai 40 bucks for the prescription of 6 pill checked Wal-Mart and it was 24 bucks. Check online Canadian cost was 2 bucks a pill. Now you know why the HC industry is trying to elect their lackeys the Republicans. They have had years to fix HC and did nothing but add costs to it. Take a travel and look at the salaries oof the Pharmacutecal industry the major HC people and the insurance executives. For every one million dollar bonus that means when they open on January 1 of every year they need to make a profit to pay those bonus's

Wait, articles showing that the majority people want the country to be more liberal is going to help the teabaggers?

It thankfully will not be a tidal wave for the Republicans.

CM48,... Stay on the beach in November and don't worry. Better yet, stay at home and watch the polls. You are will see the largest landslide victory in favor of objectivist values ever in history.

Collectivism and altruism must be stopped once and for all, for the great country of the United States to return to a country of great achivements.

Altruism: is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions

Collectivism: I Ayn Rands brand of economics which is a a failure and actually funny. Pauls sn from KY was named after her

Objectivism is also another of her hairbrained ideas on socialism.

You forgot the s

LOL! ME TOO! Funny how they think this is great healthcare but they exempt themselves from it!

The plan that Congress has is very similar to the public option plan that the
Republicans didn't want.

And yes, we should all have it.

No it's not. It isn't even close.

But that's paid in the most part by taxpayers. Do you think that it's just free?

Moxie, the plan that Congress has is PAID FOR by the taxpayer. Then, I have to turn around and pay for my own health insurance, too. Do you honestly think the elitists in Congress are going to grant YOU the taxpayer the same benefits they get??

Don't we all. We should see that they get what we get and nothing more. That would be fair and balanced. Agree?

Typical NeoCon Teabagger banter by Corsair, folks. To him, anyone who wants a better managed healthcare system like they have in numerous countries other than the USA are simply lazy, non-working or communists! It's exactly this type of thinking that keeps the USA's healthcare ranking at 37 in the world, while many other countries (some 3rd world) are far ahead of us and helping their citizens stay healthy and productive. Why? Because those countries control their health costs, instead of letting NeoCons attach a dollar sign to everything. Get healthcare out of the Private Sector and this mess will resolve itself as it did for those who are ahead of the USA!

Typical NeoCon Teabagger banter by Corsair, folks. To him, anyone who wants a better managed healthcare system like they have in numerous countries other than the USA are simply lazy, non-working or communists!

It is amazing to me that you think the government can manage healthcare better than doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers. These government people are the same people who managed the wars, Katrina, and oil spills. You need to do more research.

Many of the "other countries" that you refer to have inferior emergency services or are going broke. France's system is now almost a billion in debt. Other countries are ahead of us because they aren't a bunch of overweight, smoking, fried-food on top of fat eating citizens. They have a much different lifestyle than the entitlement we have seen here.

No we do not think that "the government can manage healthcare better than doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers." What we do think is that the government can manage healthcare better than the insurance companies. If healthcare now were managed by doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers, we wouldn't be in this mess and the government would not have to step in to impose some sane regulation on the provision of health care!

They spent 3 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was just to kill people. How much do you think it would cost them to save people? Our government has a bunch of political science majors and lawyers representing us. Very few health care people in the house or senate. They are incapable of creating a system that would work. No government has done it successfully. You can say what you want to about other countries, but if you look farther than a Michael Moore documentary, you will see that almost all of them are in financial trouble.

Life expectancy by countries (CIA statistics):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

We are 49th

2005 amount spent on health care per country (from nationmaster, a well respected source of demographic information):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

We were number 1.

Clearly, something needed to change.

Yes Wants, this is the problem. Unfortunately irrational tea party people and republicans would rather believe their propaganda than facts. Look at the responses to this poll. It doesn't jibe with their world view so it can't be true.

Nahh.. the disappointment will be on the hands of the liberals.

Nahh!... The health care plan or shall I say the "Going Broke Plan" by the Republican Party will cost the GOP in this election. I truly believe most Americans want a Universal plan instead. One where all Americans contribute. This would eliminate those of you that complain about your taxes subsidizing those who do not have health insurance. After all most all of us will need health care sooner or later.

The you should support businesses with tax breaks that can afford to subsidize your insurance.

Corsair, we're all too sure you consulted with the Teabaggers, Glenn Beck and Fox News before you decided to spew your Greedy NeoCon Pap. Give it a rest, as anyone who is SANE is not really interested anymore! And I'm sure you backed Bush Jr. 100% about WMD's in Iraq as well, didn't you?

paul, wow, you said it so it must be true, right? Prove it dishhead.

Money without reform will not fix health care either.

Nonsense just like the stimulus there are no magic bullets that can stop a train headed down a steep embankment at full speed except in comic books. First as with the stimulus you try to slow the fall, bring it to a stop, then proceed. in business to many times people want a quick solution to head off a major problem but if you cut your self badly you do not begin stitching it up right away you stop the bleeding first then wash it then find a a doctor to sew it u.

oxford- This poll was conducted by the AP and Stanford University. What properlystated polls are you referring to. I would be genuinely interested.

Thanks

I attached some links below.....but here's the problem.

This article, and the poll driving it, are implying that more people would rather expand the bill than those who want to see it go away. But, that's not at all what it does. It said 30 percent favor the law....then it says 1 and 5 people don't like the law because "they think that Federal Government should not be involved in heath care at all." So, they're narrowing the group of people who don't like the law down to just the ones who don't like it for that exact reason. This method of polling is very common in order to obtain a desired perception...(by the way, the left is not the only ones guilty of this...it's BS for both sides...and I'm sick of it!

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-nearly-six-in-10-support-health-care-repeal/1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Thank you for your help. I will check out these links. All polls of this nature are subject to the interpretation of the data and the manner in which the questions are formed. I like this because it gives both sides the opportunity to pause and consider the other sides point of view. I still think the health care law offers more good than bad and should be amended rather than repealed.

David - hats off to you for your willingness to ask for and accept data with grace. We don't seem to be too interested in qualifying and quantifying fact at this point. Were more interested in appearing "right" than resourceful.

Havent seen one yet that does maybe as you seem to be a one of a kind genius you could point us to them since you think they exist. Warning Fox and WSJ are not really polls they are propaganda

If it has been a failure all over the world the liberals must have it even if the liberals are the only ones ask.

Hawaii was lucky to discover the problems early, unlike the ten years it took Tennessee to suffer under TennCare. After only four years of operations, the state was forced to take over one managed-care operator (MCO), and bailed out another which was eventually liquidated. Providers were not getting paid. The consulting firm hired to assess the fiasco reported that the program,

The whole TennCare concept was scrapped in 2006, replaced by an assortment of smaller, less ambitious programs. The full effect of these programs have yet to be felt or fully evaluated

Government stepped in and costs spiraled out of control so much that it threatened to consume nearly the entire budget for the State. Benefits had to be rationed and/or reduced and no new enrollment. Where are the cost savings that were supposed to have materialized and made everything, if not wonderful, at least better?”

Maine’s Public Health Care Initiative Viewed as Failure

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/26096/Maines_Public_Health_Care_Initiative_Viewed_as_Failure.html

Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

... in its place. However, saving money was the raison d’etre ... Health care cost savings in Oregon – the assisted suicide option | ... are hell bent on providing free health care ...

hotair.com/.../08/03/video-oregon-says-no-to-chemotherapy-offers-assisted-suicide-instead · Cached page