The Canadian Healthcare Experience from an Entrepreneur’s Perspective

This article provides a perspective on the Canadian healthcare system and what it has meant to a small business consultant and entrepreneur and his family.

• 

  Posted by Michael Lauren, Seattle, Washington | Aug 24, 2009

  Thank you for demonstrating and applying real numbers to a very serious problem in the United States. Nice to hear your daughter is doing fine.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 24, 2009

  What makes the Canadian system work is its response to catastrophic illness. What makes the system at times painful is the response to chronic but not life threatening illness. Although you can choose any doctor you wish as your family practitioner, in my province you can only see a specialist through a referral from your family physician. Sometimes referrals can take weeks but sometimes you get in within a week. Sometimes a test like an MRI may take a month from request to appointment. These situations happen because immediate emergencies are always given precedent over chronic health issues.

  Here in Toronto we have first rate hospitals with some of the top physician specialists in the world. In more rural settings there is less choice. But I doubt if that is any different than what you experience in the U.S.

  Thank you for your kind thoughts about my daughter. She is doing well. In March she had a pulmonary valve implanted in her heart done through a catheter. This is world pioneering surgery and it is being done here in a country where the healthcare system is publicly managed. The cost of my daughter's procedure and hospitalization was zero.

  Those fearful about a public payer system need to know that here in Canada we have a system that saves lives and doesn't include death panels. I cannot understand the hysteria that is apparent at town hall meetings across the United States. The vituperative language and hate displayed may be more about who Barack Obama is rather than the medicare for all plan he wants to institute.
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Aug 24, 2009

  More than any other issue I can think of (taxes, minimum wage, etc) health care is an entrepreneurship issue. I suspect that there are thousands of would-be entrepreneurs who are remaining in their day jobs for one simple reason: they and their families can't afford to lose their insurance.

  I'm a big proponent of MEANINGFUL health care reform, that is, creating a system that covers EVERYONE, such as most first-world countries as Canada, Australia and the UK have done decades ago.

  I also grew up in Canada, and know first-hand that the quality of care is extraordinary. It's laughable the lies being told about how Canadians have to travel to the US to get care because they can't find it at home.

  Here's an example of how the OPPOSITE was true in my parents case: my dad is from the US; my mom is from Canada. When they got ready to retire, they moved back to Canada. Why? In part because of the healthcare system.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Kate Phillips, Seattle, Washington | Aug 24, 2009

  Len, thank-you for sharing your moving personal story as well as the insights it holds for healthcare system options. I also agree that healthcare should be a right, not a privelege.

  And I love how you see your taxes doing good. We all benefit from the things our taxes provide, but gratitude and taxes are rarely discussed together.

  Sure, we'll all like to see our taxes allocated differently and spent as wisely as possible, but I like road maintenance, and my daughter has attended excellent public schools. And maybe if health care rises in our priorities, we'll have less money to spend on things of lower value.

  Kate
• 

  Posted by Mark Walters, Bellevue, Washington | Aug 24, 2009

  I tweeted a link to your article and encourage others to do the same. Thanks for the post and I too am happy to hear that your daughter is doing well.

  @WaltersLawFirm
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 24, 2009

  I want to thank all of you for your good wishes for my daughter. When she was born we were given very poor odds for her to live to age 6 months let alone 24 years. So many years later it is hard to fathom what we have been through as a family. But we made it in part because of the help we got through an extended program of intervention and support from the healthcare community here in Canada and at the Mayo Clinic. We even created new protocols for children with my daughter's medical condition because of our experience at the Mayo. All of this came at a physical price but not a financial one.

  I just looked at one of the bills that I have kept from my daughter's long fight - 42 days in the hospital, $77,000. Another bill is 14 days, $256,000. And another, 10 days, $23,000. The numbers still boggle my mind. I cannot imagine what it would have been like if I were asked to pay out of pocket for those many bills. I am thankful to have been born in Canada where I didn't have to face a choice between financial solvency and my daughter's life.

  Len Rosen
• 

  Posted by pam say, Tacoma, Washington | Aug 24, 2009

  Hey wait. I talked with several Canadians about their health care and they are not happy. The very few I talked with came to America to seek better health care arrangements but I was not aware that the Canadian government paid for outside health care. When I visited Canada and talked with a few families, many wished that the Canadian government was not involved in there health care.
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 25, 2009

  The fact is that year after year, poll after poll, shows Canadians more satisfied with their health care than Americans are satisfied with theirs. A most recent example I saw by by Angus Reid Strategies (respected Canadian pollster), found that 65 percent of Canadians have a "very positive" or "moderately positive" impression of single-payer health care in their country. (Note: 79 percent of Canadians have a negative opinion of health care in "the States."). By contrast, only 43 percent of Americans give thumbs-up to this country's health care system.

  There are many reasons to legitimately not embrace public health care, but citing the poor quality of care in Canada and Western Europe is provably wrong is so many ways it's not funny.

  As small business people who will generate a great deal of the future wealth of this country, health care reform is an issue we must weigh in on .. as it's our neck on the line, whatever way we go ... think about it, 20% of the U.S. economy is now health care and will grow to 30% in the next decade. Ultimately, that's a burden to your ability to compete with every country in the world.
• 

  Posted by Paul Spafford, Ottawa, Ontario Canada | Aug 25, 2009

  Len: As a fellow Canadian, I'm happy to see a personal rebuttal to all the trash-talking our health care system gets on American TV.

  I recently a holiday in New York. Almost every person who found out I was Canadian asked me about our health care. I responded with the following comments:

  1. Imagine not having to take your finances into account to make medical decisions.

  2. The right-wing media is seriously misleading you about our system.

  3. The U.S. already has some "socialist" type of programs (like unemployment compensation), because you're not willing to let your citizens starve to death. Isn't health care just as important?
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Aug 25, 2009

  My friend Bryce Mohan wrote this brilliant list of reasons why health care reform is a bad idea. I quote (original here):

  1. Americans cannot possibly tolerate a socialist program like Universal Health Care.That's why we don't have any other collective taxpayer funded institutions like a police force, a public library system, national parks, or armed forces.

  2. Government run health care is a disaster, that's why virtually all of our politicians themselves have government run health care. To be sure to familiarize themselves with the systems 'problems'.

  3. Government run health care will mean rationing. Not like now, where your insurance company is more than happy to pay for any procedure you or your Dr. feels might be helpful.

  4. The government plan is clearly bad because it's just collectivism in disguise. It's predicated upon groups of people paying into a pool which covers medical expenses for everyone. This would be a disaster compared to our current system where groups of people pay into a pool which covers medical expenses for everyone.

  5. America is a Christian nation. It states plainly in the bible that we should not trouble ourselves with helping the needy, nor show concern for the health & well being of others.

  6. The reform plan has a section on counseling for hospice. Any reasonable person knows that counseling always leads directly to the formation of death squads to rid us of the elderly.

  7. We can't allow a government run alternative, to do so would only provide more competition in the market place. Not only does this have the negative effect of driving down prices and increasing efficiency, but it goes directly against wishes of the founding fathers, who envisioned a competitive marketplace which drives down prices and increases efficiencies.

  8. Why fix it now? We can always wait for someone else to fix it when it gets 'really bad' later. This worked perfectly for that little regulation problem in the financial industry.

  9. We cannot possibly afford health care for everyone. Sure we are one of the richest nations in the world...and yes we have a few spare trillion lying around to destroy a country that has never attacked us as well as rescue a bunch of rich bankers and CEO's but I mean c'mon...that's money allocated to wrecking things. Fixing things we can't afford.

  10. Palin says so, and you can't argue with an intellectual giant the likes of Sarah.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 25, 2009

  Dan, that is the funniest writeup I've seen on the whole thing. Kudo's to Bryce. There are multiple options to solving the problem but sticking our head in the sand and screaming 'no' and 'best health care system in the world' and 'let the market decide' is rather bonkers given doing nothing is what led us to a bad situation getting worse every year. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. (A reminder that I occasionally have to deliver to business clients).

  And to re-iterate .. .this hits the small business community as much as any single cost issue in the U.S. We should care.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 25, 2009

  Hi Dan, You made my laugh of the day top pick. Brilliant satire.

  Pam, there are lots of nagging problems within the Canadian healthcare system but they don't compare a fig to what Americans experience when they are denied treatment by an HMO, or lose coverage when they lose a job.

  I mentioned that Canadian healthcare does not cover all medical issues. What it does well is related to those medical issues that would be deemed catastrophic.....cancer, broken bones needing surgery, cardiac conditions, transplants, all the stuff where hospitalization may be involved.

  Canadian healthcare coverage may be different in different provinces since under our constitution health is considered a provincial matter. So coverage is not uniform across the country. But there is coverage for all.
• 

  Posted by David Losh, Seattle, Washington | Aug 25, 2009

  There are people dissatisfied with Canadian Health Care and look at our system wistfully.

  Our system is set up for the working professional who wants quality care. If they break a leg skiing it gets set. If they have a cold they get some pills. If they want, or need by pass surgery, or sports medicine they get it, right away.

  If they get cancer, they want to be in Canada. Every decision here is financial.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 25, 2009

  Hi David, There are always going to be healthcare problems that create dissatisfaction. I'll give you an example. My wife had a stress fracture in her foot. She went to her doctor. They did xrays. When the problem didn't go away she was scheduled for a bone scan. The bone scan results took a week to get back (I don't know why). It indicated a fracture and an appointment was made with an orthopaedic specialist. That took 5 more days. So fully a month and half passed before the diagnosis and treatment occurred. All of this cost nothing but when fitted for a cast we were given an option, plaster or a soft cast. The soft cast was not covered under the plan and we paid for it with Mastercard. I submitted that bill to my private insurer and received full reimbursement.

  It was the time element that bothered me so much because my wife was very uncomfortable walking around with a fracture. So I would never deem our system as being even close to perfect.

  There is no doubt that if you have insurance coverage in the United States you should have excellent healthcare. That's really not the issue as I understand it. It is the uncovered that the current administration is attempting to address. It is the person who loses coverage because they max out or lose his or her job that is being addressed.

  Canada isn't Eden. We happen to have a single payer system for most medical issues and when the government doesn't cover it we have private options to top up our coverage.
• 

  Posted by Diane Dyer, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Thank you, Len! I too will repost this on Twitter and FB. I too am Canadian...have lived here in the U.S. since 1978. I had my 2 daughters in British Columbia and at a time when my then-husband and I had little money. Nothing was out of pocket, every aspect of the pregnancies and deliveries were covered. We had an amazing General Practitioner (still remember his name...Curtis Latham) who cared for the 4 of us and referred us to a specialist when needed. I love it here in Seattle, and my daughters live here; however at 67, I am seriously considering moving back to my native land. I too am appalled and mystified at what's going on here right now. Many blessings to you and your family. Diane
• 

  Posted by Darrell Kirk, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  I will only comment on what I know as fact about the Canadian medical system. I have represented a Canadian company in Vancouver for over 15 years and have so many friends and associates there and have many examples to draw from.

  1. Last week my American friend was in Vancouver and had a stabbing pain from a broken rib that seemed to be near an organ. She visited an emergency room in Vancouver and was told that she would not been seen unless she could provide immediate payment before treatment. The same thing happened to my Uncle in Maple Valley who went on a ski trip to Whistler with neighbors. One of the group broke their neck and again was refused treatment until they paid the $7,000. minimum fee for such treatment. If you are in Canada and you are hurt, you will not receive treatment until you can provide payment immediately before treatment. If you dare to argue with me on this then I am wide open to hear you. Please reply. In America we have a law that states a hospital must provide and an all treatment to you no matter what your citizenship, ability to pay, etc. There are no questions asked. This applies to the largest illegal alien group in America also-Canadians. Canadians look like the American majority. Let me know if I'm wrong about this. No it's not illegal aliens from Mexico, it's Canadians that are the largest group. I'm not saying anything negative about our friends from the North, this is just a fact. How many Canadians are able to seek treatment down in America when we Americans cannot seek the same "free" treatment?

  2. Let me elaborate on another point and again I look forward to any and all replies that dispute this fact.

  The Canadian medical system may be one of the best in the world as far as the treatment itself is concerned, but what I have found as fact is this: when you need the treatment, you cannot get it in a timely manner. A person needing a heart bypass surgery, breast biopsy, excruciating appendix (the 3 cases I have witnessed) will wait for weeks or months. In America the bypass patient will receive treatment the next day or sooner. I have 6 very close friends in Canada and they all agree that getting treatment in Canada takes very, very long and in most cases longer than what is safe. Again, set me straight if I am wrong on this issue.

  America has some very serious problems with its healthcare system, however Canada is a problematic system to follow. I have heard nothing but nightmares about immediate treatment as described above. Also, Canadian healthcare is not free. In addition to the high taxes that Canadians pay, they must also pay a monthly health care payment.
• 

  Posted by Sandra Watson, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Dan -

  I had no idea that you were Canadian as well!

  This is so very timely, as I was just up in Van yesterday {my grandmother is in the hospital - doing well}.

  I had a lengthy discussion with my brother about healthcare cost + access, as he lives in Canada, and honestly - doesn't even think about it. You don't have to worry or stress when you know it's there - always.

  It's an issue that I'd never had to deal with, or even think about, as a child and young adult. Nor did my parents.

  I've worked in several major hospitals in the Seattle area over the years, and always felt that healthcare was the modern day caste system of the US.

  It saddened me greatly to see people not have preventative care over the years, and result in a catastrophic situation that may have been prevented with proper access + medical attention.

  Your parents case rang true for me - my dad {Canadian} + stepmother {American} moved back to the Motherland just over 2 years ago. The overwhelming reason was healthcare.

  In fact, my dad had a major operation within 2 weeks of returning to BC {though the US media would have you believe he'd still be waiting}

  I truly hope that the medical system here is changed greatly in the coming years.
• 

  Posted by Alison Butler, LMP, MLIS, Bellevue, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  BRAVO! What I don't understand, is why every business in the US (with the obvious exception of health insurance companies) isn't basically demanding public-paid health >insurance< for every legal resident (not to be confused with government-run hospitals -aka- "socialized medicine"). Every kind of business but 1 kind (health insurance co's) would stand to benefit. This speaks to the Star Trek principle that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. US companies should not be in the business of providing for matters of public good to their employees. This should be something that we the people provide for ourselves. Of course companies will still purchase 'cadillac plan' upgrades for certain high-value employees as an incentive. But everyone else should be scared to death of losing or leaving a job simply because of health benefits. Those businesses who stand to gain the most are the small businesses who could finally attract the 'best and brightest' to work for them; no longer would the B&B stay with larger companies just for the benefit plans. This would level the playing field for businesses of all sizes.
• 

  Posted by Susan Tilley, Rogue River, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  David, you said: "Our system is set up for the working professional who wants quality care. If they break a leg skiing it gets set..."

  You didn't finish the rest of the sentence..."if they have a job with an employer that provides health care" and they go to an "in network provider" and get the procedure preapproved (otherwise they may have to pay out of pocket).

  If the working professional is someone like, oh, let's say, me, who is self-employed and has a pre-existing condition and cannot get health insurance from anyone at any price, well I can get my leg set too - but it will cost big time. I hope it is not a compound fracture. If I get hit a by a car, well, goodbye house. You bet I am careful crossing the street.

  Insurance that is tied to employment is not insurance - it is a job benefit - like salary and vacation days. Insurance is supposed to insure - you pay premiums and, if the event you are insuring for happens (like you get sick or hurt), they pay you.

  Insurance tied to employment does not work this way. You pay and pay and if you lose your job, you lose your coverage. Too bad. If you lose your job because you are sick, double bad. No job. No insurance. Still sick.

  I think Americans don't mind paying for insurance - we already do - a lot. Premiums for a small family of 4 can be over $10K a year or more. Wouldn't it be nice if the "insurance" we are already paying for was guaranteed to be there when/if we actually need it?

  Oh, and Darrel, that "free" treatment you mentioned? It is not free. Everyone of us pays for it with higher premiums and our taxes. This is America after all - nothing is free here, not even lunch.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Dear Darrell, When Americans need treatment in Canada they are not considered covered unless they show private health insurance. The experience is the same for me in the United States should I be sick when on a trip to your country. I carry out-of-country medical insurance when on vacation in Florida. I buy my plan through the equivalent of the AAA up here. I get 30 day coverage for my family annually for under $200. I have had to use American facilities carrying my coverage and have always been asked to pay upfront regardless of the insurance even though that is not what the policy states as its terms. I get reimbursed on returning home.

  On the question of wait times....the challenge of any public health system that is not driven by a for profit motive is to manage resources. For some procedures, there are wait times and all the governments across the country are trying to address this issue. On cardiac procedures wait times tend to be very short. But in the case of emergency where a life and death issue is at stake, there is no wait.

  As I have stated before, there are problems with the public payer system but they are minor when compared to the consequences of having no coverage at all or losing your benefits when you lose your job and find yourself facing a medical emergency, or finding out that your HMO refuses to sanction a treatment on a condition that may kill you.

  When we were at the Mayo Clinic I was very much impressed with the quality of care provided. I paid my bill on leaving and got reimbursed by my government when I returned home. The bill was for $7,000 for a week of tests and a series of consults for my daughter. I am sure the Mayo Clinic did not charge me what other U.S. hospitals may have charged for the work that was done.
• 

  Posted by Oleg Moskalensky, Kirkland, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  I'm sincerely glad to hear your daughter is better, but you're omitting a very important fact.

  The people who helped your daughter were from the Mayo clinic, i.e. in the USA, i.e. even though your Canadian government paid for it - under their current medical system she couldn't get the treatment equivalent, timely and capable enough in Canada.

  Changing our US healthcare to the same as in Canada will present a new set of problems. First, we'd likely devolve into a similar state as Canada, i.e. no Mayo Clinic equivalent so neither our kids, nor yours would be able to gain such healthcare. Second, where would you and anyone else go to get such care then?

  I have kids with major health challenges, know exactly what you're talking about, yet I'm totally opposed to Obamacare, because it's a backwards solution that will only present us with the same choice you had, i.e. the only way to save your daughter is to leave the country... luckily you had somewhere to go, although I noticed you didn't go to France.

  There's no question that our healthcare costs are astronomical and there's no question that the system needs to be changed, but NOT the way it's being presented and NOT run by the government, who has a tough time running just about anything with any kind of fiscal consideration or responsibility.

  I took my son in for a medicine infusion at ER (because the Children's Hospital clinic was closed at the time) and all they had to do was bring the medicine and pump it into the catheter. A 5-10 minute process. Instead he was seen by 3 different doctors, asking the most inane, inappropriate and useless questions and we were finally out of there in... 3 short hours! 3 hours vs 10 min - does that sound efficient to you? That's what needs to be changed. Frivolous law suits are everywhere - that's what needs to be changed. Doctors are paying liability insurance through the nose because of this - that's what needs to be changed.

  They're completely ignoring the common sense and going for the bureaucratic approach, which will be both incapable, too expensive and overall - way worse than what we have, in terms of care itself.

  Would it be nice to have full healthcare coverage without any worries? Absolutely. But you can't just wish it - someone has to pay for it. And if our government came up with a legitimate and solid plan, with common sense being at the top of the list, that would show precisely how it would work, how it'll be paid for etc. - the entire country would be behind it, but that's not the case, which is why this plan should be shelved, just like Hillarycare was.

  Your story would be very compelling if it wasn't for the Mayo Clinic reference - that's precisely the point of why your approach and Obama's isn't the solution to the problem.
• 

  Posted by Kier Smith, Puyallup, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Just a few quick comments.

  My dad, a small business owner w/o insurance discovered he had a brain tumor, applied for medicaid and was approved, but denied access to treatment for 1 year because of his preexisting condition.

  My father-in-law, with a long history of heart problems, suffered his 5th heart attack in Canada. He had worked in the medical field for his entire adult life and hated the idea of "socialized health care", but changed his mind after his treatment in Canada. He said he got first rate treatment, but was stuck with a bill upon leaving the hospital. For several days of intensive care and his medications he had to pay $20CDN.

  Another photographer I've worked with lost his studio because he'd gotten sick and had to spend several days in the hospital. Even with insurance he had to sell everything to pay them.

  United Health Care made $5,000,000,000 profit last year.
• 

  Posted by Suzi Tucker, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  I really can't understand all of the arguments that Canadian healthcare is worse because in Canada one has to wait for health treatment -- we frequently have those same waits here, even when you have very good insurance. It's not uncommon to have a 2 month wait to see a specialist. I also don't understand the argument that Canada's system is worse because you need a referral from your primary care physician to see a specialist. This has been true of nearly every health plan I have had in the US -- and then when you are referred, you must see the specialist who is in your insurance company's network.

  I compare the story here with the comparable story in the US. In the US, the parents were unable to get their child insured b/c of the 'pre-existing condition' clause. They finally found a charity organization which would cover their daughter -- but only if the family income classified them as poverty level. The parents in this family have had to turn down jobs that pay decently in order to stay poor enough to qualify for this health care coverage. How wrong is that?
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  When you only know one answer, you tend to see the question narrowly.

  Canada's system may work for Canada -- though their own experts admit it's failing.

  For the US, much better models of real universal coverage can be found in Switzerland and Singapore -- both cover 100% of citizens, and neither are plagued by the waiting lists or the crushing bureaucracy of the Canadian and UK systems.

  Most leftist defenses of Single Payer for the US, like Bryce's, rely on misdirection, distortion, shameful rhetorical tricks, or outright dishonesty. (Notice he ignores three different GOP health reform plans that fix all of his stated complaints, but without a government takeover of health care.)

  To recap his 10 points:

  1. apples and oranges: health care != police
  2. dishonest: Congress' coverage (FEBPS) is provided by private companies
  3. irrelevant: Plan A's flaws don't make Plan B less flawed
  4. straw man
  5. straw man
  6. straw man
  7. dishonest: every government sponsored "competitor" gets subsidized by taxpayers who thus get exposed to massive unfunded risks, i.e. Fannie Mae. No government backed "competitor" has ever worked as Bryce is advertising 8: straw man 9: straw man 10: straw woman plus ad hominem

  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  If this is the best the Left can do, no wonder the rush to Socialism is in trouble.
• 

  Posted by greg thayer, Renton, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Wake up people - Yes we need reform for healthcare, but there are better solutions then letting the goverment take over. The last thing we need is another missmanaged ineffective costly goverment program like Socail Security and Welfare. If there is going to be goverment spending to improve healthcare then make it in the form of insentives for private enterprise to find solutions.
• 

  Posted by Chad Gleason, Kent, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  As a fellow Canadian I thank you for sharing your Canadian Health Care thoughts. I want to see a day that you can make your health care decisions without looking at your financial statement. You are not productive as a small business when you are ill, it will take it's toll on you, your family and your business. Lets give everyone a chance to be healthy and live life to it's fullest.

  You can't grow a country that is sick....
• 

  Posted by Steve Long, Jacksonville, Florida | Aug 27, 2009

  Thanks for writing this. I work for a Toronto-based company and I'm one of 8 employees in the U.S. My healthcare premium is astronomical.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Dear Oleg,

  The Mayo Clinic was holistic in its approach. Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is one of the top children's hospitals on the planet, a rival to Hopkins, Boston Children's, the Mayo and UCLA Medical. What made us go to the Mayo was not the quality of care, it was the fact that something was being missed in the overall care of our daughter and it took a set of fresh eyes to see it. When we returned, Hospital for Sick Children decided to adopt a similar approach to our daughter that was pioneered in Rochester and they have since implemented even more progressive holistic models.

  My daughter had a pulmonary valve implant in March, inserted through a catheter in her groin. That was done at Toronto Hospital, across from Hospital for Sick Children, using a combined team. This procedure is still in its infancy in the United States.
• 

  Posted by Matt McCormick, Chicago, Illinois | Aug 27, 2009

  There's one major thing missing from this discussion that is missing, both on this thread as well as in the national debate. That's the actual cost of health care.

  Everyone is staying focused on the big, bad insurance companies. Yes, I have some serious issues with them. Most of those issues could be resolved if the federal government would mandate one set of rules for all health insurers nation wide to follow (instead of letting every state dictate their own set of rules). This would create significantly more competition nation wide and drive insurance costs down. But I digress...

  A much bigger reason for people not being covered is the rising cost of health care itself. Be it hospitals over-prescribing treatment to try and thwart law suits (a problem I'm guessing is not a big deal in Canada), individuals running to the doctor for every sniffle (and thinking they're not paying anything because "it's covered" - they are paying and so are the rest of us), people not taking care of their bodies and then complaining about pre-existing conditions, individuals spending tens of thousands of dollars for treatments that extend life a few weeks (this will almost certainly have to stop to keep our system solvent even as it exists today), or simply the exploding costs of new technologies.

  Until we combat the cost of health care, no matter what the government does you're going to start seeing 25% or more of every paycheck you get go to cover health care (or your paycheck will be 25% smaller as your employer pays the cost).

  If you think a government plan covering everyone is the key, consider the following article (and yes, I know it was commissioned by Premera so take it with a grain of salt - I'm an entrepreneur and don't have time to fact check it):

  http://tinyurl.com/l45jec

  Here's the scariest part in that entire post:

  "Washington patient related hospital margins on Medicare business fell from a 2.9 percent gain in 1997 to a 15.4 percent loss in 2004. During the same period, Washington hospitals increased their profit margins on the commercial (employer-provided) segment of their business from just over 5 percent to 16.4 percent.

  "In 2004, Washington hospitals lost $622 million for care delivered to patients with Medicare and Medicaid coverage. In contrast, the same hospitals earned $845 million for care delivered to patients with employer-provided health care coverage. The overall patient-related gain for Washington hospitals was $222 million, or about 2.4 percent."

  Did you catch that? Hospitals lose a lot of money on Medicare and Medicaid patients. Those are the ones under the government plan.

  I'm not about to rip the Canadian system (or the French or the British). From what I've read, most people in all of those systems like their health care. However, the US is not Canada.

  I just worry that an expanded government Medicare program is going to mean we bring health care costs under control by doing what we do with Medicare right now: Limit how much money hospitals and doctors can charge. That, or our government will turn to the next set of bad guys they can tag to cover the costs: Rich, nasty business people that are just out to make a profit.

  One last thing, I'm not a simple naysayer. It does no good to point out what's wrong with a system without posing a few solutions of your own. Tell you what, I'll write that article in the next few days. :)

  Running a small business is awesome.
• 

  Posted by Paul Petry, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Len: "My government provides me with healthcare coverage for my entire family...entire medical treatment costs, amounting to in excess of $500,000 were paid by my government."

  Nice.

  So what product or service does the Canadian government produce that enables them to generate so much wealth that they are able to pay for your family's expensive medical care?
• 

  Posted by Margo Wei, Kirkland, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Thank you so much for sharing this powerful story. I will share the link to it with others. We, in the US are so in need of this. No one should be without good health care.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Matt hit on some very important points and I have found this to be a very interesting thread. I would ask Lee to share with us what his tax base is, what is the monthly cost to provide this "free" insurance and also what his monthly supplement costs that helps cover what is not covered by Canada. I too am not going to get on Canada's health care. If the Canadians are happy with it, terrific. I am not planning on moving there but am planning on continuing to help the American public with their health insurance coverage. I beleive one of the things that should be done is regulate the insurance industry. the heirarchy in the industry are making millions where the rank and file that are helping the consumer, by comparison are making pennies. I believe, whether I am able to continue selling health insurance or not, the companies do need to be regulated on what they can charge, make the plans portable and provide the kind of coverage needed. While the government is moving toward regulating, they also need to do the same for the medical field and the pharmacutal companies, where the real cost of health care comes from. The insurance you do purchase isn't really expensive, its the health condition treatment that is expensive. Does anyone have any idea how we are going to cover the trillions of dollars the national health care will cost? Everyone needs to be aware of House Bill 3200 part of America's Health Choices Act The following is the actual text: Section 102 Grandathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this provision, the term grandfathered health insurance coverage, means individual health insurance coverage that is offered adn in force and effect before the first day of Year 1 if the following conditions are met: Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual heatlh insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Year 1. Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day. Subject to paragraph (3) and except as reqwuired by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Year 1. WHAT THIS MEANS 1. the employer sponsored program can not accept any new enrollees unless they are a dependent of someone already enrolled. 2. the employer sponsored insurance program can not make any cahnges to their program. Making changes to the employer program would eliminate the grandfather exemption. Eventually, all private, employer sponsored programs would be eliminated.
• 

  Posted by Mack Arrington, Greensboro, North Carolina | Aug 27, 2009

  One area I have not seen in this discussion is how we in the USA truly trust our government to overspend, make a mess of, and eventually have to bail out any health care program they create.

  It was President Reagan who summed up our government when he said something like: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. Do we really trust our government to handle anything of this magnitude well? To me, this is a foundational question. Answer: I think No.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Hi Matt, You are absolutely right to be concerned about the cost of healthcare under a single payer system. This type of system by its nature is designed to manage down the cost of healthcare delivery.

  Doctors work in each province in Canada to a pay schedule that is negotiated between the medical association members and the government.

  Hospitals are given budgets to operate within. Extraordinary expenditures on new technologies are usually covered by government grants.

  Ontario is experimenting now with family practices that receive an annual budget for the patient population that goes to them. It is the family practices' responsibility to ensure that their population remains healthy so that the costs don't exceed the annual budget. This may or may not work and is being piloted in a few practices across the province.

  The public payer system is always experimenting with ways to keep costs contained. In a sense that means the rationing of resources and from time to time inefficiencies. It's not perfect but that is not so much the point. It is the fact that you or me, if we are Canadian, are assured that if we are sick we receive care regardless of our financial circumstances.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  What an interesting article and discussion! Thank you to everyone who's taken the time to weigh in. This is a complicated issue for sure. I don't have much to contribute except to say that I think the "proof is in the pudding". Until the U.S. can boast life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and other measures of health on par with the rest of the developed world, we can't really claim to have the best health care system in the world, can we?

  I hope we can all use the energy and passion this issue clearly generates to make some real progress.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  I moved to the United States 7 years ago, and boy do I miss Canada!

  Let's see....my parents would be living on the streets if it wasn't for our system in Canada. My mom had lymphoma for 12 years, that's 12 years of tests, chemo, radiation, medication, etc, etc, etc...then she had a bone marrow transplant. They would seriously not be where they are today if it wasn't for our system. Granted, you do occasionally have to wait a bit longer for various appointments, treatments, etc., but it's such a random thing. All the folks that I know who've had life-threatening illnesses have a) survived b) not had to wait for treatment c) haven't gone to the poorhouse. I miss Canada. It would be nice to have OPTIONS in the United States. This should be a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE!
• 

  Posted by Stuart Thompson, Plano, Texas | Aug 27, 2009

  I would like to thank the private insurers, if not for them I to would be bankrupt. My daughter was born at 26 weeks, weighing 1 lb 15 oz. and spent 3 months in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. If not for them the over $1,000,000 medical bills would have bankrupted me as well.
  Nor did I have to wait for them to approve any treatments she required such as I would from a government run health plan....
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Hi Mack and Ron, You already have Medicaid and Medicare managed by the US government. So government does manage a single payer system for a good portion of the US population. What makes you think that government cannot manage the rest of the population.

  You asked me what is my cost of all of this free healthcare. I pay income taxes every year. Some years I am in a 34% category. Last year I had a lousy financial year and didn't pay any income tax. I lived off my accumulated savings. My supplemental health coverage for private hospital room, dental, physio, glasses and drugs amounted to $238 a month. That covered my wife and myself. We maxed out on the drug coverage at $1,200 each. My dental costs at $1,000 per person did not max out. I got two new sets of glasses as did my wife. We were reimbursed $300 each. And I wrote off the cost of the premiums to the tune of nearly $3,000 as a health tax credit which meant I got back the entire amount from the government when I filed my taxes because my income was low.

  Let's say I made on average $150,000 a year. Then my contribution in income tax would probably be around 38% not including any expenses and tax credits, or registered savings deposit credits. You can figure out then what I pay for government versus what you pay. But what matters most is that whether I made that kind of income or the kind of income I made last year, my healthcare was fully covered by the government.

  There is no reason why the US cannot have a similar system, or even a system where insurers and the government agree to work together cooperatively to keep the costs down.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Stuart, what would have happened to your daughter, and to your personal financial picture, if you hadn't had private health insurance?
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Stuart, in Canada you would not wait for approval. Your daughter would be treated. Mine was born with Tetralogy of Fallot with Absent Pulmonary Valve. She lived in an incubator for the first seven weeks of her life. Her neighbours were preemies, encephalic children, and babies with every kind of condition. Nobody waited for approval. I hope your child is doing well and I fully understand that you are thankful that your insurer covered you. What if you didn't have insurance because you were self employed, recently laid off or unemployed?
• 

  Posted by Stuart Thompson, Plano, Texas | Aug 27, 2009

  Well Naomi, the personal finance picture is easy....there wouldn't be one-LOL As far as my daughter is concerned I know the hospital was required by law to attempt to save her life. Beyond that with the treatments and respirator she needed just to stay alive for the first 2 months I do not know and have often wondered about that.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  The Calgary Herald reported in June 2007 that "an internal hospital investigation has concluded the high-profile death of a Calgary teen from appendicitis could not have been prevented, although health officials promised Tuesday to make several changes to the medical system following the case":

  But the family of Jordan Johanson--who died in March following a 12-hour wait for surgery on his burst appendix--maintains the young man could have been saved had he received timely treatment.

  "A Montreal man, bed-ridden with acute appendicitis, waited six hours for an ambulance Thursday after calling 911 four times, raising concerns the city's emergency-response service is putting patients at risk," the Montreal Gazette reported last month:

  Even as 57-year-old Jean-Marc Gagné lay begging to be taken to an emergency room, more than half of Montreal's fleet of ambulances sat idle at hospitals around the city.

  Urgences Santé has lots of ambulances but not enough paramedics to fill them, according to the Montreal agency's chief of operations, Benoît Garneau.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  "One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today," London's Daily Telegraph reports:

  In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with "neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel" treatment.

  The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

  The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust--where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care--was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  "One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today," London's Daily Telegraph reports:

  In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with "neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel" treatment.

  The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

  The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust--where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care--was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Len, I am still a bit confused. You keep stating your government provided full coverage, when in fact you have a supplement plan to cover what your government won't cover. So as I understand it for the free Canadian government full coverage, you normally would pay about 35% in income tax plus another $200 + a month for additional coverage and when you max out your prescription drug coverage, who then pays for the rest of your prescriptions for the remainder of the year? My point is this, it is not free insurance coverage. It is not perfect, but in most cases, it is a good program. Our Medicare plan is federal government run and they are cutting reimbursements and many doctors are refusing to take on new patients, so that program isn't working very well. Medicaid is a state run program and it also has cut reimbursement and allowable expenses due to the federal government reducing the funding. So that government run program is not doing very well either. The true resolve for our issues is when the AMA, the pharmaceutal and insurance companies come together and provide guaranteed insurance coverage for all at a reasonalbe price. One carrier in our area indicated if it was require that all residents enroll in an insurance program, they could lower their rates by 27%. That is significant. Great dialogue by all!!!
• 

  Posted by Stuart Thompson, Plano, Texas | Aug 27, 2009

  Len, I'm not saying anything negative about Canadian healthcare. I know very little about it. But I do know our government,...they could make drawing a square into a 25 step process: 1. get a pencil. 2. a pencil is a yellow wooden stick with led in the middle. 2a. the led must potrude one end of the yellow stick. 3. put the pencil in your hand. 4. no, the other hand. 5. no, the hand you draw with..... 6. Find a piece of paper (must be gov't. issued, form 482369a-standard issue....
• 

  Posted by Eric Basir, Evanston, Illinois | Aug 27, 2009

  Socialism! Leftists! Communism! Martians! What is this? The 1950s? Even then, it was all hyperbole. You boast about dishonesty. Obviously, you never studied history. Get out of your time warp and deal with 2009. Get out of here with your Rush Limbaugh talking points. We're entrepreneurs. Not sheep.

  Checking the Biznik profiles of the naysayers, I wonder how many of naysayers have insurance companies as clients. Some of you "consult" alot. With whom do you consult? And if you claim to save businesses money, then why can't you see the lunacy of a middle-man between health-care providers and patients? Just like the mobster organ-brokers in the newly-liberated Iraq, the middle-man makes the most profit, forcing both sides to do business with them (http://www.mecaforpeace.org/article.php?id=479&amp;printsafe=1)

  No, insurance companies aren't the only problem in this mess. However, you can only peel one layer off at a time and their time is now. In business, we cut out the middle-man and deal direct with the customer (patient). Then we get tort reform, then we get cost of services.

  Oh, and those with children whose lives were saved by the magnanimous insurance companies: When your child grows up, they won't be able to get any coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  HI Ron, When the drug max is reached on the supplemental coverage I pay out of pocket but I claim the medical expense on my income tax. In the 2008 tax year my total medical tax credit was over $4,000 which included the cost of the premium for my supplemental coverage.

  No insurance is free. As I stated in my article at the beginning, I pay for my medical insurance through my taxes, regardless of whether I have a good or bad year financially. And I get coverage to the full extent that is available to all Canadians whether I pay more tax or less.

  As for things going wrong in the system. we just had a case where paramedical operators of an ambulance waited 20 minutes before going into an apartment because they claimed they were fearful of the neighbourhood. That person had a heart attack and died. Human beings do stupid things whether in a private heatlhcare world or a public one. Doctors can be equally incompetent whether they are reimbursed by government or paid by patients, or paid by private insurers.

  When I wrote the article that started this very interesting debate I freely admitted that the system here in Canada is not perfect. I fully expect that no private or public payer system saves all lives. But the major point I wanted to share with American entrepreneurs was that a public payer system gives you a safety net whether rich or poor, employed, self-employed or unemployed.
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  And Stuart, where that hospital is required to treat a patient that cannot pay, the patients with insurance are basically subsidizing that event. The hospital must cover their cost somehow, and it comes out of the hides of others.

  There are several foundational questions that could really benefit from clear public discussion and debate, rather than utter nonsense about death panels and socialism.

  1. Do we as a society believe basic health care is something we should provide to everyone or that it should purely be based upon an ability to pay + charity.
  2. Is a for profit insurance system the right system to assure people care when they need it, knowing that the natural incentive of any for profit insurance company is to deny coverage when most needed. This includes both pre-existing condition issues and denial of coverage to those who are suffering the most due to often arcane policy issues.
  3. Can we afford to continue with a health care system where most stakeholders make more money for more services with only direct financial motivation for optimal outcomes?
  4. Can we afford to continue with a health care system where the patient has minimal financial interest in minimizing their own health care costs? This includes life style choices that directly lead to higher consumption such as lack of exercise, eating issues, substance abuse, etc?
  5. What should our system of rationing be? It absolutely exists today: ability to pay and insurance company policies. To pretend otherwise is foolish. Is the current system the right one?
  6. Will private industry, without changes in government policy, solve these issues and the overall issue that we are spending 20% and growing of our economy on health which contributes to our growing gap in global competitiveness due to structural cost issues? If so, what will change for this to occur?

  Answering these questions is not easy and may lead to conflicting ideas about solutions. They are tough policy issues that can't be solved at the anecdotal level .. we all know of great things and bad things that have happened in every health care system in the world. But they are what we should be talking about.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Len, thank you. We have the same provisions here. Any out of pocket expense towards medical is tax deductible and I am glad you are taking advantage of that fact. There has been a misconception in some of our so called town hall meetings here that the Canadian coverag is free and just wanted that corrected in this thread. You did just that. As an insurance agent, I want to see a reform, but I also don't want what I am seeing coming out of the Senate, The House or the Senate Finance Committee. As one poster indicated, they can't seem to agree on the color of the pencil, let alone what is best for the American people. I have asked all my legislatures that if the programs they are debating are going to be good for the American people, then the Federal employees, including all members of Congress should be required to enroll in it. Once again, have the masses in the plan. They beat around the bush but mostly say no.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 27, 2009

  Eric - nice ad hominem attack. There are real solutions available. You're the one name calling and questioning the motives of others. It just damages your credibility.

  Read the details of the Switzerland and Singapore models, then tell me you really think Single Payer is better.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Steve, Your points are all valid. How does a government and a society prioritize its investment in itself? Does it put it into "guns or butter" as the economists state? What is the right balance?

  The U.S. today spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world. How much of that expenditure contributes to better health for its population?

  What is the right amount of spending and what is the right way to dispense the money to ensure a healthy population?

  When Americans point out the downside of the Canadian healthcare environment they point to two things: wait lists and quality of care. Wait lists reflect the worst aspects of rationing. That's why every provincial government here and our federal government are trying to get a handle on how to reduce wait times on the most common medical problems: heart, cancer, joint replacement, cataracts, and other problems that doctors have identified as critical. This has led to federal money going into purchasing a new slate of 21st century medical diagnostic technologies that are going into hospitals everywhere. Sometimes this progress comes in fits and starts. When the wait lists start creeping up, the pressure on government to act leads to further investment in the infrastructure. If the government doesn't make the investment it knows that it will probably be turfed out in the next election.

  The quality of care varies across the country. In big cities with teaching hospitals and medical faculties, like here in Toronto, the care is equal to the best the US has to offer. In rural areas there are shortages of doctors. It would be interesting to hear if that is the same in the US.

  That's our system....warts and all. It works. Sometimes it creaks. Sometimes we get mad and force changes. But it is there for all of us.
• 

  Posted by Katherine Wichmann Zacharias, Encinitas, California | Aug 27, 2009

  Very interesting. I have been in the insurance business for 17 years now and I too want to see reform as Len stated above but I don't want a govt run health plan. I am married to a Canadian. I know it's different for every province up in Canada but my in-laws are in BC and have had quite the opposite experience as you. My father in law was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year!! and was just seen this month to start treatments. The waiting lists are unreal! When my sister in law had her 2nd baby she had to fly to Vancouver or another province to have tests done to make sure the baby would be healthy when it was born. And my mother in law says she cannot even get Aleve without a prescription in Canada just to ease some small pains she has in her knees. Amazing how different our stories are. I have actually seen Canadian medical docs for people on waiting lists that say on the bottom, "if this person has deceased (while waiting) we do apologize". Americans Would NOT stand for waiting lists for procedures or services. Americans, esp Californians want everything now. That is awesome that your daughter is doing well and was taken care of all those years. Thanks for your story and input. Have a nice day.
• 

  Posted by Hoby Van Hoose, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Thank you for writing this - there is so much disinformation flying around U.S. news and entertainment about health coverage options - we need all the truth we can get.
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Thomas,

  Here's what you said: "Most leftist defenses of Single Payer for the US, like Bryce's, rely on misdirection, distortion, shameful rhetorical tricks, or outright dishonesty."

  I'm guess I'm a 'leftist', whatever the hec that really means, and somehow that feels like a sweeping generalization that is ... hmmm ... ad hominem.
• 

  Posted by Emily Wigley, Vashon, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  This terrific discussion points out one things: we need a change in health care in the US. It may not become the perfect system (whatever that is), and it may still not be as good as Canada's (whatever that is - Len describes it beautifully and is so appreciative of it, but it seems there are confusions on the south side of the border). Sort of like slamming a finger in the door: you don't care how the door gets opened, you just want a change. Please. Soon. For everyone.
• 

  Posted by Dave Maxum, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Len, Great article! My father in law has Alzheimers, lives in the UK, and is being well taken care of by their system. My grandfather in Canada, has been well taken care of as have numerous other members of my family in the North.

  Why so many people are so riled up about this i don't understand. It seems fairly simple to me, if your sick you go to the doctor and you're done. No payment plans with the hospital to pay for the portion that insurance did not cover, no medical bankruptcies which we all end up paying for anyway. I could go on but...
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Aug 27, 2009

  I am thrilled your daughter is doing well. I would ask you to look at a few liklihoods of her treatment. How much of it was a result of US innovation?

  Right now, the Canadian government steals outright US drug patents. The reason is simple; they can't make their own.

  The US is the last high-wealth country without a single-payer system. That is why we are the leading R&D provider for medicine in the world. Our doctors and researchers have incentive to do well. The better they do, the more they make. When that is limited, the same thing happening in Canada will happen here. A massive doctor shortage with those few currently being educated are not the best and brightest, but the underwhelming mass of people looking for a decent income who may not have the aptitude to do well.

  Profit and competition improve industries. Take it away and the world will suffer.

  I'm all for multiple, competing non-profit insurance companies under less regulation than currently exists. Allow policies that give deductions for healthy living. That's the change we need.

  Socialism does not work if there is no capitalist company to steal from.
• 

  Posted by rachel Snider, Durham, North Carolina | Aug 27, 2009

  I have really enjoyed hearing all these different perspectives and they give me a lot of food for thought. Here is something to think about in response to all the "if hadn't lived in Canada, they would be __ (on the streets, bankrupt, you name it)."

  The US does have medicaid. The poorest are already covered. There are doctors who reduce bills. There are hospitals who reduce bills. There are charity organizations--the Shriners are one example. It is not really accurate to depend on an "if".

  That being said, my kids were on Medicaid in Louisiana. Most doctors wouldn't accept new patients, and the ones we found were so overwhelmed they treated the kids and parents like cattle. I took my daughter to the dentist--there was only one I could find who accepted medicaid in our city. He shined a flashlight in her mouth and declared her cavity-free; it was a 30 second exam. Yes, it would have been nice to have her care covered if she had needed major dental work. I just don't want this to be the only thing available. We're naive if we expect different results from the same kinds of programs we have already.

  Lets give tax credits for insurance premiums, allow insurance to compete across state lines, and make these changes that make sense without bankrupting our country before we hand over our health care to the government.
• 

  Posted by Diana Hathaway Timmons, Gig Harbor, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  Thank you so much, Len, for sharing your story. My friend in Belgium has a similar story to share, and is quite happy with her health care. While some may complain that Canadians must wait to see doctors and get procedures, most Americans with insurance can wait up to 6 months to see specialists like dematologists, and such. My Mom recently made an appointment to see an orthopedist, referred by her doctor, and it will be 2 months before she gets in.

  As an entrepreneur, I must purchase health care for myself, but it is in no way comparable to the quality I had when I worked for a larger company (and our costs have skyrocketed!)

  My friends outside the States cannot fathom a "superpower" that requires its citizens to hold bake sales and car washes to pay for life saving treatments for their children and other loved ones. Wish the insurance industry would release their stranglehold on our elected officials so we could care for the 50 million working folks who cannot afford health insurance, or are unable to get it because of pre-existing conditions.
• 

  Posted by rachel Snider, Durham, North Carolina | Aug 27, 2009

  I second what Rob Swanson says.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 27, 2009

  Just to add a small balance to debate...

  From http://www.neusysinc.com/index.html

  ...."According to a September 14, 2004 Reuters report, the shortage of health care services has reached crisis proportions in Canada. Paul Martin, the Canadian Prime Minister, is quoted as saying, "Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the right health professional at the right time."

  What Martin is talking about is the long wait to see a doctor, and even longer wait to get diagnostic or surgical procedures done. The Fraser Institute in Canada reports that there is now a wait of over three weeks for someone with chest pain to see a cardiologist. If bypass surgery is urgently needed, add another two weeks. "Elective" bypass surgery (as if there were such a thing!) adds almost eleven weeks. Try never to have chest pains in British Columbia, where people are waiting six months to schedule bypass surgery. The Canadian health care system is killing patients who can’t get treatment in time.

  The delays for non-life threatening problems are much longer. According to the Reuters article, "Patients in Ontario who require major knee surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months for surgery."

  The fact that Canadian health care is "free" doesn't mean that everyone can get a family doctor. Since the medical profession is limited to government employment, naturally there are fewer people making that career choice. Reuters reports that 15% of Canadians don’t have a family doctor. As a consequence, Canadian emergency rooms are even more flooded with people seeking routine medical care than in our US hospitals.

  What do desperate Canadians do? More and more now travel across the border to get treatment in American hospitals, and are glad to pay for the privilege. They get in and out in a fraction of the time, and know that they are getting the best care available from the best doctors, using the best diagnostic and surgical technology.".....
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Hi Rob, If you think that medical innovation is a US birthright you are seriously mistaken. The valve implant technology that my daughter recently received was developed in France and the UK. the heart bypass machine was developed right here in Toronto. Yes US drug companies as well as European countries are producers of much of the pharmaceutical legacy of our western medicine but even lowly Canada developed insulin.

  The change that is needed in American approaches to providing medical coverage for all is to take the word "socialized" or "socialism" out of the discussion. This is about people getting quality basic healthcare without losing their homes to get it.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 27, 2009

  Hi Zoran, Paul Martin is no longer Prime Minister and when I mentioned action on wait lists, these are the initiatives that we enacted upon because of the problems that were identified back in 2004.

  Wait list action is tracked in every province and if a person has to wait beyond the accepted limit as identified by the provincial ministry (doctors make these decisions) they have other options such as going across the border to get treatment at our government's expense.

  I have three doctors in my immediate family. We have debates about our system versus your system from time to time. So I am used to listening to arguments pro and against, but the politics of fear that have become a lively part of your current debate poorly reflect the reality of our Canadian single payer system.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 27, 2009

  Len, I just cited a source from 2004 for the sake of the argument…

  That is great. Let bring Canadian Government on the board to instruct USA Government how to improve public policy in just 5 years! Obama Administration should pay for it - of course.
• 

  Posted by David Losh, Seattle, Washington | Aug 27, 2009

  We have a for profit ponzi scheme that we call health care.

  You have no idea how bad our system is until you get really sick.

  We have fluff and fold health care. As long as you are in the correct percentile of treatable cases you will get basic care. Once you get sick your private insurance company wants you gone, by any means possible.

  It's financial. You are either profitable or a liability.

  We have the absolute worst doctors in the world who continue to "practice" because they make money. All we ever talk about is tort reform to keep these cash cows making rain for the rest of our befuddled hospital systems.

  You have no clue until you get sick, really sick.

  The true bottom line is that the next pandemic or epidemic, like AIDS, will bankrupt the ponzi scheme and we will be left with another bail out.

  My children, both of them, were born in Spain where they could get medical treatment if they needed it. Thank God they were both healthy.
• 

  Posted by Peter Frix, Lynnwood, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Washington State has long experimented with Public Health Insurance to the detriment of the general population.

  As Washington State Insurance Commissioner from 1993 -2001, Deborah Senn instituted the Health Care Authority to provide coverage for those without.

  The waiting period was long to get coverage, and the pricing variable, but no matter. Within 8 months the number of private companies offering family insurance coverage dropped from 31 to 2.

  That was a problem for my family in 2001 when I left employer provided coverage program for COBRA and got a $1200 monthly bill for the only coverage available - from Regence, the last of the plans available.

  Instead my family and 5 kids went opted out of coverage at a cost of $220 per month out of pocket.

  Today, I own a business where I pay 75% of my employees coverage for medical, vision and dental.

  The last thing I could accept would be a "public agency" to administrate medical expense management.

  Because private citizens do not posess the authority to tax they alone are accountable, and this includes private insurance companies.

  In my opinion, what makes coverage work, is compassion. hard work and profit incentive management. These cannot be legistated. They are the sole facets of the American spirit.
• 

  Posted by Peter Frix, Lynnwood, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I second Rob Swanson's thoughts:

  "Profit and competition improve industries. Take it away and the world will suffer."
• 

  Posted by Teresa Schmidt, Bellingham, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Great discussion--thank you Len for starting it and giving us your insight. I agree that we need to fix our broken system now. We've been waiting for far too long. Only the well-to-do or well-employed (including me, now, but not always) have insurance. My friends and family with health problems cannot get any so they're out of luck. Most of us are an accident or illness away from losing everything we've worked all our lives to build. I cannot imagine planning my health care without worrying constantly about cost.

  As far as other government programs go, I look around and see my roads are fine, the schools are educating everybody's kids (I don't have any) and the wars are well-funded. Medicare and Social Security takes care of my parents in their golden years. I honestly don't know what the big fear is. I agree with Len that the town hall craziness "may" be about Obama. My opinion is that it is. When protesters show up with guns strapped to their legs and backs--it's not just about health care, is it?
• 

  Posted by Dave Sailer, Olympia, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  For anyone who hasn't seen it, the following is a good discussion of some problems and possible solutions, as it appeared in "The Atlantic Monthly".

  "How American Health Care Killed My Father", by David Goldhill http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
• 

  Posted by Robert Zackon, Natick, Massachusetts | Aug 28, 2009

  First of all, I am elated that your daughter is fine, and completely understand your satisfaction with the system. I live in Massachusetts now, but spent over 25 years in Montreal. There is a lot of misconception down here about Canadian health care, one being that it is a national system, when in fact, it is administered on a provincial level. The objection many Americans have is if the federal government runs health care, it would create a huge bureaucracy and the need to raise taxes, perhaps even on the level of your GST tax. My 20 years in the US has opened my eyes to how very different Americans are from Canadians. Notice I mention Canadians and not Canada, the cultural attitude is very different. An example of this would be the annexation of Montreal and its former suburbs. I cannot foresee such a government forced merger taking place in Boston. Trust me on this! It's all about the attitude and way of life. The attitude is not better or worse, just different. Other than that, both countries are essentially the same. Your daughter would have been taken care of in the US, doctors and hospitals do not turn away patients, REGARDLESS of what people think. There is always a way people get help. Can improvements be made? Of course. Our debate is based upon a compromise being made by all sides. But it has to be done the American way. Perhaps Canadians do not understand this, I certainly did not. But I do now.
• 

  Posted by Marta Goertzen, Newberg, Oregon | Aug 28, 2009

  Thank you for posting the article and starting this very important conversation.

  There are so many pros and cons to both sides of the issue and it is easy to forget the pros.

  I lived in Canada as a child and did not like the health care system even then. To me it reminded me of the Kaiser system which I did not like to use either.

  I have family in Alberta who enjoy some of the benefits of the Canadian system including the wonderful pre-natal & childbirth care.

  However they also experience tremendous cons including such as not being able to find a primary care physician, not many in their area are accepting new patients.

  For years they have had to go to Urgent care for which they have to wait for hours to get in.

  My sister now has additional health problems that will require specialists and she is worried about how that will go without a primary care provider.

  Yes there are many positives to this type of health care system as well as many negatives, but then again so does the US system. There are no easy answers unfortunately.

  Thanks again for for starting the conversation!
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  As a good capitalist (as I hope all Biznik folks are), I too believe that competition generally results in lower prices, higher quality, more selection, and all that stuff that we each work so hard to accomplish. But it is silly to believe that it works in all situations equally and there is a great deal of academic work and real world evidence around those types of situations where it doesn't work as well. Public services are one. And so are situations such as health insurance where the incentive of the industry is not to pay you and minimize high risk customers and conversely, it's both complicated and you don't know when you'll need it or what you'll need so consumer decision making amongst choices cannot really be informed ... only lucky or unlucky.

  I wish people wouldn't look at this as an either or debate ... as in 'it must be capitalism as we must trust the free market and can't trust the government' or 'it must be government because we can't trust the free market. I'd suggest the right solution includes both government and free market aspects and our job is to figure our how to take advantage of what both do best, and minimize what both do worst.
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Looks like we're not the only ones who feel strongly that healthcare reform is an entrepreneurial issue. There's an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today written by former Washington governor Gary Locke, in which he asks the question: How many aspiring entrepreneurs are stuck in dead-end jobs because of health concerns?

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 28, 2009

  Steve: There is a difference between calling an argument dishonest and calling a person dishonest. And it's a third thing to claim an argument is wrong because the person is obviously dishonest because of X.

  Read closely:

  1. "Joe gives argument A, however argument A is dishonest - it relies on 'facts' that are untrue."

  2. Joe repeats argument A, so Joe is dishonest.

  3. Argument A is false because Joe is dishonest.

  Note that statement #1 says nothing about Joe's honesty -- he could believe argument A is true and be mistaken.

  Statement #3 is the Ad Hominem attack -- trying to establish the truth value of an argument by calling the person names.

  I used statement #1. Eric Basir used statement #3.

  You apparently felt defensive because you're a leftist. Transcend that identity for a moment.

  Count up all the distinct, basic arguments favoring Single Payer. Analyze each. When you discover that over 50% of these distinct arguments rely on misdirection, distortion, shameful rhetorical tricks, or outright dishonesty, you will realize that my statement was accurate.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Aug 28, 2009

  Hello, all. This is a very lively thread. Why do we miss the basic point? We as citizens of the U.S. pay more for health care than any other industrialized nation. We do not have choice. We (at least those of us who don't have lots of money) have to accept the health plan our budget or our employer provides. These plans have lists of doctors we are allowed to see. These lists include specialists, which we need referrals to see. These visits for tests have high co-pays that often cause us to wait for treatment for problems that are chronic. The doctors we do visit are limited to usually a 15 minute exam. That exam often isn't long enough for us to discuss the issues with the doctor, so we either don't get to the matter or we must make another appointment to finish the first. That appointment can take weeks to get. Then there is the statement that our taxes will rise. I am one of those who must work a full-time job because of both my wife's and my chronic health issues. I pay over $70 per week for just the 2 of us. If instead I paid that $70 in higher taxes to ensure coverage for all, I would pay it gladly! Would it really be a disaster if we had a "national health care system" that provided competition to the insurance companies that have had a virtual monopoly for years? And to respond to another post, only a portion of our health care expenses are tax deductible. Maybe if we as a people shifted our focus to one where we looked more kindly on our own, and didn't feel the need to rush into other countries with our overpriced military we'd be able to put this health card debate to rest by bringing common decency into the mix.
• 

  Posted by Shannon Kringen, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  i love hearing about what it is like in canada. i so much hope oneday in the usa we can get universal single payer care.

  here is an article by a canadian doctor explaining more about how canada pays for it's healthcare:

  http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/commentary/article_63258399-6a03-535f-95cd-1664f75dcb3b.html

  A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

  On costs, Canada spends 10 percent of its economy on health care; the United States spends 16 percent. The extra 6 percent of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80 percent to 90 percent lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.
• 

  Posted by Tom Cross, Mpls, Minnesota | Aug 28, 2009

  Thank you very much Lee for your perspective. Your story has opened my eyes to more points of view. The problem with the American health care isn't the profit driven corporate greed (which I won't pretend isn't there). The problem is that the greed is allowed to run wild because the consumers are disconnected from the economics of the system. No one pays anything near what the costs really are. Our co-pays aren't enough but we don't care because we pay less than what we value the services to be. Those without insurance pay nothing, and the government pays whatever it arbitrarily decides for the uninsured, and the providers take the loss. But the providers, in order to stay in business, charge an incredibly overinflated price to make up for that loss. So everyone gets as much health care as they want (not need), because no one pays directly. The answer can't ever be the government because that will disconnect us (consumers) even farther from the goods and services. The only way to force health care providers to charge reasonable fees is to allow consumers to make those choices ourselves. I'd even be okay to let the government take from income to put in an account where I choose what health care I want. Then the only insurance we need is catastrophic. If you want proof of "well run" social programs look at medicaid, medicare and social security. Every 5 years or so we hear that if we don't fix it (throw even more money at it), the programs will go bankrupt. The worst thing we can do is to bow our heads and hand over health care management and spending to the government.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I've been fascinated by this thread all day. Good points on all sides! I just wanted to respond to this statement from Katherine in CA:

  "Americans Would NOT stand for waiting lists for procedures or services."

  The reality is, we do stand for it. We stand for it every day that we allow nearly 50 million people in our country to live with the ultimate "waiting list": no care because they can't afford it.

  I'm fortunate enough to have a husband who works for a company that provides a good health care program. I went straight from my parents program to my husband's, and I've never been without health insurance in my life.

  If I had to pay for health insurance or health care on my own, I might not be so fortunate. Not everyone lives with the same privilege I do, and I try to keep that in mind when I think about this issue.
• 

  Posted by Shannon Kringen, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  here is some comedy/satire i found comparing usa healthcare to the usa fire dept

  1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments

  http://tiny.cc/fvahQ

  http://angrytownhall.com/

  Dedicated to ending SOCIALIST fire departments in America. No taxes unless YOUR house catches fire. Stop fascism. Live Town Hall Meeting coming soon.
• 

  Posted by Shannon Kringen, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  i personally don't have health insurance. i am low income and have no idea what i will do if i ever get ill.
• 

  Posted by Timothy Ganstrom, Bothell, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Eric Basir got it right when he said: "In business, we cut out the middle-man and deal direct with the customer (patient). Then we get tort reform, then we get {true} cost of services."

  I think he leans toward a 'public-option' which, ironically, makes the biggest possible 'middle-man' between the patient and the health-care provider... even bigger.

  I have chosen to lead by my ACTIONS not mere words... here is what I do for my family:

  1. I have had AFLAC accident insurance for many years, through unemployment, job changes and self-employment. It is crazy cheap. Pays me cash if am in ANY kind of accident... Car, Snowboarding, whatever. AFLAC is allowed to compete nationwide. Hmmm, might be why it is an amazing value.

  2. And an HSA account: everyone should have one of these!! Save your own tax-free money to spend on any-kind of health care you want! holistic, natural, or traditional.

  3. Catastrophic insurance from a nationally competing company. (Assurant had the best value for my money.) With the hundreds of dollars I save every month by having a high deductible, I can easily pay for whatever 'wellness' care my wife needs from week to week. (and she is high maintenance, but I love taking care of her!) But with the peace of mind that 'worst-case' is taken care of. That is what B. Franklin invented personal insurance for!

  Take note.... I buy my OWN insurance from whomever I want (that is willing to sell plans in Washington, anyway. And Assurant accepted my wife even with her pre-existing conditions and zero previous health insurance history.)

  Most importantly, I shop around for the best value on all my medical needs. DIRECT consumer choice always creates competition and higher value for the money (a.k.a. lower prices with better service.)

  For example: last year I needed an MRI for my shoulder I had smashed in a snowboarding accident. Sure my doctor referred me to the closest hospital, but did I blindly follow his referral like a sheeple? no. I called and asked what the cash price would be. After much research on the receptionist part, she told me $1100 to $1200, and 2 week waiting list. So I called 3 other places (all within 20 mins drive.) and found this result:

  $1000, with a 3 day wait. $900, with a 7 day wait. $600, with service available the same day. at the Center for Diagnostic Imaging in Mountlake Terrace, WA.

  Gee, where do you think I went? CDI of course. And I got amazing service, no wait, friendly knowledgeable staff, and my doctor was very happy with the pictures he got.

  The biggest problem with health-care in America is the consuming public themselves. People need to stop treating Insurance companies like they are 'nanny-state' saviours, and use their same buying savvy they use for buying their massive flat-screen TV's that are giving them poor health to start with.

  If insurance companies AND health-providers have to truly compete for customers in a common sense way (across state lines) we will have crazy affordable healthcare for all except those who choose not to work at all. And for them, there is already public assistance and lots of Charity.

  (plus our federal government .... medicare... S.S....is already broke and going into debt at free-fall rates. Even if we stopped paying all military expenditures tomorrow, our government would still be bankrupt. Why trust them to fix anything? would you trust a private company with that financial statement? heck no! Do the math, face the facts, real business owners have to... unless they can get free money from their paid off incumbents at D.C.)
• 

  Posted by Samir Tamhane, Mumbai, Maharashtra India | Aug 28, 2009

  Dear Len and members,

  Its good article. Cost of medical support is exorbitant especially pharma companies and doctors swell their margin to undesired proportions there by drying up our reservoir of savings, taking loans or even inadequate medi-claim policy limits. Therefore medical tourism to India is getting momentum. First its your and your family’s health that’s most important and certainly needs to be very cost effective with money left for survival and re-habilitation. Technologically India is much advanced in medical field also and cost of treatments are very low as compared to west. (also one of the reasons is due to exchange rates).

  This awareness of lower cost of medical support needs to go down the lines so that every individual can get medical treatment at affordable prices, where ever possible.

  In my views we must help each others on this front irrespective of international boundaries. Any inputs and advice as regards to visit to India for treatment, I will be delighted to extend my helping hand purely on humanitarian grounds.

  Regards, samir
• 

  Posted by Timothy Ganstrom, Bothell, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Sorry for the bold in my last post. The 'edit' function on the website malfuctioned such that I could not fix it. I'm a newbie still. ;-)

  I did enjoy reading Len's perspective, and Samir is right, a little international competition would be a good thing for consumers. Shop around everyone!!
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Timothy,

  The interesting thing about your approach (HSA, catastrophic insurance) is that it works extremely well because the current system essentially takes from low risk groups and gives to high risk groups via a corporate insurance pool that is one size fits all for every company. There is an intentional mis-pricing of these classes by insurance companies for a variety or reasons, some political.

  Your appraoch is also close to the Whole Foods approach for their employees as well .. and it works for them because they have a relatively young workforce.

  For society as a whole, if the younger and healthier were to withdrawal from more regular insurance, there would be a severe price paid by those that remain.

  Statistics also show that the more you cost an insurance company, the more they are likely to find reasons to deny your coverage. Estimates, for those who have needs in the $250,000+ range in costs are that over 10% of patients have substantial charges denied by insurance companies, at least initially. Thus, your catastrophic insurance may not do the trick for you .. but you won't find out until it's too late to do a darn thing about it.

  There truly is no free lunch in this gamet for the population as a whole. It's a terrible random game.
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Hi Tim, I fixed the issue with bold happening on your post - apparently there's a bug that causes that to occur when you use a pound symbol (#) in front of numbers. I deleted that and it's working fine now.

  Re: Samir - I must say, the phrase "medical tourism" has a certain appeal. I mean, traveling to India to see a doctor has an upside, especially if I can schedule my need for medical attention to the long gray, wet winter months in Seattle.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I am truly amazed at the education most posters have shown in this thread. I do have to support and reaffirm the post on the HSAs. This is a win - win situation for the consumer. First the savings plan is tax deductible and the benefits received are tax free. the catastrophic insurance package premium is tax deductible and both of these are not partially tax deductible but fully. the savings plan allows you to go to any doctor any hospital anywhere in the world!! You, the consumer is in total control of your healtcare. As the genetleman outlined you cannot be lazy about your healthcare and do need to shop around as you will be spending your money, not the insurance companies. The savings plan can be used for dental, medical, over the counter treatments, eye care, etc. It would be time to discusss with yoru doctors office the discount for cash as that is what you would be doing, then if you reach your deductible amount for a serious illness, your medical plan will kick in. If you don't use the savings plan the money transfers over to the next year. You don't lose it. You dont' send it to an insurance carrier, you deposit in to a qualified account at a bank. This is the plan most if not all entrepenuers should be considering.
• 

  Posted by Dave Phillipson, SoCal, California | Aug 28, 2009

  Wow... what a horse$h*t piece.

  No mention is made of what it will cost you as a business. I will have to cut two employees just to have to afford the proposed plan for the rest of my employees.

  Has the poster read the entire bill? Why is money for skate parks included in the healthcare bill?

  Why is money for security fences included in the bill?

  What is the poster's experience in living as an American citizen? As an American Businessman?

  It's this kind of misleading crap from some quazi expert that has many siding with the proposed bill.

  I'll speak for myself, an American, who has had a family member die under Canadian care - say F You and your opinion... and that's all it is.

  Those who choose to blindly run it up a flagpole as the guiding light are what's wrong with this country.

  One last question.... if Canadian healthcare is so great, why do so many Canadians flock to Michigan for US healthcare?
• 

  Posted by Eric King, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | Aug 28, 2009

  Loved Bryce Mohan's list of 10 reasons why healthcare reform is a bad idea. Bryce... please consider adding this one to your list:

  1. Free market capitalism flourishes when private industry can leverage pricing on services in which people will write blank checks, liquidate all of their personal assets and go hopelessly into debt – not out of irresponsibility or sloth, but in order to keep themselves or a loved-one alive due to unexpected illness.
• 

  Posted by Patrick Dixon, Lago Vista, Texas | Aug 28, 2009

  I disagree with Len Rosen's argument. Of course we all are glad that his daughter received treatment that may have been cost prohibitive otherwise. However that doesn't mean that it is acceptable to use coercion to force others to pay that bill. If you want to know why many Americans are angry about this issue, ask yourself why we went to war with England for taxing our breakfast beverage. Perhaps these articles will be more enlightening:

  http://www.austinpost.org/content/you-are-killing-your-prescription-why-shouting-wont-help-obamacare-debate

  http://www.austinpost.org/content/the-whole-truth-the-libertarian-health-care-solution
• 

  Posted by Grant Lutz, Olympia, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I too disagree. Their are inexpensive catastrophic health care plans that both my wife and I use that saves us a lot of money since we rarely get sick and when we do it is only $40-$150 to visit a clinic. Most Dr. offices are starting to even offer their own version of medical insurance between a network of doctors that lowers your cost even more including prescriptions. I am just afraid of a government program that will tell us how to live our lives and tell me when I turn 60 and my hip needs to be replaced that I am not worth the cost of the sergury and I will have to live possibly 30 more years with a bad hip that might even shorten my life span due to the pain of walking possibly making me not want to move around. I hear many stories of things like this including several pregnant woman having to come to the USA because they are booked out 10 months. We all agree that cost are higher then they should be. We should be looking in to why they are so high. lets start with all of the excessive lawsuits for millions most of which the layer take home.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 28, 2009

  Hi Patrick, When did coercion enter the equation on healthcare coverage? Do you have a plan? Are you being coerced into having one?

  Let me restate what the Canadian healthcare program is good at. It pays for you when you see the doctor of your choice. It pays for referrals to specialists. It pays for all hospitalizations unless they considered services outside the payment schedule, for example, cosmetic surgery. It pays for all diagnostic testing from MRI to CAT to PET and other technologies.

  For people over 65 in Ontario it pays for all prescription drugs. I'm 60 so I buy supplemental health insurance coverage to help me with drug prescriptions.

  For people over 65 or under 21 it pays for all eye examinations, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, chiropractic examinations and manipulations. If you are seen by an opthamologist then your eye examinations are covered regardless of age.

  The government collects income tax and in Ontario an annual healthcare premium if your income exceeds a certain dollar amount.

  I don't think any of this sounds coercive.

  When I state that the system works best in the case of catastrophic injury or illness it's because these incidents are the ones that weigh the most when medical costs are incurred.

  When I state where the system has weaknesses it is in reference to chronic and non life threatening conditions. This is common to almost all public payer systems around the globe.

  I remain mystified as to why dentistry is not covered by our public payer system, or why physio or eye exam coverage is restricted to the age groups I mentioned above. My own suspicion is that there are no optometrists and dentists on the advisory board for the Ministry of Health in Ontario.

  They are now talking about covering in vitro fertilization under the single payer system. I would rather see dental, phsyio, chiropractic and naturopath coverage then in vitro but sometimes decisions are made mysteriously.

  My supplemental private insurance covers dental, physio, chiropractic, eye doctors and naturopaths.

  I've often stated that you get the government you deserve. If I were an American I'd be asking my government what is the value of me being healthy to you, my government? Is it better that I should get sick and become a non-tax payer, or is it better that you help me stay healthy so that I can make lots of money and contribute to the tax base?
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Grant, Facts are tricky things but they don't support tort reform being a savior about health costs. Liability insurance = 1% of medical costs and has been stable at that for 20 years. 1%. States that have instituted tort reform have seen no decrease in health care costs. None. Thinking that there is a high percentage of medical care that is only done to avoid lawsuits is not supported by the evidence. I could go on and on about how much of a red herring tort reform is ... but what is fairly well documented is the approximately 80,000 American's who die each year due to mal-practice. The number who go through significant pain and suffering due to mal-practice is many times higher than that. Removing or limiting civil recourse (only sought after in approximately 15% of mal-practice cases) is not a panacea and will remove recourse to a lot of people who were injured for avoidable reasons.

  Patrick, the intellectual issue about the taxes that drove the revolution was not taxes. It was taxes without representation. Last I looked, you were being taxed by your representative government. I support taxation for public services, including health care. I imagine you support taxation for police, fire dept, etc. We just draw the line at a different place regarding what we support.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  "Recent reports have estimated that increases in unemployment during this recession have increased the number of uninsured people by 3.7 million working-age adults nationally. A new report by University of California at Berkeley researchers finds that if no policy reform is implemented, even if the economy fully recovers, the number of uninsured working age adults will grow by 4.2 million over pre-recession levels by the end of 2012.

  The current economic crisis has made the health-care crisis much worse, but what’s even more disconcerting is that even if the economy fully recovers, the coverage rates for working-age adults will not return to pre-recession levels, and the numbers of people without insurance will continue to grow,” said Ken Jacobs, the report’s primary author and Chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.”

  “The implications of our findings include higher costs for financially strained states and cities; decreases in productivity and earnings; and higher costs for employers and individuals who do have coverage.”

  The report, “No Recovery in Sight: Health Coverage for Working-Age Adults in the United States and California,” uses data from the March Supplement for the Current Population Survey, a survey of about 50,000 households conducted monthly for more than 50 years by the Bureau of the Census for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

  The report predicts the change in health-coverage rates and sources of coverage by the end of President Obama’s first term in office. It also analyzes health-care trends from 2000 to 2007, and looks at the impact that increasing unemployment during the current economic recession has had on health-coverage rates.

  The report’s major findings include:

  • Health coverage trends from 2000-2007: Between the economic peaks of 2000 and 2007, the number of uninsured working-age adults in the United States increased by six million. In California, the number of uninsured adults increased by 800,000. These trends are being driven by a long-term decline in employer-sponsored health coverage.

  • Unemployment and insurance coverage: Using a formula developed by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, the report finds that as the U.S. unemployment rate rose from 4.7 percent in November 2007 to 8.1 percent in February 2009, an estimated 3.7 million people became uninsured. In California, UC Berkeley researchers estimate 500,000 people have become uninsured over the course of the recession.

  • Predicted changes in coverage by 2012 in the absence of health reform: Assuming employment returns to 2007 levels by the end of 2012, premium costs continue to increase at current levels, and no significant policy reforms are implemented, the report predicts an increase of 4.2 million uninsured working-age adults in the United States and 600,000 uninsured working-age adults in California over pre-recession levels. While the deepest drops in job-based coverage would be in low- and middle-income families, the impacts would be felt across the income spectrum."

  The report’s authors are Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. Jacobs is the Chair of the Center and a health care reform expert. Graham-Squire is a Research Associate at the Center.

  Now that's comforting!
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  So, let me see if I understand what our government is trying to do. The 47 million people without health insurance, is about 15% of the working population, so the governement wants the 85% of us who do in fact take care of our families and ourselves with health insurance, should be penalized and have to pay for our neighbors health insurance, even though they have chosen not to pay for their own health insurance. Once again, I state, the insurance companies need to be regulated, not destroyed in this national health care debacle.
• 

  Posted by Dirk De Pree, Sammamish, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  A very interesting debate. I appreciate all of the references since, as others have noted, there's a lot of non-facts thrown about in the service of a particular viewpoint.

  I notice that most of the comparisons of countries compare those who can afford health care in the USA vs. those who live in a country with a national plan. Looking a little deeper what about the 45 million Americans who have no coverage? I think the quality of health care for each citizen drops dramatically from that perspective?

  Regarding cost containment, I've read that half of all health care costs arise at end of life yet when the topic is raised much of the population refuses to discuss it. See http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm for a discussion.

  Regarding a shortage of doctors, what about focusing on general care by less highly trained, highly paid practitioners? Do we really need an "MBA" to do the company books?

  My health insurance premiums have risen 20% annually for several years now. The insurance does not cover prescriptions and has a huge deductible. I don't believe that the private insurance and provider market we have has resulted in real competition.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 28, 2009

  A provision in President Obama's health care reform plan that requires businesses to offer health insurance to their workers or face a federal tax would cost employers at least $49 billion dollars a year, putting 5.2 million employees at risk of unemployment or underemployment, according to a new study.

  "Health care reform is not going to be free," said economist Mark Wilson, who authored the study, which was commissioned by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

  Under the provision, known as the play-or-pay mandate, another 10.2 million employees will face stunted wages and the loss of their benefits as employers try to find ways to fund the mandates.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Aug 28, 2009

  Ron Copple, Are you really that naive to think that those who do not have health insurance are in that position by choice? I think that sounds just a bit out of touch with reality. For the most part, the poor are not poor by choice. Most people who don't have health insurance would jump at the chance to get it.
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Ron, indeed that is one of the bottom lines. That as a wealthy country, we should take care of our own. We would disagree about the word 'choice' for those who are uninsured .. although certainly some chose to take the chance and save $'s, the vast majority either can't get health insurance (pre-existing conditions) or can't afford health insurance. Universal health care represents a moral value that we might disagree on or disagree about government's role. I, for one, embrace the value represented by universal health care.

  Beyond that, I cannot support a health care system that consumes nearly 20% of our economic pie today and will consume 30% of our economic pie by 2020. For no measurable improvement in our countries health over other industrialized countries. In addition, the lack of portability of health care insurance creates rigidity in our economy that has a more difficult to measure but very tangible cost .. people are stuck to larger companies or jobs in order to stay covered. This is all sheer economic suicide.

  Last, I need to point out again that insurance companies denial of specific coverage to their policy holders increases directly in proportion to the amount of claims of a customer. In other words, they are motivated to work hardest to deny coverage to those who need it most.

  I understand disagreement over policy alternatives, role of government, even whether we should try and take care of the uninsured. I don't understand anyone's claim that we have a great health care system. It's expensive, it's not better than peer countries and in many ways worse, and it often works worst (financially) for those who need it most.
• 

  Posted by Brian Passell, Houston, Texas | Aug 28, 2009

  I am concerned with seeing these words regarding the Canadian health care system; "It pays for you when...". I think there's a big misunderstanding...the "it" is not the Canadian government, the "it" is you, your neighbors, the people across the country who are working hard (or not) for their money, i.e., to make a living. "It" doesn't pay for anything, and I'll be disgusted if here in the U.S. that "it" starts to pay because that translates into "me", and more than that it will mean it will be that much harder for me to provide for my family. The idea that one wants to place their life in the hands of the gov't and in order to do so permits the gov't to forcefully take away from other to make it happen, all under the guise of "increasing competition in the market", flies in the face of what it means to be an entrepreneur. Take care of yourself! G-d willing we should all be healthy, but do you mean to tell me that if Jo Shmoe wants to eat bad food, smoke, not exercise, and become at risk for disease through his own decisions that my children will have to go without? Stay away from me. As a family, we decided to give up a lot of nice things to make sure we have insurance while making a go at a new business. Maybe encourage people to give up their satellite tv, cell phones, movies, and such...that goes along way to paying for insurance.
• 

  Posted by Nicole Salter, Issaquah, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I am a Canadian (also from the Toronto area) living here in the US. We moved here 3 years ago when my husband relocated for his job. We have 3 young children and would not have left Canada in a million years unless we were assured adequate health care coverage. We are fortunate that our insurance does provide it.

  I am also a nurse and have worked in the Canadian system for 15 years. While most Canadians will admit our system is not perfect (please show me one that is) it would never see anyone go bankrupt or fear losing their home over medical expenses. It would be difficult to find anyone who has had to choose between groceries or a check-up, mortgage payments or prenatal care and so on. I can only imagine the toll a life threatening or chronic illness would take on a families finances.

  Yes we have had to wait from time to time for care or services but everyone gets care. I don't mind waiting if needed because I know someone who needs the care more urgently than me will receive it. Americans brag about shorter wait times and make the Canadian system sound like it's failing it's citizens. When you pluck several million people who can't afford to see a doctor out of line you're going to have shorter wait times. How nice for the rest of us with good insurance coverage right?

  The Canadian system is certainly not free, we pay for it with our tax dollars. Americans are paying too, but their money goes to the insurance companies instead, who by the way are dictating who you can see and what care they will cover.

  There are huge healthcare and suplemental coverage premiums being paid every month by hard working families. Imagine if less of that money went to a private insurance company and went to a program that provides care for all.

  Imagine doing a job because you love it not just one that comes with a good insurance package.

  And no, we are not killing off the sick and elderly like some would have you believe. That's simply laughable!

  Len, I wish you and your family good health. I know you are being well cared for back home. I am hoping Americans will finally look at the big picture and find a way to provide decent affordable care for all.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 28, 2009

  According to one source: "At least 18 million of the uninsured are under the age of 35 and earn more than enough to purchase health insurance that would cost less than $100 per month. Many of the uninsured qualify for health care coverage through SCHIP, Medicaid or other existing government programs but for whatever reason, about 11 million simply refuse to take advantage of these taxpayer-funded programs. About 2 million of the remaining Americans receive health care as inmates in our prison system since they use jail, penitentiary or prison mailing addresses. Many of the remaining uninsured would never obtain insurance even if it were offered; they are illegal residents, prostitutes and drug addicts. All of these residents currently receive good medical care in emergency rooms or free clinics."

  From another: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52405

  Obama Again Inflates Number of Uninsured Americans--Falsely Claiming '46 Million of Our Fellow Citizens Have No Coverage'

  In fact, the latest available government statistics on the number of uninsured in America comes from the Census Bureau’s “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which is published every August. (The Census Bureau report that will estimate the number of uninsured in 2008 will be released later this month.)

  The current report says that there were 35.920 million uninsured U.S. citizens and 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals in the United States.

  Table 6 on page 22 of the report says that in 2007 there were a total of 45.657 million uninsured people residing in the United States. The table provides a breakout on the demographics of these 45.657 uninsured, indicating that it includes 33.269 million native born citizens and 2.651 million naturalized citizens, for a total of 35.920 U.S. citizens who are uninsured.

  The report also states there were also 9.737 million persons in the United States in 2007 who were “not a citizen” and who did not have health insurance.

  The Census Bureau does not ask people their legal status, so the report does not indicate how many of these 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals were illegal aliens, or legal permanent residents, or people studying or working in the United States.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  George and Steve, I brought up the fact of the uninsured as this was the original town cryer element to why we need national health care. The on to the fact health insurance is in fact very expensive and the insurance carriers will do whatever they can do reduce or eliminate a claim. I have actually seen where a carrier claims they never received the claim forms when in fact they were sent in certified. My belief is they claim they never received it as they were able to delay using any of the funds that has to be held in reserves to pay the claim, thus earning interest on that money in reserves. Now, for a fact, some of the uninsured can afford health insurance, they just choose not to pay the high premiums and be covered. We do have a generation that still believes they are immortal and have not had a health condition, thus they don't need insurance. Yes, there are folks who cannot afford to purchase any kind of health coverage and we have not been told really how many of the 47 million fall in to that category. I still believe if the insurance carriers were regulated better accross the country with some of the provisions from the Senate bill and some from the House bill, insurance could be provided to all and affordable.
• 

  Posted by Thomas Cox, Beaverton, Oregon | Aug 28, 2009

  George, calling Ron "naive" when you haven't looked into the facts is abusive and wrong-headed behavior -- it suppresses rather than enhances the conversation.

  I invite you to apologize, and to post here the demographics of the uninsured from the most detailed source you can find.

  Then you won't be calling someone "naive" because their intuition fails to line up with your intuition, and we'll be having the respectful conversation that we, and this topic, all deserve.
• 

  Posted by Eric Basir, Evanston, Illinois | Aug 28, 2009

  I've never been so outspoken about anything as an entrepreneur. But the cruel commentary here and in other articles I've seen affect me, my business and my family personally.

  Mr. Ron Copple's imperious comment takes the cake:

  "...so the governement wants the 85% of us who do in fact take care of our families and ourselves with health insurance, should be penalized and have to pay for our neighbors health insurance, even though they have chosen not to pay for their own health insurance..."

  You assume ALOT about this so-called 15% of our population. We choose to EAT!!! We choose to heat our homes above 50 degrees Farenheit and cover our windows in plastic in Winter!!! We choose to pay taxes!!! We choose to stop patching our childrens' pants and buy them UN-TORN pants from the SECOND-HAND STORE!!! I choose to work 70 hours a week at the beckon call of my clients to fulfill their needs!!! We have NEVER gone on a family vacation and never will because we choose to SAVE for the slumping economy when our clients lay off staff (who lose their health insurance).

  I have two very intelligent and kind children who would be dead from a stomach virus if it wasn't for the tax dollars of the 85% of the population that allegedly has health insurance (Unfortunately, I couldn't find an intravenous bag and needle at the local CVS Pharmacy). I tried to do business with your industry and it would've taken almost 75% of my post-tax income!

  Maybe if I sold one of my children into slavery somewhere, I could afford one of the "products" in your portfolio. But then that would be immoral, wouldn't it?

  I don't think you really meant what you wrote. It's truly vile and arrogant. If you could look in the faces of that so-called lazy 15% of population, you wouldn't dare repeat it.

  Do you have landscapers or a cleaning lady? Do you want them to just BLEED TO DEATH if they get injured working on your property? Just give 'em a band-aid, right?

  You're a health insurance broker. Interesting. Surely that doesn't affect your perception of this shiftless portion of the population? You certainly have plenty of "representatives" with lots of "gifts" for my senators and congresswoman.

  You say health insurance companies need regulation? But then you complain about the 15%. That regulation will require them to pick up the slack for the 15%!!! No, those who dislike the "stench" of the poor and lower-middle class want nothing for us but to disappear (except when you need your hedges trimmed, floors mopped and chickens plucked).

  May God/Allah/Atman/Great Spirit save us all—or at least save the so-called feckless 15% from cold-blooded powerful and privileged.
• 

  Posted by Steve Havas, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Ron, the uninsured has started at the top .... in my mind, unfortunately. Systematically, there is no-one .. no-one in our current world who has motivation to optimize or reduce cost of health care. With the possible exception of some individuals who go the HSA route as some talked about above.

  And yes, some chose to freeload.

  Insuring those who cannot get health care today on a net basis (taking out emergency room visits, charity, social impact of people who get sicker than needed, etc.) is simply not that much money compared to the possible savings of getting our costs under control. Personally, I'd rather pay for the uninsured through proven health care savings than just lower health care costs. But I want those savings.

  Oh, and as a person who buys individual insurance .. I want equal tax benefits to those who get insurance through corporations. I don't really care whether my taxes go down or theirs go up. But treat us the same, will you?
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Eric, I am truly sorry you have been able to experience the American dreams, but I haven't attacked you on this forum nor anyone else. I would encourage you to read the other posts put on here by myself and others. The post about that 15% as it is broke down. Yes, I am an insurance broker and do deal with folks daily who don't want to buy health insurance because they would rather buy a new car, or they would rather get a new TV or whatever else is important to them. As a broker, we don't make much on the sales of policies as the companies keep the majority of the funds, however, I still work for and with my clients to find what they can afford those that want coverage. I never said the 15% was shiftless or worthless, those were your words. I said they made a choice, as we all do. I am sure there is someone in Illinois that would be happy to help you fund the things you are missing out on. I too haven't taken a vacation in a long long time, but I do have health insurance and I can go where I want to go for treatment and as an American, I get to choose.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  In response to Ron's comment, 15% SOUNDS may seem like a small number, but when you put that into perspective - 47 million people - that's an outrage.

  "The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together. " ~ Ted Kennedy
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 28, 2009

  Michael Moore was the first, than media and politicians used inflated numbers/47 mill of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage

  The fact is The Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

  A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

  Also, Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.” She also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.

  So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report. Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Choice: Yes, opting for a car over insurance, for some, might be a choice. Perhaps this choice was made in order to have 4 wheels to get to a job. Some might choose food, education, a car, etc. before insurance - that's the whole point. One doesn't choose this kind of life.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Transitioning between jobs. That's funny. Being laid-off and on unemployment, not being able to find a job, as there are 200+ folks applying per job, of the very few that are in existence, isn't what I would call a 'transition'.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 28, 2009

  To point is: we can solve the problem of insuring those Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million without big government takeover. And, we can do it very quickly.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  But many do Jeannette and that is part of the point. We do have programs to help the poor uninsured as many posts have outlined. The same as we have programs that help the illegal aliens or undocumented aliens depending on your stand. I believe we need to do something to help all, as I have indicated in a number of posts, but when our congress is developing a program for the American people and they have made themselves exempt from enrolling in it, I am deeply concerned about the benefits and the cost. HB3200 spells out how they will be able to eliminate and/or punsh those that don't comply. Case in point, teh employer sponsored program that a business sets up can not accept any new enrollees unless they are a dependent of someone already enrolled. This is just one of the many concerns I have as an American, not an insurance broker. We need to do something to help all, but let's take the earmarks off the proposals and not punish the small business for helping their employees.
• 

  Posted by Roberta Winter, Bremerton, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Len, Thanks for providing a testimonial on how an alternative health care system works. As someone who has spent the past 10 years on health care process improvement issues I am glad biznik is including this conversation. I always am amused by the veterans who are against national health care, while they are covered by one of our more successful social medical models, the Veterans Administration. For those who aren't aware, more than half of the health care is already provided by a collective effort of us all, the government, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. What we should really be talking about is how we can cut administrative waste in health care delivery, reduce unnecessary procedures, tort reforms, and simplification. Everyone should be very concerned about wastefull spending, which is not sustainable at 25% more than any other country in the world. With the boomers hitting Medicare eligibility, costs are going to skyrocket for that government program. The public private debate simply obfuscates the real issues, providing primary care to everyone, cutting the waste, increasing the supply of primary care clinicians, and yes, simplification for all of the vendors. I published an article on health care reform in 2002, which addressed how to approach the different stakeholders and build a better system for health care. I republished that this month, as it is still germane. You can find it at healthpolicymaven.blogspot.com. I know we can create a much more effective health care system, just like the country has come together for environmental stewarship.
• 

  Posted by Michael Schuett, Renton, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  The biggest villians in the health care debate is the media in general and the cable news outlets in particular. I have seen or read almost nothing about Canadians perspective of their own health care system, or British or Australian either. Yet, we constantly hear how bad these systems are with no attribution. I haven't drank the Kool-Aid yet. Paying for universal health coverage can't easily be dismissed as so many seem to want to do. AND, real health care reform is meaningless without Tort Reform. Earlier today Howard Dean admitted Democrats can't pass Tort Reform because of the strong lobbying efforts of the trial lawyers. Pass Tort Reform and the cost of health drops dramatically and subsequently becomes more affordable for everyone. Thank you for the article, Len. Best wishes for your daughter.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 28, 2009

  The president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig, has described the health system as in crisis. "Canadians have to understand that the system that we have right now if it keeps on going without change is not sustainable," she said. "We all agree that the system is imploding. We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize."

  Canadians, researcher John R. Lott reports "In most comparisons, Canadians were more satisfied than uninsured Americans, but just barely, and they were nowhere near as satisfied as insured Americans."

  Seventy-seven percent of insured Americans were happy with their ability to access timely non-emergency care. Only 60 percent of Canadians were.

  And while large majorities of Canadians say they prefer their system to ours, far more Canadians than Americans (26 percentage points difference) express frustration at not being able to "see top-quality medical specialists."

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111978617
• 

  Posted by Eric Basir, Evanston, Illinois | Aug 28, 2009

  Ron, your continual patronizing is a personal attack against me, my entire family and all the colleagues, friends and relatives who I know work hard make a decent life for ourselves and our progeny. Your veiled implications of people like myself as lazy is just part of your industry's passive resistance to its natural demise.

  For the sake of your own soul, I suggest you reconsider justifying the denigration of those less fortunate than you! What goes around comes around. Do all the number-crunching you want. You cannot measure compassion and mercy for human life.

  Alas, I must admit. Indeed, no one wants to pay for health insurance. It's a rip-off. Yes, your prospects need a new car because they have to drive an hour each way to get to their job so they can have health insurance (All the "free marketers" have lobbied against public transportation because it's socialism/communism/marxism to transport lots of people for less money and pollution). They need a vacation to escape the madness of spending 25% of their life paying for health insurance.

  Health insurance companies have brainwashed the health care providers, patients and government into thinking we NEED them! I used to think like that until I studied their history over the millennia. How brilliant! Everyone has the right to cough up inordinate amounts of money for health insurance (but don't get pregnant, get cancer or lose your mind).

  Now that we have full disclosure about our self-interests, did you know that health insurance is not health care? It's actually a closed-end pyramid/MLM subterfuge like extended warranties and pre-paid legal services. Call it Blue Cross. Call it Humana. But they're all part of a giant mafia ripping off tax dollars and skimming wages.

  Health insurance is not a necessity for survival. Photo retouching is not a necessity for survival. Business consulting is not a necessity for survival. Arranging flowers is not a necessity for survival. People's life or death does not depend on these services.

  However....

  Health care IS necessary for survival. Fire suppression IS necessary for survival. Law enforcement and a military is necessary for survival. Water treatment is necessary for survival. You pay taxes to your municipality, state and federal governments to maintain these services. You and Thomas Cox hate government so much? Then go to the moon. If you can afford health insurance, you certainly have enough money to hire Virgin Galactic to fly you there. Oh, but then you'll need NASA (government) to coordinate it so you don't crash into satellites which guide your car's GPS map (so you don't get lost in a bad neighborhood and get mugged by a bunch of poor, lazy people who get their health care subsidized by the benevolent 85%).

  If that's just a bit out your budget, then move to Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia. Do it while your Dollar has lots of value. They have NO government whatsoever! It's every man for himself! Now that's free market fun!

  As a photo retoucher, I have 10+ years in the photography industry. I remember when film was being phased out for digital. Guess who complained the most? The labs. The printers. The middlemen. So the industry adapted and many folks turned to another industry. Just like film, your industry is inefficient. It's dying. It must adapt for the better or go the way of horse & carriage. Whatever benevolent aspects it once had have been defiled beyond redemption.

  Oh, and what is this "dream" you describe? To be able to pay some middleman alot of cash so I can have heart surgery or fix my child's broken leg? Look, I don't live out anybody's construct of a "dream." I live in reality. I'm very happy doing just that. But when some insurance company is getting between me and my health care, I'm miserable.

  P.S. They also get between me and my business because I can't establish any substantive relationship with a hospital's marketing division without dealing with the insurance companies!
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Aug 28, 2009

  Eric Baser,

  All I can say is: AMEN!
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  I am really sad for you. You sound miserable and I am sorry that your belief is so tainted on life. I have posted many times in this thread, which obviously have chosen to ignore, the insurance carriers have been in control of the product they provide. Most people forget they are a free enterprise and most if not all are for profit, just like I am sure you are as well in your business. But the governments have reached out and been involved at demanding certain benefits must be mandatory. Case in point, in my State the government stated all group policies for small business must have alternative health care, which increases coverage but also increases cost. One of those mandatory coverages is maternity. If a business has five employees, all single males or are well over the age of having children, they are still required to have maternity benefits. The companies are required to have chirpractic, acupuncture, acupressure, naturalpaths and massage therapy. The insurance companies did not have a choice here. These coveraes should be made available as an option to the person or persons who may want that coverage on their plan. I have stated numersous times, the insurance carriers need to step to the plate and rearrange their coverage offerings and provide a lower cost program so people can have the coverage they want, not the coverage the government thinks they want. I feel sorry for you tainted outlook on life and your willingness to attack a person who voices their opinion. I never once stated the 15% were lazy, some of them just have different priorities.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  George and Eric, thank you for voicing your opinions. I don't have to agree but I do respect your right to express your feelings in a constructive manner.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Aug 28, 2009

  There have been a lot of numbers flying around regarding the number of people who have no health insurance. Does it matter if it is 15% or 10%, or 5%? If we as a people can give Billions of $ to prop up corrupt dictators, can spend Billions of $ to fight other people's wars, can give Billions of $ to immensely rich corporations because their greed caught up with them, then why can we not have compassion on our own? What is wrong with this picture?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Aug 28, 2009

  Len,

  You stated...

  "The animated and angry debate in the United States over whether or not to implement a public health program, a Medicare for all, puzzles me."

  Much of the debate here contains..."apples, oranges and even a few bananas."

  1 The money from the Lottery in California was to assist the education system. They diverted the funds elsewhere and today many schools districts are worse off more than ever. Lesson--government lies. Why give them more?

  2 Taxes where socialized medicine is available runs an overall 70% of the family gross income in many countries. Lesson--the household standard of living diminishes due to the lack of discretionary funds and at times, funds for survival.

  3 In most countries where socialized medicine is practiced, doctors cannot be sued or the awards are limited. Lesson--free medical care could be very unfair.

   Who is going to pay for the drugs and rehabilitation after the doctor cuts off the wrong leg or operate on the wrong eye leaving you blind?  
  

  4 "Since 1989 I have run my own business and bought supplementary health insurance to cover those things that Canada’s single payer plan don’t cover."

  "The system is far from perfect but I do not fear going broke doing the right things for my family."

  Lesson--socialized medicine does leave you very vulnerable. I am not talking about money, eventually you will be seen and they will have the right drugs but when?? That alone can threaten life. And, you will see a doctor but again why where you compelled to go to the Mayo Clinic?

  5 When you do see a doctor in England quickly still, the prescription drug may be no where to be found. Lesson, with socialized medicine the unsaid is where the power lies.

  6 Why the Mayo clinic? If a doctor wants to make more money he or she will leave the socialist system and head for places like the United States. Countries around the world have been undergoing a depletion of the the top professionals in the medical field for that reason. During the gulf war it was discovered that Kuwait lacked a neurosurgeon--the whole country. Lesson, medical satisfaction is dependent on your specific condition.

  7 I am very happy that this worked out for your daughter. Everything seemed to be in place. But when we talk of Universal Health Care, we are referring to Universal issues. Any one person can write about their great or terrible experience. Only a contra-universal can counter another universal.

  Also, be very skeptical about surveys and polls. The National Enquirer had a head-line that read.."Polls show people still believe the World is Flat."

  The poll was conducted outside of the Flat Earth Society headquarters.

  Finally, people in countries with socialized health care and who have never suffered a major illness, or experience another medical system, cannot make an informed choice. How accurate is there polling opinion?

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 28, 2009

  One thing that I can conclude from the responses to my article. Americans are passionate about their beliefs and positions on this subject. I hope that in this debate that began with me describing my case as a Canadian entrepreneur who is thankful for the single payer system we have here (not including supplemental insurance coverage), that you would get a perspective on the value of having a national safety net program in place. That program can be a cooperative between private insurers and the government. That program could start off as a series of pilots in various states each trying a different nuanced model to see what works and what doesn't. And then the successful models could be rolled out across the remaining states.

  By now you know a lot more about the Canadian system, which is provincially run, and therefore is subtly different in each province. So a single payer system can be segmented by jurisdiction and can even be developed in partnership with private operators who would contribute to the total capital pool.

  You could have agreement on basic coverage that was national. And then have a series of stepped up plans for people who want more enhanced coverage and are prepared to top it up with supplemental payments. The private insurers could run the enhanced programs.

  In some respects that would not be much different than what we have here in Canada. People here buy supplementary coverage to cover those things not in our single payer plan.

  For those of you who feel the private insurers would be threatened, this is a solution. For those of you who feel you should have the right to choose the level of healthcare coverage you want, this is a solution. For those of you who have no choice, this would give you solid basic coverage and freedom from fear.

  I don't have a solution for those of you who equate healthcare as a tax equivalent to the tax on tea that contributed to the American Revolution.

  I would love to hear comments about this kind of proposal.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 28, 2009

  Hi John, The Mayo Clinic is a unique animal as hospitals go. Its holistic health protocol made it an ideal choice for us when we were trying to understand a problem that multiple disciplines of doctors could not. After our visit to The Mayo we came back to Toronto and Hospital for Sick Children adopted some of the holistic practices that we witnessed and reported on to them.

  Let me reiterate. If you think the quality of medical care in Canada is not equal to the task and that doctors flee this country, then my brothers and sister-in-law who are doctors must be crazy. Because they stay here. They believe in the system. They make great money and have a very nice lifestyle. And it is all under the aegis of a single payer plan based on a fee-for-service model.

  The doctors at Hospital for Sick Children come from all over the world. The leading physicians are from Hopkins, Boston Children's, London's Great Ormond Street, Philadelphia Children's, and some 30 other countries. These physicians have come to practice in Canada because the hospitals here are among the best in their field.

  As I stated earlier, my daughter's last operation is now being taught to The Mayo Clinic staff in Phoenix and in Rochester. They have yet to perform this type of ground breaking surgery.

  This isn't a backwater country with only the numbskull doctors hanging on because that's all we can afford.
• 

  Posted by Steve Knox, Mill Creek, Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Life brings unfortunate experiences to all of us but I embrace the philosophy that I am in charge of my destiny, responsible for my adversities, and deserving of the profits that result from the risks I take to own and manage a business. Thus I want less not more government in my life.

  I am self employed and have a family medical plan that is very reasonable. I am happy with my plan and protected financial ruin that might result from an illness.

  If a self employed person cannot afford a medical insurance plan then perhaps the real issue is a lack of profit due to a poor business plan.

  Please remember that government does not make money so it does not pay for anything. The Goverment taxes - takes our money - then redistributes it to us. Thus what the writer is really saying is that he embraces a redistribution of wealth.

  I have a friend with two kids who works part time by choice and does not seek the same lifestyle i have - again - by personal choice. I respect that but should i pay for his kids health care because I make more money than he does?

  Canadians may want to be taken care of and embrace the goverment in their lives - that is fine but one should note that the best health care in the world is here in America under our current system.

  If the Canadian system was so great why the trips to MN to the Mayo clinic.
• 

  Posted by shannon armitage, Seattle., Washington | Aug 28, 2009

  Len,

  Thanks for sharing your story. I'm glad your daughter got the care she needed.

  I was an uninsured kid who, blessedly, was very, very lucky not to get sick. My parents were and are hard working people who had the misfortune of living in Michigan during the '80s when there was skyrocketing unemployment, such as now. Having worked with people at all points on the socio-economic scale, I can say that there are people who work hard from all walks of life. NO doubt, self-employed people work very hard at our businesses. But one should never underestimate the role of luck in whatever good fortune one has amassed. Similarly, one should never underestimate the power of groups to solve large problems.
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Aug 28, 2009

  I recognize we need reform, but "reform" and "government" have never gone together well in a sentence.

  Someone brought up the VA. My co-worker's diabetes is not covered; it would be in civilian care but the VA has a higher threshold for diabetes than traditional insurance. That's our government at work for those who deserve it most.

  We have outlawed monopolies here because without competition there is no innovation.

  Do you recall when regulations on car insurance was suspended? Suddenly you could get discounts by driving a safer car, having a safer record, being a certain age... We started driving safer and being more careful.

  Right now, the government considers it discrimination to treat people differently. No discounts if you don't smoke, stay thin, don't drink, exercise regularly, don't eat red meat.... Imagine the incentive to live healthier? Following preventative care protocols (I'm not blind the difficulty of qualifying for such discounts; how can they know you aren't smoking, exercise regularly, etc? I'm sure some clever inventor will innovate a way to track such things given a financial incentive. That's how these things work).

  Further, why does it have to be through work? Why not by cohort?

  Take CERTAIN controls off (not all!); encourage some bright people to start up non-profit insurers and watch the market sort it all out. Will the obese be left out? No, the market will find a way to compete for their business, too.

  Finally, yes, the uninsured need some recourse. How about a--yes--government funded clinic in each city where the needy can go? Or better yet, encourage the WalMart initiative to provide cheap care for low-grade problems. Give gov't grants for some of those poor people to get training to offer low-cost MRI's or other non-invasive diagnostic procedures at a fraction of the cost of hospitals.

  Opportunity for positive reform are abundant if the government would just get out of the way and allow it. Don't suspend all regulation, be wary or we could have another mortgage-style crisis. But allow the market to perform.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 29, 2009

  Rob, you are right. As famous economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich August von Hayek said: “Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.

  A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 29, 2009

  If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand-Milton Friedman
• 

  Posted by Eric Basir, Evanston, Illinois | Aug 29, 2009

  What sheer madness. You leave the masses of the people with no alternative but to put their trust in what? The nebulous Omnipotent "Free Market" and its Messengers, Blue Cross, Humana, Walmart, Blackwater and whatever? One cannot trust in anyone but their own spirit or diety. Yet every nation has its government. And the corporations who you expect people to trust and obey have never proven their worthiness!

  All of you that subscribe to this dead religion of the Free Market god are obviously profiting nicely from it. There is no sane explanation of it.

  Cruel. Cold. Unpatriotic and un-American. You hate politicians (who you vote for). You hate government (which you depend on to secure your Constitutional rights). You hate the poor (who bag your groceries, wash your car and nanny your children). You boast about your love for "free markets" as long as you can reap its benefits. Business is service. Service is business. Liberty is earned. Gross profits are stolen. You love profit. You don't love serving others.

  You cannot malign the poor—especially the hard working poor—and not ruin your and my grandchildren's future. History is a witness-bearer to what I'm writing.

  Quote all the anti-government dribble and economists you want. Principles, not money, maintain the Universe and all contained therein.

  "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

  "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

  "[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809. ME 16:336

  "That liberty [is pure] which is to go to all, and not to the few or the rich alone." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Gates, 1798. ME 9:441

  "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276

  "The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:135

  Finally, I want you to read a little known New Testament book called Matthew 25:31-46 (I'm not giving you the passage because I want you to read it for yourself)
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 29, 2009

  Even not my favorite economist, but John Maynard Keynes was right: “Education: the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent.”
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Aug 29, 2009

  Len,

  Very well thought-out response but we are not just passionate about our beliefs. We know for certain how our government works and doesn't work.

  Look at the "Town Hall Meetings " here in the U.S.

  Obama said that the government will make the rich pay their "fair share." So, the first thing he does is give the bankers and other financial institutions, richest people in this country, Billions of dollars in bailout money.

  And, to toss gas on the fire, let's increase the taxes on cigarettes that will negatively impact the poorest of the country.

  This is the hornet's nest into which health care is discussed.

  Len you said...

  "For those of you who feel the private insurers would be threatened, this is a solution. For those of you who feel you should have the right to choose the level of healthcare coverage you want, this is a solution. For those of you who have no choice, this would give you solid basic coverage and freedom from fear."

  What about us who have watched how the government functions and have lost all faith in their promises.

  The San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge received a 35 million dollar bond and opened in 1937 and collected a 50 cents toll from each driver each way. It was promised to be a temporary toll. Today it is $6.00 charge south bound.

  "One thing that I can conclude from the responses to my article. Americans are passionate about their beliefs and positions on this subject."

  This is the very general statement you made and responded in kind--and not mentioning Canada by name. I was specifically keeping this an issue of jousting theories never dreaming you would take this personal.

  Everything I said was statistically factual.

  Numbers (1) and (2) were criticisms of the US

  Number (3) was the fact that where socialized medicine is most prevalent the doctors cannot be sued.

  Number (4) socialized medicine leaves you vulnerable.

  Number (5) drugs are not always available

  Number (6) "Countries around the world...," are having this experience. That has been reported for years. However, that does not mean that any one country lacks top notch medical care. And I never mentioned Canada. My statements were never black and white statistically driven.

  "Let me reiterate. If you think the quality of medical care in Canada is not equal to the task and that doctors flee this country, then my brothers and sister-in-law who are doctors must be crazy. Because they stay here. They believe in the system."

  So, I never said nor inferred that the whole of Canada lacked comparable quality. Many professionals from all endeavors cross the boarders to and from Canada for many reason. Using the word "flee" is a little dramatic don't you think.

  Lastly, I am sure your relatives believe in the system. This is not about them--never was. It is about a statistical assessment to secure general statements--no more than that.

  "The doctors at Hospital for Sick Children come from all over the world. The leading physicians are from Hopkins, Boston Children's, London's Great Ormond Street, Philadelphia Children's, and some 30 other countries. These physicians have come to practice in Canada because the hospitals here are among the best in their field."

  I certainly believe this statement and as a Canadian you should be proud. But that does not negate my very general and factual statement that where socialized medicine exists many of the better physicians leave. Not all--clearly. And the statistics included countries such as Mexico, South America, Africa etc.

  I said, if a doctor wanted to make more money they often leave. Many don't want the money and stay. Many feel they can contribute to increasing the quality of care and these are very, very good doctors. While high quality doctors are in every country, those driven by increasing their standard of living may leave Mexico for example and come to the US.

  "This isn't a backwater country with only the numbskull doctors hanging on because that's all we can afford."

  I apologize if you felt this statement was necessary. I don't know why you felt the need but nevertheless I must have prompted this somehow.

  Just keep in mind, we American still hear allot of complaints from individuals who live with socialized medicine--not just from Canada. Don't take any of this personal. Again I was very general and used England as an example not Canada.

  I truly hope this clears the matter.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Aug 29, 2009

  Pardon me, Eric, while I pull your words out of my mouth.

  I am realistic about what my government does well and what they don't. Secure my rights - our military is the best - build roads, stock the libraries, police the streets. Don't do what you historically don't do well.

  Okay, I don't much like politicians. They aint what they supposed to be. On either side.

  I like the poor. I am one, to a degree. :)

  Simple fact: People do what's in their own self-interest. If I find a benefit in right behavior, I'll do it. If I don't, I won't (okay, I'm a Christian, I'll try to do it). The free market fosters competition. I may not try to be better on my own, but I will if my competitor forces me to. That's why the free market works!

  It's also why I suggested some non-profit insurance companies to prevent for-profit from conspiring to make massive profits (which they do because of size only. Profit margin is 1-2%; Microsoft's is 40%).

  Every industry that is failing does so either because the market doesn't exist, or the government did something to prevent innovation and competition.

  You bring up a fascinating question. Is ADVANCED health care a right? Because a technology exists, do I have a right to it even though it cost someone millions to develop it and by giving it away they don't recoup costs?

  In the olden days, the church provided services for the poor. Out of choice and with accountability. They often tied it to education to better oneself. Free lunches? Aplenty and with it the keys to do better. If you were able, you'd work for it. If you couldn't, you'd be given means to eventually. One threw oneself on the mercy of the church. Health care wasn't a right to receive, but it was a responsibilty to give.

  Entitlement saps the human spirit. Responsibility elevates it.

  Oh, and I'm very familiar with scripture, thank you. Nowhere does it say the government should take care of the poor; we should. See above.
• 

  Posted by Susan Tilley, Rogue River, Oregon | Aug 29, 2009

  To those who say let the free markets prevail and government should butt out, I have a true story - not about health care.

  I grew up in a small New England town that has a river running through it. The major industry was paper manufacturing and the plants were located along the river to take advantage of the water supply and hydroelectric.

  As kids we used to joke, "I wonder what color the river is today." The paper plants would dump the water they used to dye the paper into the river which would cause it to change color. There were other chemicals besides dye and the river was fouled and it stank. The river was ruined for everyone downstream from the plants. The only ones who would live near the river were the poorest who could not afford anything better.

  One day some people decided that this sucked and they convinced the "Government" to put a stop to it.

  The paper plants cried out "we own this riverside property, we have water rights. If we cannot dump our waste into the river we will go bankrupt. Everyone will lose their job. We re not the only polluters. It costs too much to find another way to dispose of waste water. We can't compete with other companies. The price of paper will sky rocket. Unfair! unfair!"

  Many citizens cried out "Our taxes will go up! We don't even live near the river. The river near my house is clean. Why should we pay for cleanup? Unfair! unfair!"

  The "Government" said "suck it up. We have decided that it is of more benefit to all the people to have a clean river. You'll have to find another way. We'll help - with business grants and loans, job training."

  It was tough for many for awhile. Some plants closed. Some people did lose their jobs.

  But many who lost their jobs found other work. Businessmen started other businesses (one was a business that specialized in pollution clean up). The world did not end.

  Well guess what. 30 years later, the town is still there - bigger now with a wider variety of industry not just one. We still have paper - all kinds of it, all colors, and it is fairly cheap. Paper companies are still in business and I guess they are profitable - otherwise they wouldn't be. And today the river is clear. The city proudly unveiled a downtown riverside park just last year.

  The "Government" in this story was us. We put an end to an intolerable situation. We helped those who were displaced through government programs paid for with taxes. Many bitched and moaned along the way but in the end we all benefit by having a clean river.

  The small town was in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For those who don't know, the word "Commonwealth" comes from a old English term " common weal" meaning "common well-being" or for the good of all. This is a basic tenet in the early formation of American government - that agreement to come together to pass laws not that just benefit one group of people but to benefit all. Because by working together we make all of our lives easier.
• 

  Posted by Eric Basir, Evanston, Illinois | Aug 29, 2009

  Thank you Ms. Susan Tilley. Sticking to the principles always leads to justice for all. That was an unsurpassable response.
• 

  Posted by Patrick Dixon, Lago Vista, Texas | Aug 29, 2009

  Len, My compliments for provoking the never ending debate. You certainly have attracted the interest of a lot of people. In response to my posting you asked "When did coercion enter the equation?" - "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." I trust you either know who said it or can figure it out. - Yesterday WSB radio station in Atlanta raised over $1.3 million dollars for the AFLAC Children's Cancer Center. They did not threaten to put anyone in jail or seize their property. Of course the half million needed for your child was a blessing. Where did it come from? How was it obtained? I presume I have answered your question. If there is further uncertainly, you may want to take another look at those articles I linked to.
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Aug 29, 2009

  Nor should it be surpassed. Susan's example was where government excels. Be the watchdog, look out for the common good.

  The housing crisis was instigated by the government (Clinton, then reinforced through Bush) when they decided not enough lower income people could afford houses so they relaxed the watchdog restrictions and promised to cover losses for 100% loans, allowing people who could not afford a home to buy one.

  Government should have stepped in when it became clear that predatory lending was exploding. Thats what the government should do; prevent predation.

  The government started the crisis, failed to end it when they could and now look what happened; a key driver of the economy fell.

  Find a different solution than allowing the government to add their expansive red tape to an already scarlet situation.

  Stimulating discussion. I'm done, though. I'm repeating myself.

  Truly, Len, I am glad your daughter is well.
• 

  Posted by Jessica John, Nashville, Tennessee | Aug 30, 2009

  This is THE single issue that impacts my quality of life most. The financial and psychological burden of healthcare in this country has been staggering for me. I tend to get overwrought just thinking about it.

  Anyone who cares to see my unusual insurance stories can go here: http://biznik.com/articles/free-market-government-solutions-to-health-care

  But I just had to share this link to PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN. They have some GREAT information germane to this issue.

  http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing

  Here's hoping!
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Aug 30, 2009

  Everyone who is participating in this thread should watch this video: Universal Health Care Message to Americans From Canadian Doctors & Health Care Experts.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 30, 2009

  Hi Dan, The video states the economic facts very accurately. The costs of delivering healthcare in Canada per capita is significantly less than the US. The quality of care is as good and as bad as it is in the US depending on the doctors you see and the hospital you visit. I am not an apologist for our system up here. When I started this discussion with my blog posting I wanted Americans to understand the important impact that a government healthcare single payer system had on my life and my family as an entrepreneur here in Canada.

  It is my hope that all of you who have been following this blog and comments have gained insights into the significance of being free of the fear of not having to worry about whether or not you can pay a doctor or a hospital when a medical crisis occurs, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, employed with benefits, or on your own with none.

  I would want to see all Americans have coverage because it is a moral issue. In forming its more perfect union, the United States stated in its constitution and bill of rights many moral positions. What it got wrong at the beginning it has tried to make right. Slavery was ended. Women were given the right to vote. These were moral issues. How can the right to have medical care be less important than the right to bear arms?

  As an avid historian who has and continues to read American history, it would seem that this is the next step in the progressive evolution of the American nation.

  Finally, I began by saying if I were an American I would have been bankrupted by my daughter's medical condition. I know that there charities in the US like the March of Dimes, the Shriners and a few other facilities. I even know that many hospitals will perform "pro bono" surgical procedures, particularly state run facilities. I know that if I had gone begging to one of these institutions I may have been able to save my daughter's life. But in Canada I didn't have to go begging. The care was there from the moment my daughter arrived and she is alive and doing well today because we never had to stop and ask ourselves, can we afford this next life saving surgery?
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 31, 2009

  Amen!
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Aug 31, 2009

  The last two presidents of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) have both been staunch advocates of increased private care.

  The incoming president, Anne Doig of Saskatoon, who will be installed this week, says our health-care system is "imploding." While not as committed to private options as her predecessors, Dr. Doig acknowledges our current universal public system is "unsustainable." She also argues we should not fear private options, but rather should implement whatever models from around the world -- be they public or private -- that produce the best results for patients. On the other hand, the physician who will replace Dr. Doig next summer, Ottawa's Dr. Jeff Turnbull, promises to be a passionate defender of the government health monopoly during his one-year term.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Aug 31, 2009

  What you people all seem to be missing is that the health care in Canada is so bad that he had to send his daughter here for treatment.

  Did nobody else catch that?

  What happens if we get universal health care here, and they cann not send their children here for treatment and we have nowhere to send ours?

  That is pretty scary.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 31, 2009

  Dear Stephen, The healthcare was fine but my daughter's condition is 1 in 80,000 live births. The total number of physicians in the world who know about this disease can be counted on two hands. One of them is at the Mayo. And he was particularly knowledgeable about a complication that had not been reported before in Canada - something called slipped rib syndrome. He was the only person in the world who had written a journal article on this condition. My daughter was seen by him and in the process the holistic team at Mayo came up with a series of recommendations that could be applied to her that we then took back to Toronto to overcome the worst aspects of this complication so that she could enjoy a better outcome.

  You have missed the point. If your child were ill and you had the chance to come to Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto because they were the best at intravenous implants, you would think seriously about doing this even if your home was in St. Louis where you have some superb hospitals.

  Don't leap to your conclusion. It's absolutely incorrect.
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Aug 31, 2009

  Is it incorrect? How many world leading doctors does Canada have? Would the doctor who helped your daughter be in this business if we had socialized health care twenty years ago?
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 31, 2009

  This is an absolute waste of time. The Canadians posting in this feed are merely sharing their experiences (mostly positive), and then being told they don't have what they think they have. Don't you think they would know more than you? They pay for it, they live it, they use it! As I've said earlier, my mother's 14+ year cancer/transplant bill would have cost my parents their a) house b) retirement c) what else is there?? She's seen specialists and then more specialists, and then even more. She's never had to wait, never had complications, never been turned away. She's ALIVE and well. Thanks.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Aug 31, 2009

  Hi Rob, You are convinced that only a for-profit motive creates great medicine and great doctors. I guess that means the rest of the world is doing it all wrong, that the United States is the only nation that has got it right.

  Yet in the US you spend more on healthcare but are less healthy. In fact you are not even in the top 20 nations in terms of the health and lifespan of your citizens.

  Meanwhile your country which used to dominate the Nobel Prize in medicine is now just one of many others.

  In terms of leading medical institutions such as Hospital for Sick Children, Princess Margaret, St. Mike's, Sunnybrook, all in Toronto, University of Alberta several hospital centres, Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, in the UK, and many other institutions around the world are churning out some of the best minds in their fields.

  In terms of medical technology, where GE once led in interventional and diagnostic imaging, now Toshiba is leader of the pack with Siemens and Phillips close behind. Siemens and Toshiba are battling for supremacy in the development of the cath lab technologies. Just ask your doctors in Orlando, the next time you are at a hospital.

  As for world leading doctors if you want me to start listing the who's who of medicine up here in Canada I'll gladly provide you with several hundred world class physicians, just from this part of the country. What's so interesting about the list should you wish to see it, is the number of physicians who are Americans who have come up here to do research and practice. This is an interesting contrast to the brain drain going the other way from Canada to the US. I cannot imagine why these doctors have decided to come here other than the fact that we have first class facilities, a system that works, and universities that give them research grants and facilities in which to practice and contribute to the advancement of medicine worldwide.

  Another point you should be aware of. We have had socialized medicine nationally in Canada since the 1960s. That's not 20 years, but rather almost 50 and somehow or other our country is doing OK. We have not bankrupted it with all those dollars going into helping the sick regardless of their income level. There is nothing like the evils of socialized medicine to destroy a country.

  If you are so fearful that the government that gives you roads, electricity, water, defense and provides your elderly with medicare and your poor with medicaid, cannot provide a base line of healthcare for all, I don't believe that a Canadian like me is going to make a dent in your convictions.

  Jeannette, thanks for your comment. I am only hopeful that President Obama succeeds in making healthcare accessible and affordable to all in the US. A great country should have the capacity to provide all its citizens with access to healthcare.

  As for you Rob, you have a gestalt view of American healthcare delivery and what a single payer system will do to it. I am convinced that nothing I say or provide can make a dent in that conviction. So let's agree to disagree and I wish you the best of health.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Aug 31, 2009

  U.S. is #37 on the list.
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Sep 01, 2009

  Len, I gotta hand it to you for staying engaged in this contentious thread. You've done an extraordinary job of staying connected with the issue without getting sidetracked with the emotions. If Biznik had an award for "most engaged article author" you would be receiving it this year. Maybe we should create one..

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 01, 2009

  The WTO conducted an exhaustive study of health care and concluded U.S. health care ranks 37 out of 190 nations. France topped the list. Italy was second. For comparison, Cuba was 39. The U.S. is the only developed country worldwide which does not have universal health care.

  Take a look France's system: French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can’t pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.

  The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget.

  It’s a near-monopoly, where the low amounts paid to doctors per visit ($32 at the office, $38 for house calls) essentially guarantee a permanent shortage of general practitioners.

  France enjoys a reputation of “excellent government-provided healthcare”. However, last January 14 French Minister for Health Roselyne Bachelot confirmed that 10,000 people die every year of “medical accidents”, and there are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 “serious undesirable events” i.e., errors per year.

  France’s system is plagued with long-term problems. During a heat wave six years ago 15,000 elderly and frail people died, since the country’s poorly-prepared hospitals meant those patients never stood a chance. Many of them died of dehydration in the emergency rooms waiting for an IV.

  If France, healthcare government run leader experiencing these problems, haw’s Cuba (39) doing…
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 01, 2009

  You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of Italy (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.

  Does that make any sense?

  Um No. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.

  Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.

  Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality of health care.

  Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1 But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

  1. Health Level: 25 percent

  2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

  3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

  4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

  5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2 “Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well. The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention. “Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system. In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what th

  to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 01, 2009

  Once again, you're hearing what you want to hear. The Canadian system is not perfect, but it works, and doesn't omit anyone. We're not criticizing the a+ care that you receive, it's the fact that MANY don't get to partake, and it costs a bloody fortune!
• 

  Posted by Mark Walters, Bellevue, Washington | Sep 01, 2009

  Len - What a great service you did by raising this issue within Biznik. I too congratulate you on your patience and for keeping the conversation civil.

  Kudos to you!
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 01, 2009

  Mr. Basir,

  before you go quoting the founding fathers it may help to actually know what they stood for. That is small limited government and maximizing the freedoms of the people. That is the opposite of what you are saying in your post.

  Maybe since you like Jefferson so much you will enjoy these.

  The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

  My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

  A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson

  I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

  For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. Thomas Jefferson

  History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is. Thomas Jefferson

  That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. Thomas Jefferson

  Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson

  I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. Thomas Jefferson

  I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

  It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

  It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good. Thomas Jefferson

  Never spend your money before you have earned it. Thomas Jefferson

  No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson

  Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. Thomas Jefferson

  Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson

  The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. Thomas Jefferson

  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

  We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson

  (I do not see the right to infringe on others Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all because you made bad decisions or are lazy)

  We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. Thomas Jefferson

  (That is what Obama just did)

  When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

  Now for Benjamin Franklin:

  The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. Benjamin Franklin

  There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government. Benjamin Franklin

  He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin Franklin

  No nation was ever ruined by trade. Benjamin Franklin

  Remember that credit is money. Benjamin Franklin

  All who think cannot but see there is a sanction like that of religion which binds us in partnership in the serious work of the world. Benjamin Franklin

  Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship. Benjamin Franklin

  Content makes poor men rich; discontent makes rich men poor. Benjamin Franklin

  It is the working man who is the happy man. It is the idle man who is the miserable man. Benjamin Franklin

  God helps those who help themselves. Benjamin Franklin

  He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money. Benjamin Franklin

  He that waits upon fortune, is never sure of a dinner. Benjamin Franklin

  If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher's stone. Benjamin Franklin

  Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. Benjamin Franklin

  (that is what he thinks about you and your constant lies and attacks Tampa)

  Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow. Benjamin Franklin

  As far as hating anyone, get real man. Grow up man. If anything we have a realistic view of actually helping people instead of enslaving them with entitlement programs.

  It is funny that you criticize these big corporations, but you give full fath to the biggest and most corrupt one, the federal government. At least the companies that you mentioned can get a vast majority of what they do right and do it very well. The government does nothing very well.

  Weather you like it of not the free market creates more prosperity than any other form of economy. Socialism creates two classes of people the old money and the almost poor. There is very little opportunity to go from one to the other, because the government destroys opportunity. Every $ taken out of the productive members of society is money lost in the economy that would have generated more money.

  The fact is that anyone can succeed in this country and burying our children and grandchildren in debt when they will have their own bills all so perfectly able bodied people do not have to take responsibility for their own choices in life should be a crime really. It is absolutely shameful.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 01, 2009

  "maximizing the freedoms of the people", how ironic - the current system in the U.S. is preventing many American citizens from getting basic care (freedom.) Sir, you are living in the dark ages.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 01, 2009

  Jeannette Barksdale,

  With freedom does come responsibility. Freedom is not taking one person's freedom as guaranteed by the constitution (private property) and distributing it to someone else. Freedom is the ability to choose what you do in life and make your own decisions, but also living with the consequences both good and bad.

  People have plenty of access to health care, they just have to pay for it if they choose not to have insurance.

  We are guaranteed certain freedoms under the constitution and what you do with those freedoms is your choice.

  We have the best health care in t he world in terms of quality and anyone can get access to it that has it as a priority. I got a job at 18 with nothing more than a HS diploma that provided insurance because that was my priority. It was not my ideal job at that age, but I needed health insurance.

  Don't get me wrong, I do think that there should be some reforms, but a radical take over of the entire system is a bit much. We need to work on making it cheaper and more accessible, but Obama’s plan will make it more expensive for everyone according to the CBO.

  Mam, you must be living in Socialist Cuba.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 01, 2009

  Is there such thing as right to health care?

  Let’s check out Canada’s experience, where the right to health care is controversial topic. The government commission which was charged by the Parliament with investigating and developing recommendations about this "right" denies the existence of such a legal right in Canada. The Canada Health Act stipulates only that Canadians should have "reasonable access" to insured health services. However, they admit that such a right is widely supposed throughout their nation and that indeed most Canadians believe they have such a right.

  However, that is not issue: “right or no right”. The real issue is that USA can solve the problem of insuring Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and have no financial means to buy their own health insurance very quickly, and with huge support of all Americans. Finally, Americans do not like government takeovers of any kind, including healthcare industry, and…we have to live with this political reality
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 01, 2009

  Hi Zoran, A single payer system on basic health coverage should not be equated with a government takeover. Medicare already exists as a single payer system for those aged 65 and over. So if Medicare coverage was extended to all citizens while private insurers handled supplemental coverage, the system would remain mixed. All that would change is the mix between single payer, government funded healthcare and private insurers.

  Who loses in this arrangement? Do doctors lose? I don't think so because they can provide services to all regardless of whether they have the means or not. Will the insurers suffer? Some may think so but insurers have lots of room and range in terms of product lines to continue to make their money. Will tax payers lose? Some of you may think so although the argument is pretty muddy although I encourage you to talk about this.

  But please, from my humble perch north of the border, tell me who loses in extending Medicare to all?

  I can't wait to hear the collective response.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 01, 2009

  I had more freedom of choice in Canada, that must mean I lived in Socialist Cuba.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 01, 2009

  Len,

  Your question includes two, and for the health care industry (my opinion), hardly reconcilable positions - the free market economy versus government planning.

  There is no other planning for freedom and general welfare than to let the market system work. —“Planning for Freedom/Ludwig von Mises”

  The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is: whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself or should the paternal government alone plan for all? —“Laissez Faire or Dictatorship”

  Let me examine briefly (I do no like “big stories”): Many people perceive a term planning as a synonym for socialism, or communism, or government running system. Planning in this sense means full government control of business. It is the direct opposite of free enterprise, private initiative, and market economy. Planning and capitalism are entirely incompatible. Government planning is conducted according to the government’s instructions, not according to the strategy of capitalists and entrepreneurs ready to profit by best filling the wants of the consumers.

  But the term planning is also used in a second sense. Lord John Maynard Keynes and many other distinguished economists and politicians recommend a third system, which, as they say, is as far from socialism as it is from capitalism, which, as a third solution of the problem of society’s economic organization, stands midway between the two other systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each.

  Now, your question is a part of third solution. The idea of this third solution is very old indeed, and the French have long since baptized it with a pertinent name; they call it interventionism. Through history many countries tried it. Most recently European and Asian countries including China, and not long time ago similar experiment was performed in former Yugoslavia through self-manage concept that requires the management company itself, without external coercion.

  The rhetoric of "competition" of “working together” or “cost containment solution” that single payer or government planning fans are using to trim up the "government or centralized planning option" is deeply misleading. Many private sector plans will face extinction as they are pushed into a race with government solution. As a result, the government plan would likely capture a large percentage of the insurance market, marginalizing and undermining private insurance. For example, the Lewin Group estimates that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the health reform bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives, would reduce the number of Americans with private insurance by 83.4 million and that the new public plan would cover 103.4 million people. Coupled with the federal regulatory system that the legislation would impose on the remaining private plans, this would clearly by itself constitute a government takeover of health care. Think about "competing" with Amtrak for passenger rail service and you get the picture of the future of the health care system.

  “You said …So if Medicare coverage was extended to all citizens while private insurers handled supplemental coverage, the system would remain mixed. All that would change is the mix between single payer, government funded healthcare and private insurers.”

  I would like to cite what Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA said: there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. His thoughts on the issue are already clear, and he has been saying that "a health-care revolution has passed us by,” that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

  In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system. He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

  We do not need that kind of hybrid solutions (III Solution above) for the health care reform, were ultimately public option will not be sustainable because it will set in motion a downward spiral in which the more it grows, the more it will raise the costs of private plans. This will drive patients out of these plans and into the public plan, which, in turn, will grow more and eventually drive the private plans out of business. And who is going to suffer…regular Americans.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 02, 2009

  A couple observations:

  1. To Steve G: Thomas Jefferson not only was a slave owner, but he was in deep debt when he died. Also, to the quote from Franklin, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God helps those who help themselves. Quite to the contrary: we are told that we are to look to God for our strength, and in surrendering to Him, we will be lifted up.

  2. To all who seem to be of the mind that we owe nothing to our brothers and sisters: Have any of you read the Bible, where we are instructed to not forget to give freely to those in need and to not put our own self interests above our brothers and sisters?

  It is good to look to our country's founding fathers for some guidance, but if we take their words out of context and forget that our world today is quite different from theirs, we are guilty of missing the point of studying history: that is to understand how we have arrived where we are and to try to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

  If we were to have the most unlikely outcome to this healthcare debacle and see an actual revision of the healthcare system, I would be really surprised. We are so locked into our respective positions, usually based on our political and social relationships, that we are truly blinded to the facts. The insurance industry would have us believe they are really the answer to our healthcare payment needs, even though anyone who is paying attention can tell that is just not what is really happening to the majority of people's lives. Those that favor a single payer system seem to miss the fact that we as a people can't seem to settle with the fact that the myth of the "Rugged Individualist" is not going to work today. We all need to help each other through this thing called life. If that means we have a meaningful medical care "safety net" so be it.

  This is an amazingly good discussion. I have enjoyed reading the posts.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 02, 2009

  George,

  I also challenge you to show where in the bible it tells us to outsource our charity through a third party that will waste a great deal of it in bureaucracy, politicize health care by prioritize abortions over hip replacements and cancer treatments as is happening in many of the countries with government health care, and burying our children in debt primarily for people that are able bodied and have no excuse for making our children pay for their decisions in life. That is not how Jesus wanted us to take care of our neighbors for sure.

  The main reason for our sky high health care costs is that people are not responsible for paying for their own health care and there fore it looses that natural cost containment feature of the free market. We should be shifting more towards a high deductable catastrophic insurance plan that way people are more responsible for what tests are done and can ask why the tests are being done. If people can afford televisions and cars, and cable, and all that fun stuff, they can afford basic maintenance on themselves just as they would a car. That is the only way costs will be driven down, and as the CBO said the current plan will make health care MORE expensive for everyone aka make insurance less accessible.

  Jeanette,

  If Canada was so great, then why don’t you go back? Why did you come here? I have a friend that is from the UK and he says the same thing you do, but he came here for more opportunity. The more government interference the less opportunity we have. The more freedom the more opportunity.

  The fact is the government is bad at everything it does and we are racking up so much debt that our children are going to suffer because of our entitlement programs primarily for able bodied people that could get insurance themselves if it was their priority. If we are running up debt, we can not afford it and neither will our children be able to. Medicare, Broke, Medicaid broke, Social Security Broke. We simply can not afford it.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 03, 2009

  I read most of the comments here and find it hard to believe that that there are some people still arguing against a Government Healthcare Plan. These arguments seem pretty weak and filled more with fear mongering of 'what might happen' or focusing on very rare problems that occur within Socialized systems.

  Bottom line is that the U.S.A. is ranked #37 for healthcare in the world. France, Britain, Canada, etc. all have better systems than we do. Even public opinion polls show that these countries people like their healthcare way more than we do ours. It’s right there plain as day… they got it better than we do. Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel??

  Isn’t that a good place to start at least? Once we implement a government plan that covers everyone, THEN we can start ‘tweaking’ it to make it better. Sure there will be problems, but we can fix them as we go.

  This all reminds me of the same rhetoric the Republicans made of Medicare when it first came out. Same arguments, same fear mongering, etc. Reagan (he wasn’t president back then) said we would all be Communist if it passed. Lol… not even close. Hell… now you can’t take it away even if you wanted to!

  I’m pretty sure the same thing would happen with ‘Medicare For All’. Ten years from now (if it passes) there will be no way people will allow it to be taken away. Isn’t that what really matters?
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 04, 2009

  Heath Huffman,

  The bottom line is that it has nothing to do with fear mongering. It is a difference in belief systems. Public health care will drive up the costs of health care not reduce it. That means that people that have private insurance now will not likely be abble to afford it then.

  This fear mongering that you are speaking of. There is at least some truth to all of it.

  By the way Medicare is broke and is pileing debt on our children.

  Our country is broke

  If we are forceing bills on our children. Maybe we simply can not afford it.

  Mmost people want to give their children a better country than when they got it, but when we are pileing mountains of debt on our children to pay for able bodied adults that really should be responsible for taking care of t hemselves, and vastly weakening the quality of health care in terms of survival rates for illnesses are we really doing that or are we being selfish and robbing from our children.

  We can not pay for the entitlemennt programs we all ready have. Why the hell woudl we ad more.

  At what point in time do you expect able bodied people to take care of themselves.

  I can not believe that youa re so willing to steal from our children to t ake care of perfectly able bodied people, because lets be real, a majority of thos ewithout health care could have it if it was their priority.

  As far as the 37th rating. That is BS and has nothing to do with the quality of our health care.

  You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of Italy (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.

  Does that make any sense?

  Um No. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.

  Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.

  Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality of health care.

  Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 04, 2009

  Hey Steve G.,

  I agree with you… our country is broke. But it is broke because of the current system – a system that is deeply flawed. No ‘tweaking’ is going to fix it. The status quo won’t work for us here. We have to make a major change.

  As far as the quality of our healthcare goes, I’m not sure why ‘Prostate Cancer’ is the gage your using to use to measure it. I did check it out though, and found the study you were talking about. However, the study is misleading. I found this on www.factcheck.org:

  ---

  According to the American Cancer Society, many more men are screened for prostate cancer in the U.S. than in Britain. This leads to more cases being diagnosed. And many who have prostate cancer live for years, without treatment, whether they are diagnosed or not. Thus, a higher number of diagnoses leads to a higher official survival rate. On top of that, Eisner, with the National Cancer Institute, told us we would need to find numbers that are standardized to a world standard, not just compare rates given by the two countries' government agencies. He referred us to Cancer Mondial, a Web site of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. For 2002, the mortality rates (per 100,000 men) were 15.6 and 12.0, in the U.K. and the U.S., respectively. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html)

  ---

  And this:

  ---

  On most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer. (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_health_care_better_in_canada.html)

  ---

  Again, I’m not sure why ‘Prostate Cancer’ is your gage to measure healthcare quality. But looking at these new facts makes the claim very, very much less dramatic. Anyway, I would probably use something more generic and that applies to everyone. Something like “life expectancy”.

  I did additional research on that and found this on www.factcheck.org as well:

  ---

  Factcheck.org found that countries with the highest life expectancy (Japan, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia) spent, on average, half as much per capita on health care as the United States. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/obamas-health-care-claims/)

  ---

  I’m not sure how reducing our healthcare expenses to half, having longer life/health expectancies, and having fewer deaths from disease equates to something “we can’t afford” and to “Stealing from our children” (more fear mongering statements).

  I also don’t agree with your black and white generalization of the uninsured as being “perfectly able bodied people” with “low priorities”. Most of these cases are very “grey”, and just letting people fall between the cracks and die is unacceptable to me. As the richest nation in the world, we have no excuses not to provide universal healthcare for everyone. Better to cover everyone, including a few slackers, than to let innocent people die of unforeseen and unpreventable circumstances. Again, if anyone can afford universal healthcare, it’s the richest nation in the world.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 04, 2009

  FYI, an intresting radio interview about the 'Horrors of the British Healthcare System'. It's only about 5 minutes long:

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111976190
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 07, 2009

  People die when they get improper care whether in a publicly funded system or in a privately funded program. Pointing out the horrors and perils of public health systems without looking at the horrors of those who depend on the charity of the system, or those who have lost coverage because they are no longer employed, or have maxed out on their policies is patently unfair.

  The current American system of private healthcare for those who can afford it, and charity for the rest, has not made US citizens healthier than many countries with public payer systems.

  In Canada we have a primary public payer system and those who want extended insurance coverage, purchase top up plans to deal with uncovered services. There appears to be no reason why the US cannot employ a similar strategy.

  For so many of us on BizNik, who are entrepreneurs, on our own, not dependent on the largesse of a company health plan, it would seem to me to be a huge plus to have a public payer system to deal with basic medical needs - general checkups, physician visits, specialist visits, hospitalization, diagnostic procedures, surgery, extended post-surgical hospital stays, etc.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 07, 2009

  Len,

  This is not an "either or" dilemma. It is not a public vs. private challenge.

  We do not need to go to public health care to solve the problem:

  1 Make other countries pay their "fair share" for pharmaceuticals shipped to them.

     a we pick up the tab for research and development while other countries get discounts. 
     b some countries get medical supplies for free. We pick this up to.
  

  2 Generate a National Malpractice Fund supported by all insurance corporations and stop charging doctors outrageous premiums.

  3 Law suites are one of the major reasons for the high cost of medical care. Place a cap on malpractice financial awards ie. pain and suffering. Continued health rehabilitation would be free when presented with a nationally recognized medical card designed for this issue.

  4 Any illegal will be treated but immediately deported. I know of many who want to be U.S. citizens but are doing it the right way with many still being deported because they have failed to comply with the system. Why the double standard they ask?

  This is not my opinion but one given to me by an "Anthem Blue Cross" representative. He attends an annual convention in Texas and is very current on the subject.

  These changes would not cost the government and dramatically reduce our premiums.

  Finally, as Heath stated:

  As far as the 37th rating. That is BS and has nothing to do with the quality of our health care.

  You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of Italy (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.

  Placing the U.S. at the 37th rung is utterly political. Don't believe it because it's ridiculous.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 07, 2009

  I've heard this argument raised several times:

  "Why would the Prime Minister of Italy (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list)..." etc.

  It seems to me that they're an overall ranking of how well a country's health care system delivers most services to most people. There are certainly problems with such a generalized ranking system.

  However, it's a fact that the US does NOT have the highest life expectancy in the world. It's a fact we do NOT have the lowest infant mortality rates. Regardless of whether you agree with a ranking of a particular number, you have to admit that by some measurements we are lagging behind.

  There are also areas that we do very well in, but because the Prime Minister of Italy or anyone else comes here for treatment is not proof positive that we have "the best health care system in the world".

  How is it possible that a country ranked #37 by certain measures would attract the Prime Minister of Italy for health care? Hmm, sounds like an imbalance to me. Excellent care for some and no care at all for others?

  We'll have the best health care system in the world when we can offer excellent care to those who can pay for it, those who can't, and all the folks in the middle.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 07, 2009

  John, By all the "expert number crunchers" I have heard, to say that malpractice suits are costing us huge amounts is not really accurate. It seems to be one of those statements that are used to scare us away from really fixing this system. At the most, the malpractice suits cost us about 2-2.5% of the total spent on medical in the US. The for profit medical (and medical insurance) industry wastes more than that. Making an honest profit in most things is a laudable goal, but to make huge profits in the field of medical care, when dealing with peoples' basic healthcare, is to me so cold it makes my skin crawl. It is akin to throwing away excess food instead of feeding the hungry. It makes me wonder what kind of people have we become?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 07, 2009

  George,

  Thanks for your response.

  1 Where there is National Health Care either doctors are not allowed to be sued or there is a cap. That is essential in the socialist formula. Why is that true if it's only 2%.

  2 There are many facets to malpractice costs not just financial rewards.

  There is the high premiums passed to the patient.
  There are attorney's fees paid by the insurance company, that comes out of the pocket of the insured and their attorney also feeding out of the individuals pocket when the fees are not based on contingency. 
  

  3 Then comes the multi-million dollar awards which justifies the high premiums.

  4 Also, malpractice was just one component contributing to the problem.

  5 No one eats or drinks money. We are feeling the result when the rich lose money--the rest are out of jobs. Profits return to the industry or community. Profit is not something to complain about. This is brought up by the "have-nots" complaining about the "haves."

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 07, 2009

  Whoa. This is turning into a totally different discussion now but I have to point out that profits do NOT necessarily return to the community that helped to create them! They are very often siphoned off to some other place or pocket, or just plain accumulated as wealth. Profit is not inherently bad, but it's not inherently good either. It can be distributed unjustly, and I take offense to being called a "have-not who's complaining" because I notice injustice.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 07, 2009

  An interesting comment about malpractice suits. We have them here in our paid for system and more recently the settlements are starting to approach American numbers. There appears to be no cap.

  If you believe the drug companies are hurting because once in awhile someone negotiates a retrovirus drug deal in a developing nation, then you clearly have not looked at the balance sheets of these companies, many of which are not American at all.

  And if illegal immigrants using healthcare is the reason for the high cost of US medical care, I would love to see that data. What keeps our costs in Canada more manageable, and some of you might say creates unneeded scarcity, is a balance between supply and demand. We don't have as many MRIs/000 in Toronto when compared to, let's say Miami. Our OMA, the Ontario Medical Association, negotiates a fee for service schedule every few years with the primary payer, the Ontario Ministry of Health. The Ministry is constantly experimenting with new ways of organizing medical practice, encouraging doctors to join group practices where they can pool equipment and services together. At the same time, any physician can open a practice anywhere but if a physician chooses to open a practice in a more rural location there are incentives. One of the reasons we have wait times is that in trying to create a balance between supply and demand the tendency is to react rather than be proactive. So anticipated demand for CATscans may be misinterpreted and suddenly people are waiting for scans because demand has outstripped supply. Then the government writes a big cheque and CATscans show up in hospitals all over the province.

  The system has its problems but the one thing that it doesn't do is turn away any of its citizens or landed immigrants. Earlier in this conversation that we have been having, some Americans wrote that they had been to Canada and were not treated until they showed that they could pay for treatment. It is absolutely true that if you are not in the system you do not get any coverage. This is no different for me traveling in the US which I do very often. On these occasions I carry out-of country health insurance to cover the difference between what our single payer system would pay for the same service in Canada, Ontario in particular because that's where I live, and what the US facility charges me. The only exception occurs when a Canadian cannot receive urgent healthcare in a timely manner and the government then resorts to sending that person to a US facility to save his or her life. In these cases, and we have had a few over the years, the government picks up the entire cost as they did with my daughter when we were authorized to visit the Mayo Clinic.

  I believe that this conversation has been very important for the BizNik community. I hope that it has made some of you rethink your position on getting all Americans covered. I remain convinced that this is a moral issue, as important as those issues that denied Americans equal rights under the law because of the color of their skin or their gender. America is a great nation. All of its people should have great and affordable healthcare.
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Sep 07, 2009

  I know it's off topic, but since it was brought up: " Profit is not inherently bad, but it's not inherently good either. It can be distributed unjustly..."

  I beg to differ. Profit is inherently good. If you add value to something, you deserve to make a profit. And further, profit cannot be distributed unjustly unless someone other than the profiteer distributes it. If I make a profit, it is justly mine to distribute any way I see fit. I do draw a difference between "profit" and "ill gotten gains" of course. If your profit is not in proportion to the value granted, it's ill gotten gains.

  Undoubtedly, insurance companies make huge profits, but that's only by virtue of their size. Microsoft makes over 40% in margin; insurance companies make about 2%.

  Nonetheless, I agree our system is broken and I restate: people do not have a right to health care, but people do have a responsibility to provide it. When government steps in or over regulates, innovation is stifled and the right solution won't be found.

  Ultimately, I think government health care is going to happen--while I think I personally will benefit from such an arrangement, I don't think it's the best solution.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 08, 2009

  Len.

  You said...

  "If you believe the drug companies are hurting because once in awhile someone negotiates a retrovirus drug deal in a developing nation, then you clearly have not looked at the balance sheets of these companies, many of which are not American at all."

  I never said nor inferred or implied the above comment.

  Millions of dollars of drugs are being sent to countries at far beneath what they cost here. That money could be retrieved. That was from a health insurance agent. What other countries save--we pay for and that is not just one negotiated agreement rather, it is the normal course of business.

  Also, I never said drug companies are hurting. I don't know where you got that.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 08, 2009

  Len,

  Again, I never said this...

  "And if illegal immigrants using healthcare is the reason for the high cost of US medical care, I would love to see that data."

  I said it was one of several reasons why the health care is so costly. Also, you don't border Mexico. Stop being selective in what I write.

  There was a program on "60 Minutes" where a father was given a bill of $70,000.00 for his son. He was in a car accident and spent a total of 18 minutes of care. He was outraged.

  The news correspondent interviewed the chief administrator of the San Diego hospital. They and everyone who tuned into the program discovered that over 78% of Treated Patients, were either illegals, uninsured or both. The reason for the high cost is the rollover plan. They rolled over the unpaid balance until they found an insured patient.

  Now that's figuratively and not literally.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 08, 2009

  Len,

  "I believe that this conversation has been very important for the BizNik community. I hope that it has made some of you rethink your position on getting all Americans covered. I remain convinced that this is a moral issue, as important as those issues that denied Americans equal rights under the law because of the color of their skin or their gender."

  This was a political issue where everyone simply wrote what they believed. I am more convinced that my original position is the most tenable.

  Also, we have equal rights to succeed and be happy. But that also means we have the equal right to make the wrong decisions in life and fail.

  I don't have the equal right to health insurance nor do I have the equal right to a Mercedes or a yacht or vacation in Europe. Health insurance has never been a right and it certainly has nothing to do with skin color.

  The uninsured do in fact get treated as I related in an earlier message.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 08, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "This is turning into a totally different discussion now but I have to point out that profits do NOT necessarily return to the community that helped to create them! They are very often siphoned off to some other place or pocket, or just plain accumulated as wealth"

  Profits that do not go into inventory, land or equipment acquisition, employee earning increases, increased hiring, etc, sits in a bank or other financial firms. Available cash deposits positively affect interest rates and lending practices for everyone.

  In other words, unless you eat or drink money, it helps others. When the money is siphoned off, there are people there as well ready to benefit. And accumulated wealth is the best to help circulation and a economic prosperity.

  Today, many are suffering from the rich losing profits or money. This is the trickle-down process in reverse. When people on the top have money it trickles down to the laborer. When they run out of money so does everyone below them.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Heath & Naomi,

  I ask you all. What has the Government done that has been successful?

  That has not had HUGE cost overruns, and that has not gotten more expensive when the government stepped in?

  People often site the Military, but we do not choose military equipment and contracts by what the military needs or what is best for the military. it has more to do with what congress person has what relationship with which lobbyist. Is that what we want for our medical system?

  I am also not sure where you got this from:

  "I’m not sure how reducing our healthcare expenses to half, having longer life/health expectancies, and having fewer deaths from disease equates to something “we can’t afford” and to “Stealing from our children” (more fear mongering statements)."

  The CBO said it will make health care MORE expensive for ALL. So where did you get the whole cutting expenses in half. That will not happen without massive rationing, and then we likely have more people dying that we would if the government did nothing at all.

  you call the fact that we are stealing from our children to insure people that a vast majority of them could have health insurance if they had it as their priority as fear mongering.

  You are kidding right.

  What exactly do you call piling debt on our children? It is stealing form them.

  They will have their own bills and with the massive increase in entitlement programs they will likely have many more bills than us. Either that or they will have nothing but servicing debt from us.

  That is what we are doing and that is what this health care bill will do.

  How exactly is that fear mongering?

  That is one of those BS slogans the democrats like to use when they want to steal from our children and make it out to be something good.

  Stealing from our children is exactly what we are doing and that is wrong no matter how you dress it up?

  I am not saying that all of the uninsured are able bodied people, but a vast majority of them are, and stealing from our children to pay for them in lifetime entitlements is wrong.

  Why is it so wrong to expect them to take care of themselves , but it is ok in your book to take from our children to pay for the life decisions that able bodied people make?
  That does not make sense.

  With freedom comes responsibility.

  Nobody is dying because they do not have health insurance. They will still be treated. Another bumper sticker slogan. If anything the decrease in cancer survival rates will cause more deaths than those dyeing from lack of insurance.

  As far as the prostate cancer. It is the cancer survival rate across the board that is higher here than any country with Socialized medicine. This is a fact that supporters like to play down.

  I hear supporters make claims about the life expectancy as a good indicator when we are fatter than most countries, and we have significantly higher deaths due to automotive accidents and violence than most of the countries we are being compared to. Take those factors out and the picture looks much different.

  As far as the infant mortality rate. We have different standards in determining that than other countries and when you look at the stillborn rates of the other countries it more than makes up the differences in most of them.
• 

  Posted by Mark Walters, Bellevue, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  There is a great article in The Atlantic and a bi-partisan report on this topic that you may be interested in reading.

  Here are the links:

  The Atlantic - How American Health Care Killed My Father - http://bit.ly/3ytHST

  Bi-partisan Report - Bending the Curve: Effective Steps to Address Long-Term Health Care Spending Growth - http://bit.ly/ViBla
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve,

  You are correct to say that with freedom comes responsibility. But that responsibility is not only for the well being of ourselves. It also entails looking out for the common good of our fellow man. A good deal of the current economic problems we all are suffering through are a direct result of forgetting that simple fact and looking only to amass as much for ourselves as we can with no regard for anyone else. That is counter productive.

  We all want a good standard of living, and we all want to reap the benefits of our hard work. There isn't anything wrong with that. How does it do our country any good at all to deprive anyone of access to decent basic healthcare? Would we not be better served by providing healthcare for all who live here instead of spending much more than that would cost trying to be the world's policeman? Maybe I'm just to idealistic for this fallen world!
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  George,

  Ii am not for being the worlds policemen either, but saying that we are spending to much money on one thing is a very poor reason to justify spending a lot more money on something else. That is like saying my electric bill is high, so I need to buy a whole new wardrobe.

  My concern is where do you draw the line.

  It is obvious that we can not afford all of these entitlement programs by the enourmous deficits that we are racking up and burrying our children in debt.

  The fact is that a vast majority of people could have health care and choose not to by their actions and decisions.

  According the USA today the deficit per household is $668,621. How is that acceptable, or even sustainable?

  They ran the numbers in 2004, which showed that entitlement programs cost the average household $473,456 in ones lifetime. How is that acceptable? This is before Obama's Health Care plan makes health care more expensive and racks up more debt.

  Right now the Average American works for 146 days only to pay their taxes. That is just under 5 months. That is ridiculous.

  Of that they work 79 days to pay for entitlement programs.

  At what point in time are we slaves to the government. I guess technically after 50% of anyone’s income goes to taxes they are technically a slave. When they work more for the government than they do for themselves they are slaves.

  That is time away from their families and children to pay for other people who made poor choices in life, or are blatantly using the system.

  How is that acceptable?

  Where is their Freedom?

  Where is their rights?

  The last I checked the right to personal property is one of the few rights actually guaranteed under the constitution.

  Why are their children and families less deserving of their hard earned money than an able bodies person that made their own conscious decisions in life not to take care of themselves.

  The single greatest thing that we can do for anyone is give them the most opportunity possible so that anyone can be born poor and work their way up to wealthy.

  Every time the government takes money from businesses and those that create jobs they take away opportunity. This is economics 101.

  We can either put an end to the entitlement programs now or when the country is bankrupt. It really is that simple.

  If we do it now, people have the opportunity to take care of themselves if they work for it.

  If we wait until the country is bankrupt then all of us are screwed.

  This is a tough choice, but one that we have to make.

  It is common sense really.

  Maybe you are just to irrational for this word.

  by the way.

  How many famlies do you currently give health insurance to?

  Are you expecting us to do something that you do not even support enough to do?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  I agree with John, I think this is a good discussion, and I'm glad this platform is available for us to discuss this issue. It is probably the single most important political issue that many of us will ever have to deal with in our lifetime here in the U.S.

  Just an FYI about the World Health Organization (WHO) http://www.who.int/en/. They are a non-partisan, non-biased, and a trusted source of data worldwide and I trust their stats OVER ANY OTHERS I have yet to see (sorry Steve G.). Asking why the Prime Minister of Italy would come to the US for treatment is not “hard data” and no proof of anything.

  I think people are confused as to what the phrase “BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD” is. If you mean the most “cutting edge” with the best facilities and most advanced drugs and the best doctors, then you may be right – the USA may be the best at that. But my assessment (and the WHO’s assessment) of what that phrase means is way more than that. It is all that PLUS life expectancy, healthy life, infant mortality rates, maternal mortality rates, non-communicable diseases rates, cardiovascular diseases rates, cancer survival rates, coverage rates, patient satisfaction rates with their doctors, etc. After you throw all that in… yep… we are #37.

  What good is to be the “best” at science and medicine if none of your people can AFFORD to use it? “BEST” in my opinion is what is “best” for everyone… not the Prime Minister of Italy who can AFFORD our cutting edge care.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Funny, most people equate anything they don't understand to socialism. Especially if it means thinking of someone other than themselves.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Heath,

  What good is it to live in the United States when we are loosing the freedoms and the opportunity that has made this country great?

  In Cuba they have decent health care, but they drive 1950's Chevrolets as well.

  We simply can not afford it, and that is the issue that all of you keep avoiding like the plague.

  Having the opportunity to succede no matter what you background to me is what is best for this country.

  Every time the government steps in, that is what is lost.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  We can't afford it???? We spend more on health care than any other country in world! Time to change that my friend.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve, I posted this earlier:

  "Factcheck.org found that countries with the highest life expectancy (Japan, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia) spent, on average, half as much per capita on health care as the United States. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/obamas-health-care-claims/)"

  Steve, these people are getting better healthcare than us and at HALF the price. Last time I checked none of these countries had any issues with their "feedoms". Sounds like Ronald Reagan in the 60's saying we would all become communist if Medicare passed. Well it did, and I don't think anyone would call us communists!

  Steve, everything you say is speculation - fear of what "might" happen. All these other developed countries have universal healthcare for their citizens and are hardly communists either.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Jeannette,

  FACTS:

  (1) The Congressional Budget office said the bill will increase health care costs for everyone. Not decrease them.

  (2) It makes people even less responsible for controlling their health care costs. So how exactly is that going to help with the health care spending per capita. IT WILL NOT.

  Jeannette,

  What is funny is how little so many people really understand the most basic economic functions.

  The reason that they associate it with socialism is because that is where these policies are pushing us.

  Obama's policy advisor Cass Sunstein wrote a book called "Nudge" where he talked about nudging people into socialism. Coincidence I think not.

  So just out of curiosity:

  Why are you ok with burying our children and grandchildren in so much debt to primarily pay for able bodied people to simply not have to take care of themselves? This is exactly what is happening.

  How many families do you currently give health insurance to?

  Are you expecting us to do something that you do not even support enough to do?

  A bit hypocritical isn’t it?
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Heath,

  Why ius it that you and the others on here keep ignoring the fact that this is not going to make anything cheaper.

  Why do you keep saying that when it is a lie?

  Congress' budget watchdog warned Thursday that Democrats' health care bills would not lower skyrocketing costs and would drive up government spending, undermining one of President Obama's chief arguments for the overhaul.

  Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/health-care-reform-said-to-increase-federal-cost/

  The director of the Congressional Budget Office issued a warning to Democrats Thursday that their health care proposals would raise costs, not lower them.

  One day after a Senate panel approved its version of the health care reform plan, the first committee to do so, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf gave a dose of bad medicine to a separate committee.

  Asked by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., whether costs would be lowered -- also known as "bending the curve" -- Elmendorf responded: "The curve is being raised."

  Subsidies to help uninsured people would raise federal health care spending, which is already growing at an unsustainable rate, Elmendorf explained at the hearing. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts that lawmakers have offered to pay for the coverage expansion aren't big enough to offset the cost trend, particularly in the long term, he said.

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/

  Basically you are complaining about the cost of health care per person and then wanting legislation to increase the cost of health care per person.

  Which part of this are you not quite getting?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Jeannette is correct - budget is not the issue. WE CAN AFFORD IT. We are the richest nation in the world. How can other nations afford it and not us??? It's absurd! If we can afford to spend trillions on wars and economic recovery packages, health care is a drop in the bucket! It's just a matter of re prioritizing our budget. Plus, once its implemented, we can start 'tweaking' it to reduce costs and unnecessary expenses.

  Pfff... budgets are crap at best. We go over budget all the time! Not to mention the COST SAVINGS from insurance companies having to drop their rates to compete with a government plan, having less people in emergency rooms, preventive care, etc. Those will drop costs significantly!
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  LOL... don't post fox news as a source! LOL... they are very bias to the right... not even worth watching :). Try using Non-Partisan and Non-bias sources like Factcheck.org ;).
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Health,

  I am not for being the worlds policemen either, but saying that we are spending to much money on one thing is a very poor reason to justify spending a lot more money on something else. That is like saying my electric bill is high, so I need to buy a whole new wardrobe.

  My concern is where do you draw the line.

  It is obvious that we can not afford all of these entitlement programs by the enourmous deficits that we are racking up and burrying our children in debt.

  The fact is that a vast majority of people could have health care and choose not to by their actions and decisions.

  According the USA today the deficit per household is $668,621. How is that acceptable, or even sustainable?

  They ran the numbers in 2004, which showed that entitlement programs cost the average household $473,456 in ones lifetime. How is that acceptable? This is before Obama's Health Care plan makes health care more expensive and racks up more debt.

  Right now the Average American works for 146 days only to pay their taxes. That is just under 5 months. That is ridiculous.

  Of that they work 79 days to pay for entitlement programs.

  At what point in time are we slaves to the government. I guess technically after 50% of anyone’s income goes to taxes they are technically a slave. When they work more for the government than they do for themselves they are slaves.

  That is time away from their families and children to pay for other people who made poor choices in life, or are blatantly using the system.

  How is that acceptable?

  Where is their Freedom?

  Where is their rights?

  The last I checked the right to personal property is one of the few rights actually guaranteed under the constitution.

  I can tell by your attitude on the budget that you are more than Ok piling debt onto our children.

  It is rediculous.

  WHEN HAS THE GOVERNMENT EVER REDUCED COSTS ON ANYTHING.

  YOUR LOGIC IS WAY OUT OF WACK.

  The CBO is a non partisean group. That is the true source. FOX was simply discussing it.

  By the way, the WHO is not unbias either.

  Their bias it towards socialized medicine. Not the quality.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  "The fact is that a vast majority of people could have health care and choose not to by their actions and decisions."

  That's exactly what I'm talking about, ignorance. Most people I know who are jobless (laid-off), and now facing zero health care are not doing it BY CHOICE. Come on!

  Get your head out of the 1700's. Yes, these are all important rights and values, but the times have changed BIG TIME.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Last time I checked the French, British, Canadians, etc. who all have universal healthcare were hardly complaining about their "freedoms" or "rights".

  Where do you get that from????

  If its so "horrible" how come all of them support it? If you tried to take away universal health-care from these countries, you would have riots on your hands!

  How much more simple can I be explaining it? Yes, its going to be expensive. BUT WE CAN AFFORD IT!

  Tell me how all these other countries can afford it and we can't? Going over budget (IF we did go over budget) would hardly be the end of the world. And in the LONG RUN would save us money.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Jeannette,

  Where was their savings cushion. I am sure that they have worked.

  Why did they not save for a rainy day?

  instead of saving I am sure they have decent houses, took vacations, have nice televisions, drive decent cars, and did not save to take care of themselves in a rainy day.

  So basically you really want us to pay for their nice house, their nice cars, their vacations, etc.

  Is that the innocent children of this country's fault that they did not save?

  I think not.

  Get out of your attitude where nobody is responsible for themselves, but everyone else is responsible for them attitude.

  It is rediculous.

  Where is the personal responsibility?

  As far as rights go, it is not in the constitution, but people's private property is and that is what you are taking away from them.

  How is it a right?

  You never did annswer my questions:

  Why did you move here from canada if everything was so great there?

  Why are you ok with burying our children and grandchildren in so much debt to primarily pay for able bodied people to simply not have to take care of themselves? This is exactly what is happening.

  How many families do you currently give health insurance to?

  Are you expecting us to do something that you do not even support enough to do?

  A bit hypocritical isn’t it?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Jeannette right to. Your logic is deeply flawed about the uninsured. What about people who find out they have cancer while working at their job and then two months later get laid off? There goes their insurance and now no insurance company will sell them a policy (or if they do its crazy expensive).

  There are thousands of cases like this. Are these people 'bums' that we should kick out on the street?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  1 in 5 people WITH insurance still lose their life savings when they are diagnosed with a catastrophic disease or condition in the USA.

  Steve, your way bias against the unisured. These people are not all out on vacation and living high on the hog. Your way to black and white on that...
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  (1) Where are you getting this whole will save us money thing. That is made up. It is non existant.

  WHEN HAS THE GOVERNMENT EVER SAVED MONEY ON ANYTHING?

  (2) "Last time I checked the French, British, Canadians, etc. who all have universal healthcare were hardly complaining about their "freedoms" or "rights"."

  The last time I checked hundreds of thousands lost their lives and payed hundreds of thousands of musket balls to free ourselves of Britain and become a soverign nation with freedoms.

  Isn't that kind of what set us apart.

  You know the whole Constitution thing.

  I do not think that thosse cocuntries can afford it. Aren't most of them doing very badly right about now?

  Aren't they going broke right now?

  "Father" of Canadian Health Care Admits its a Failure

  Just yesterday, I wrote about how unpopular the British healthcare system has become. Today comes news that the man largely responsible for Canada's conversion to a single-payer health care system has admitted the system's failure:

  "Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

  The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast."

  Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

  "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

  As more and more nations throughout the world seek to infuse more private, market-based solutions into their government-controlled healthcare systems, for some reason lefties in this country want to make the same mistake that countries like Canada made decades ago. Let's hope voters in North Carolina and across the US wake up, or else we may be forced to confront "rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money" into a system that even one of its pioneers admits to being a failure.

  As I have said. There does need to be some reforms to health insurance, but that is vastly different than radically taking over the entire system.

  Those are two issues that I would address in insurance reform.

  By the way, what about those in the Uk that get cancer and the drugs to treat them are not available because the government deemed them to expensive to cover.

  That is common practice there.

  You never did annswer my questions:

  Why are you ok with burying our children and grandchildren in so much debt to primarily pay for able bodied people to simply not have to take care of themselves? This is exactly what is happening.

  How many families do you currently give health insurance to?

  Are you expecting us to do something that you do not even support enough to do?

  A bit hypocritical isn’t it?
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  We're going to bury our children in debt the way things are now. Period.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Jeannette,

  Let me get this straight.

  So your argument is that since we are burying our children in debt now, instead of trying to reverse it, we should go full steam ahead and basically enslave them.

  You say my logic is deeply flawed.

  We can either put an end to the entitlement programs now or when the country is bankrupt. It really is that simple.

  If we do it now, people have the opportunity to take care of themselves if they work for it.

  If we wait until the country is bankrupt then all of us are screwed.

  This is a tough choice, but one that we have to make.

  It is common sense really.

  We simply can not afford it.

  We have to draw the line somewhere and start expecting people to take responsibility for themselves.

  Our children should not have to pay for the lack of responsibility of our generation.

  Most people want to pass down a better nation to their children.

  Not you and not many of you liberals.

  You want to squeeze as much out of them as possible.

  It is shameful.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve, this is the third time I've posted this for you (See caps):

  Factcheck.org found that countries with the highest life expectancy (Japan, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia) spent, on average, HALF AS MUCH PER CAPITA ON HEALTHCARE as the United States. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/obamas-health-care-claims/)

  We spend double than they do... and they have universal coverage. Any questions on where I got that from (again)?

  How is it possible for us NOT to be able to afford universal healthcare when we are currently paying more than double what everyone else is???

  The reason we are paying double is because insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. are taking advantage of the fact that people will pay anything to save their life or the life of people they love or care for. With a government plan, people can pay a lower premium and have more coverage, forcing insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. to lower their prices if they want to compete for private plans.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  Heath,

  Am I supposed to be proud of you for posting the same irrelevant thing over and over again?

  This is not your liberal High School where no matter how off the subject what ADD boy says he gets a sticker and an A.

  You are arguing that by making health care more expensive (as the CBO said the current bill will do), and by lowering the survival rates on just about every illness in the world (as has happened in countries with socialized medicine) That it is somehow going to increase the life expectancy and lower the costs of health care. Dut Du Dur.

  It is the warped logic of a liberal.

  How is arguing that something that is red is blue going to fix anything?

  That is precisely what you are doing.

  By the way:

  Heath Ledger did not exactly die of lack of medical care did he?

  There are many factors that bring our life expectancy down that are not nearly as big of factors in other countries.

  The facts are that once simple lifestyle factors are removed (i.e., auto accidents, suicides, murders, military deaths, drug and alcohol-related deaths, and obesity-related deaths), Americans have one of , if not the longest average lifespan in the world. And some of the countries that exceed our longevity have fish and vegetable based diets, rather than red meat and carbohydrate-based diets. Maybe we can be criticized for all of that, but it does not say anything about the quality of our medical care.

  That’s what explains the well-known, but seemingly contradictory statistics, that show Americans have superior survival rates for all forms of cancer, heart disease, and most other illnesses. In other words, if you don’t get killed and you take care of yourself, you will live longer in America.

  And even that doesn’t take into consideration the fact that we are much more rigorous about tracking infant mortality (which has a big impact on longevity, since the deaths of infants has an out-sized impact on longevity statistics, and we count many infant mortalities that other countries do not.)

  And even that doesn’t take into consideration that the U.S. is one of the least homogenous populations of all countries. In other words, our longevity stats reflect healthy percentages of Mexicans and African Americans both of which statistically have lower life expectancies than do Caucasians and Asians.

  So to take a statement that really has little to do with the quality of health care and keep repeating it really does nothing to help us reduce costs, which according to Obama was the origional goal of this thing.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve, the reason I keep repeating it is because it has more fact in it (REAL numbers and stats) than anything you are saying. If it can be done in these countries at half the price, it can be done here as well - period.

  You are just giving me "estimates". I'm giving you real world countries that are really doing it and are not deprived of their "freedoms" for doing it (still don't get that one).

  Obama’s health care estimate is just that – an estimate. And Washington estimates are often lower than what the true costs turn out to be in reality. It’s worth remembering that the Bush administration once estimated that the Iraq war would cost only $50 billion to $60 billion, a small fraction of what the actual price is turning out to be.

  Estimates are just guesses - not facts. So I don't take them seriously. Other countries having better healthcare systems than us along with universal healthcare at half the price we are paying now is REAL. Period.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 08, 2009

  (1) Since when did the government EVER come under in estimating the costs of their programs particularily entitlement programs.

  (2) Your "facts and stats" are irrelevant.

  Fact: Survival rates are lowre for just about every illness than in every country with socialized medicine than in the United States.

  Do you get what that means?

  There are other factors involved with life expectancy.

  People dying of diagnosed disease is people dying of diagnosed disease and is comparing apples to apples.

  This is the real world.

  you asked why I was bringing up cancer survival rates because they are relevant. Significanly more relevant than freaking life expectancy, which has more to do with lifestyle than health care.

  And how in your liberal head you cann on one breath say that the health care is going to e cheaper than estimated and then on the nnext breath say "Obama’s health care estimate is just that – an estimate. And Washington estimates are often lower than what the true costs turn out to be in reality. It’s worth remembering that the Bush administration once estimated that the Iraq war would cost only $50 billion to $60 billion, a small fraction of what the actual price is turning out to be."

  Is simply beyond me.

  Now you are trying to hard to justify your failed policies.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve, my stats are from non-partisan, non-bias sources that have done research. They come from real data about all things health-care (not just prostate cancer). They are way better than opinions, hearsay, and guesses. You have posted nothing but bias rhetoric and estimates.

  Bottom Line - Universal and better health care at half the price is a REALITY proven several times over with the best data available. If they can do it... we can do it.

  Well, I put in my 2 cents... I think I made my point. Steve and I are starting to sound like broken records :).
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Good job!
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Some great conversations here. I wonder, how many have taken the time to read the Health Care bill or any part of it that sits in the House? Here are a few for your consideration. pge 22 Bill mandates the government will audit books of all employers that self insure, which includes the private market. pge 30, Sec 123 - there will be a government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you may get. pge 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. pge 50, sec 152 - health care will be provided to all non US citizens, illegal or otherwise. pge 65, sec 164 - is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organiZations. pge 72 lines 8-14 - government is creating an HC exchange to bring private HC plans under government control. pge 95 lines 8-18 - the government will use groups like ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for government HC plan. pge 124, lines 24-25 - no company can sue government on price fixing. No judicial review against government monopoly. pge 145 lines 15-17 an employer must automatically enroll employees into public option plan. No choice. pge 126 lines 22-25 - employers must pay for health care for part time employees and their families. pge 149 lines 16-24 - any employer with a payroll of 400k and above who does not provide public option, pays 8% tax on all payroll. pge 150 lines 9-13 - business payroll between 251k & 400k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll. pge 167 lines 18-23 - any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care according to the government will be taxed 2.5% of income pge 170 lines 1-3 - any non-resident alien is exempt from individual taxes. pge 203 line 14-15 states The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax, so it won't be deductible. pge 241 line 6-8 - Doctors doesn't matter what speciality you have, you will all be paid the same. pge 280 sec 1151 - the government will penalize hospitals for what governemnt deems preventable readmissions. That is enough facts for now. Does anyone get the message the Health Care bill in the House is saying to us?
• 

  Posted by Mark Walters, Bellevue, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Second Posting:

  There is a great article in The Atlantic and a bi-partisan report on this topic that you may be interested in reading.

  Here are the links:

  The Atlantic - How American Health Care Killed My Father - http://bit.ly/3ytHST

  Bi-partisan Report - Bending the Curve: Effective Steps to Address Long-Term Health Care Spending Growth - http://bit.ly/ViBla
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 08, 2009

  Steve, I wanted to return to a point you made in a comment addressed to me and Heath a while back:

  "Nobody is dying because they do not have health insurance. They will still be treated."

  This is patently false. People DO die for lack of health insurance. Maybe not a lot, but it does happen. (People also die while waiting for an insurer to approve a procedure - talk about rationing care.) Even more people delay care or don't get adequate care because of lack of access to affordable health care. This may cause a treatable condition to become fatal, or at least to seriously impede quality of life.

  But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right. Since you're so sure that most of the uninsured are able bodied, and that the solution is relatively simple, why don't you take a year off and go help them understand that their real problem is their laziness, and that they just need to prioritize their own health care.

  Rural Appalachia might be a good place to start. Go spend some time with these folks. Help them sell their huge flat screen TVs on Craigslist so they can purchase health insurance policies or pay for the care they need. Talk them out of taking those vacations to Aruba and New Zealand every year. Convince them to trade in their sports cars and SUV's for something more practical, with lower payments. Or maybe a bike. Those are cheap. And you get exercise at the same time, especially when it's 25 miles over hilly terrain to the nearest big town.

  But really, it shouldn't take long to show these able bodied, perfectly capable people the error of their ways and help them on the road to better self care. You won't need to find a new job - you can live off your savings while you help these folks out. You have a savings cushion, right? Since you work, like every other patriotic American, I'm sure you do.

  When you're done with your mission, you can come back home, get a new job, pick up your business where you left off, or even start a new business. It's America after all, the land of opportunity. Anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps! I'm sure you'll be able to find affordable health insurance again, if you make it a priority. And if you happen to get sick while you're off in West Virginia, not to worry - nobody's dying from lack of health insurance. You can get treated at the local ER (if you can ride your bike there). The bill won't set you back too far. You'll just have to work really hard and not by a big screen TV or go on vacation for a few years.

  ---

  All kidding aside, I do think you've made some really good points Steve. But I think you're mistaken about the real reasons most people go without health insurance or adequate health care in this country.

  We may disagree until the cows come home about this point and many others, but I hope we can agree on one thing: we all have the same good intentions. I believe we all - liberal, conservative, and in between - want good things for ourselves, our families, and our communities. We just have different ideas about how to get there. The solution WILL come out of this debate if we can avoid getting polarized. I've changed my mind about a few things as a result of reading all these comments. How about you?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  Hey Ron,

  It would appear that you have not read the bill either :). ALL of the stuff you posted is FALSE! Found this on http://factcheck.org:

  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

  In general, it states that "A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true. "

  Everything you posted is listed in the FALSE section.

  More dis-information and fear mongering (not from you Ron, but from the sources you got that info from).
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  Heath, thank you for the clarification and I have gone to Factcheck and reviewed the information. Not all what I posted was false, most of it, it seems. It was provided to me by a health care wholesaler. My mistake is not checking it out first. For all posters, I apologize. As a health insurance agent, I still feel the American people would be better served if the insurance carriers were regulated better and this would help reduce costs. Sometimes it is real difficult to bring to the table the terrible rate increases these carriers bring to my clients. I too am concerned about my kids and my grandkids having to foot the bill for this effort, but don't have a solution to that problem and just because we spend billions on other things, doesn't justify spending billions that we don't have on an experiment. Do you sense a bit of frustration?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 09, 2009

  As I expected the World Health Organization has been delivering misleading stats. To say that the US is 37th out of 191 countries, says nothing at all, once you learn how the statistics were gathered.

  Here is a critical review and report of what health level means and does not mean--

  “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.

  The report concludes with:

  "In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. All the statistics in the world cannot stand up to Common Sense.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  Hey Ron,

  Yeah, I feel your frustrations. While I do support a government plan, we have yet to see what rolls out of congress. When it’s all said and done, I have a feeling that it may be too watered down for the price tag placed on it. Honestly, I don't think any of us should say anything about the bill till it’s completely done. THEN we can all analyze it, scrutinize it, etc.

  I think Naomi is right when she said we are all trying to do what’s best for us, our country, our kids, and our grandchildren. All I know for sure is that need a BIG change – the status quo will only make things way worse… that I’m 100% positive of.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 09, 2009

  There are a great deal written about how misleading the World Health Organization is in their reporting.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  John, this is the "insurance" affiliated site that your quote came from. More disinformation... not facts. Read up peeps:

  http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail

  And we pay twice as much as any country to prove it? But I suspect the site you referenced (which had links to insurance companies)used one doctor's opinion on how the WHO rates HC in the world. He offered no other ranking references.

  Still it's interesting and noteworthy but hardly concrete proof that our HC in America will suffer from universal HC nor does it address how we cover the 47 million Americans W/O HC...and that at our current rates of HC spending how it will not cause us to go further into debt at the expense of corporate greed.

  The article is more like "The US has the best HC in the world...for people who can afford it"...and that's less and less every day...

  More fear mongering – anytime Republicans don’t like the facts or stats on something they slap “Socialism” on it and say it’s discreditable. Send me some REAL stats that prove the WHO are socialist – not some blog post by some doctor in the pockets of insurance companies.
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  This issue has sparked so much debate that we've decided to take it live. If you're an entrepreneur who has something to say or just want to learn more about how this issue affects you and your business, join Seattle University and Biznik on Sept. 21 for a special event: Health Reform, Entrepreneurship and Your Business.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 09, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "John, this is the "insurance" affiliated site that your quote came from. More disinformation... not facts. Read up peeps:"

  I engage in a great deal of research. The key to the outcome is how the statistics are collected and what variables influence the statistical conclusions and who is doing the collecting. Funding also enters into it.

  The WOW does use homicides in their statistics along with accidental death. Neither one is a comment on the healthcare system. Both are comments on social engineering.

  If there is bias it is not here. As a free nation we are allowed to bare arms. As a rich nation we have more cars per capita than anyone else. That means there will be more accidents above those occurring from non-vehicular means.

  You said...

  "And we pay twice as much as any country to prove it?"

  We do pay more because we are a free society and not under socialism. Naturally we pay more.

  You said...

  "But I suspect the site you referenced (which had links to insurance companies)used one doctor's opinion on how the WHO rates HC in the world. He offered no other ranking references."

  There are many other sources including European doctors not affiliated with an organized medical group. Since medical groups have a political agenda, why suspect honest reporting. It is the independent doctors throughout the world who will disagree with the report. Also, be very careful to note the countries involved and the ability to report case facts. Many die in 3rd world counties and their bodies are not only go unreported--they are hidden.

  You said...

  "Still it's interesting and noteworthy but hardly concrete proof that our HC in America will suffer from universal HC nor does it address how we cover the 47 million Americans W/O HC...and that at our current rates of HC spending how it will not cause us to go further into debt at the expense of corporate greed."

  Really examine the way of life in those countries with social health care plans. There is definitely good to be had but at what price? Look at the quality of life and how those governments are not redistributing taxes back into the country.

  That is a major issue in Africa, which is the most mineral rich continent on the planet yet people starve. Now, there are many, many other reasons which are cultural in nature but nevertheless, the governments have enough to prevent the degree of human degradation suffered in these countries.

  I also wrote a brief outline gathered from an insurance executive to resolve the 47 million uninsured issue.

  1 Make other countries pay their fair share of pharmaceutical and other benefits they receive from us.

  2 Either deny or limit malpractice

  3 Design a fund to handle malpractice to be funded by the medical industry as a whole rather than charging individual doctors thousands of dollars in premiums.

  4 Treat all illegal aliens then ship them home. People who do not live along the southern border have no clue how illegals inflate health care in this country.

  These 4 measures alone would significantly drop individual health care premiums and without government interference.

  You said...

  "The article is more like "The US has the best HC in the world...for people who can afford it"...and that's less and less every day..."

  We do have the best health care in the world and there have been several messages here re-confirming that everyone gets critical medical treatment here regardless of health care coverage. I personally know a supervisor at our local hospital who's job is to connect uninsured people with government programs that will pay the costs in full. If people are not tapping into this--that's their fault.

  You said...

  "More fear mongering – anytime Republicans don’t like the facts or stats on something they slap “Socialism” on it and say it’s discreditable."

  Please read your history! Read about Communism in China or the former Soviet Union--just as starters. Learn what socialism is first before making such comments. Republicans have not cornered the market on historical texts--really.

  You said...

  "Send me some REAL stats that prove the WHO are socialist – not some blog post by some doctor in the pockets of insurance companies."

  I never said this--I said the WOW are misreporting. And it is apparent that whatever I send won't matter. REAL to you is what agrees with your version of history.

  You do need to do a lot more reading on social development. A socialist nation is not made over night. Having a Universal Health Care plan in and of itself is not going to make us a socialist state. But each time the extreme Liberals get there way--we are inching closer. That is what people fear.

  All considered I do enjoy your passion.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  John, something you said in this last post made a light bulb go on for me. You said:

  "We do have the best health care in the world and there have been several messages here re-confirming that everyone gets critical medical treatment here regardless of health care coverage."

  The light bulb for me was that there's a vast difference between "health care" and "health coverage". Health insurance, of course, is a whole other thing too. Affordable health care might be another important distinction.

  The health care debate seems to quickly branch off into debates about health insurance plans and insurance companies (reform, gov't intervention), health care providers (doctors, malpractice), health care statistics (who delivers the best results or the best quality of care?) or health care costs (will they increase? decrease? how do other countries afford universal coverage?). These are all different, intertwined and interdependent issues that often get lumped together in one term: health care.

  Definitions are so crucial to understanding each other, aren't they?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 09, 2009

  Naomi,

  If you stumble in the hospital with a broken leg or arrive in an ambulance from a traffic accident, you will be treated with or without insurance. For me that is the bottom line.

  In San Diego pregnant Mexican Nationals slip across the border and have babies in our hospitals. They are uninsured as well as illegal aliens. We pay for that also.

  Regardless of what you call it the uninsured get FREE critical care treatment. That is the light bulb that many people are are not seeing.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  Lol, thanks John.

  You brought up some good points - and they do make me think. Some of them I still disagree with but some of them I could agree with you on.

  If only I had more time to do more research and sift through all the disinformation. But isn't that the problem for everyone?

  I really don’t think having an ‘optional’ government plan is going to turn us into Socialists any time soon. I really feel strongly about that. I also have serious issues with capitalism running healthcare. Companies have proven time and time again that they are more than willing to sacrifice your health and life to make a profit. Pfizer just got slapped with their 4th fine a few days ago for pushing doctors to sell their drugs to patients that didn’t necessarily need them. They gladly pleaded guilty (again) and paid up. Why? Because they made way more money than the fines they pay.

  When it comes to our health as a nation, we need some sort of OPTIONIONAL plan available outside of capitalism. Something that covers EVERYONE for ALL necessary medical care. It’s obvious that the current system doesn’t do that when you have 47 million people without healthcare (and it’s absurd that some people label them all as a bunch of slackers that don’t know how to manage their money).

  Lol, well, I have to get some work done today ;). Good stuff peeps!
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  John, having everyone go to the emergency room at the last moment is not “universal” healthcare. First its way more expensive than if these people could just receive preventive medical care and bring minor healthcare issues under control first before letting them grow out of control into something that cost 10x a much to deal with.

  Not to mention that many of these people are in pain and their quality of life suffers. They wait till the last minute and then walk into the emergency room after suffering with something for months.

  And getting treated for cancer in the final stages right before it kills you is of little help when you could have caught it early on (if you had healthcare) and prevented it from spreading throughout your whole body.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 09, 2009

  Well said Heath.

  The fact that anyone can receive critical care is good, but in my opinion, not good enough. Critical care is only one small part of health care. Would any of us who have health insurance be satisfied if critical care was all our plan covered? If we want better than that for ourselves, certainly we should want better than that for all our fellow citizens.

  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ER care is necessarily free. They can't refuse to treat you if you can't pay (although I'm sure there are some horror stories to that effect) but they can still send you a bill. And depending on the extent of the costs, going bankrupt might be your only option. That's a pretty steep price to pay for "free" health care.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 10, 2009

  Heath and Naomi,

  One of my clients today was an administrator at our local hospital. I approached him with the health care debate.

  He said that a homeless man came in the ER with an ingrown toe nail (clearly not life threatening) and by law, they had to treat him.

  He explained that many use the ER as a doctor's appointment for any and all ailments and no one is turned a way.

  If you are not homeless, there are dozens of programs that are available to cover the fees.

  For those fees not covered, they do get billed but not much happens after that. Why continue billing someone who has no money? You certainly don't sue them.

  Lastly, the issue compares the ideology of private vs. universal health coverage which includes the overall citizenry life style.

  That is, there are those who live with universal health care, earn only $7,000.00 a year, yet pay 35% income tax. But it doesn't stop here--they also pay an additional 23% tax for food.

  We then have the average physician in Italy earning $3,300.00 per month and a mandatory deduction of 43%. In fact, electric costs are so high in Italy which explains why you see clothes hanging out of their windows to dry.

  So, there is a lot more to consider when dealing with socialism.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  John,

  That's hardly the case for most uninsured Americans. Many of my friends and family members do not have health insurance, and NONE of them visit the ER for "routine" checkups!

  As a matter of fact, my brother had chest pains and waited to the very last minute before he went in. He was working two jobs at the time and none of them provided Healthcare. He waited till he had a heart attack before he finally went in. The ER then slapped him with a $20,000 dollar bill!!!

  Your statement:

  "If you are not homeless, there are dozens of programs that are available to cover the fees."

  This is non-sense! I know for a fact! We looked, searched, pleaded, and begged every agency we could find to help him with his bill. The best we got was a reduction in it to about $12,000 dollars. That was by negotiating with the hospital. NO "PROGRAM" OUT THERE WOULD GIVE HIM ANYTHING!

  The reality was this: Either pay the bill or declare bankruptcy. As Obama said last night in his speech, no American should have to fear losing everything they have if they get sick or hospitalized.

  P.S. Please stop the Socialist fear mongering. An OPTIONAL government plan that less than 5% of the American people are expected to sign up for is hardly going to turn us into Communist or Socialists. How the heck did "food tax" get into this conversation????
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  heath,

  The whole Socialism thing is not fear mongering. It Socialized Medicine the only thing that they are pushing for. No it is not. It has to do with all of their policies and the people that the president surrounds himself with as well.

  Look at Van Jones. He is a self declared Communist. He wanted to use the "green movement" to push wealth distribution and reparations. Yes he resigned, but the democrats painted it as a smear campaign and said nothing about his communist views did they?

  Look at Obama's advisor Cass Sunstein. He is a self declared socialist that wrote a book called nudge to "nudge" people into socialism one policy at a time. They tried to push him through yesterday and the democrats support him.

  There is basically an overall assault going on in this country on business and the wealthy.

  In a country where we are all supposed to have equal rights, why are the rights of one group being taken away and distributed to another.

  If you actually listen to Obama and pay attention to those he chooses to surround himself with. it is pretty Obvious that Socialism is his ultimate goal, or at least moving us away from individual freedoms and the rights guaranteed by the constitution and more towards socialism.

  Iit is not like it is full socialism or it isn't . There are varying degrees, and Obama and the democrats are nudging us in that direction.

  If health care was their only policy, I might believe that, but when you look at the bigger picture with all of their policies, you will see that there is a common thread, and that they are pushing us towards socialism.

  Ok, so if the bill passes we will have programs to take care of everyone's needs. So there will e no other need for any additional wealth distribution or social programs right? I think not. They are going to keep moving the line and pushing further and further until this is no longer the America that it was founded on. One based around freedom.

  By the way, that whole 5% think is outrageous. If you really believe that then i have a bridge to sell you.

  I do not think that anyone should fear going broke over medical conditions, but I do believe that every able bodied person should be expected to take care of themselves.

  I think that there should definitely be some insurance reforms. That is for sure, but no bale bodied person should be able to live their whole lives living off of other people. I do not want to take away their freedom to choose to drop out of school, or put them in work camps to force them to take care of themselves and pay their way. It is their freedom to choose to do the bare minimum to get by if they want and I support that freedom. But my freedom to spend my own hard earned money on my own children instead of able bodied people that make conscious decisions in life.

  I also do not believe that my children should be buried in debt in order to pay for the decisions and lifestyles of others.

  If they take away my freedoms in order to give them to others then maybe we should put some restrictions on them as well. Maybe we should drug test anyone on the program. Iif you have money for drugs you have money for insurance. if you choose drugs over healthcare, then I choose to spend my hard earned money on my children instead of subsidizing your drugs.

  The speech reminded me of the diet pills you see advertised on television. You can eat all you want and sit on your couch all d ay and take a pill and loose weight. We all know it is a crock.

  If the bill is going to be paid for out of savings in Medicare and Medicaid, how about they try getting those savings first and trying it out. Why haven't they tried to realize those savings yet after all of these years. It is a crock.

  I can tell you I have a beautiful house for sale on a hill overlooking a lake. It has a natural gas source so all of your energy needs are covered, but in reality it is still an outhouse sitting on top of a landfill, overlooking a sewage treatment facility, and that is what is happening with this bill.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 10, 2009

  Having listened to President Obama's speech last evening, from this side of the 49th parallel, Steve and others here have nothing to fear about socialized medicine. The plan that the President is implementing is a mixed private and public plan that doesn't even come close to approaching the single payer plan that operates across Canada or in other countries around the world.

  So for those of you who see this as the thin edge of the wedge of state control, I think you protest too much! Your liberties are not in peril. Your choices are greater! And if you really are in love with your private plan, you are safe from seeing it pilloried by the evil machinations of your federal government.

  What I find amusing is the comment that "no able bodied person should be able to live their whole lives living off other people." Is that what healthcare coverage for all is about? When I earned a million dollars I paid my fair share in taxes of which a portion went to healthcare costs. When I was out of work and my daughter was on death's door, that healthcare coverage safety net paid to keep her alive. I was able to get back on my feet without worrying about being hammered by healthcare debt, and I earned my keep. I didn't sit around living off the avails of others.

  Do you really believe that all Americans who are not you or like you are slackers, living off the dole? What a low opinion you have of the average American who currently would benefit from the addition of a public option.

  President Obama is not instituting a single payer system at all. In fact, from my perspective, this plan is a lowest common denominator attempt to introduce an extension of Medicare-like services to a larger demographic. And that's all it is.

  It is not evil socialism. It is not even creeping socialism. It is a mixed capitalist model with government competing with the private sector as a check and balance against the excesses of private insurers that have been amply reported in the press in the United States.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  Len,

  It is one thing to say and another to do. We will have to see.

  It is easy to make promises. By the way, believeing that anyone can be successful if they try is a much higher opinion of the average American than the Democrats have of them that is for sure.

  Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is. Many of the people to be covered are able bodied people that are taking the money from me that I would rather spend on my own children than subsidizeing their choices and lifestyles that they consciously choose.

  If you had insurance here in the US, which you could have. Your daughter would have been taken care of as well.

  Just to let you know.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 10, 2009

  Hi Heath,

  You said...

  "That's hardly the case for most uninsured Americans. Many of my friends and family members do not have health insurance, and NONE of them visit the ER for "routine" checkups!"

  That's another issue the administrator raised: people who don't have insurance assume they will not get treatment when they will. No one can make them go. I had uninsured friends who thought the same until I drive them to the ER. They were treated and admissions found a government program to pay for it. That is the case for everyone in this country--if they take advantage of it. It is a federal law that no one is turned away--again that's everyone.

  You said...

  "As a matter of fact, my brother had chest pains and waited to the very last minute before he went in. He was working two jobs at the time and none of them provided Healthcare. He waited till he had a heart attack before he finally went in. The ER then slapped him with a $20,000 dollar bill!!!"

  There you go--you proved my point--why did he wait? He didn't have to. He could have walked in, said he had chest pains and world would have stopped and checked him out--it's the law. They would have ordered blood pressure medicine and other blood thinning drugs.--as preventative medicine--again--it's the law.

  Yes, there is a bill but they will take any payment plan you come up with. It is like paying insurance premiums in reverse. Still, I know it's not the same, I'm not saying it is but even myself with insurance, I don't see doctors on whims and most often, people don't go to the doctor unless the symptom is strong enough that their life is interrupted. Most people insured or not go at the last minute.

  Also, there are government plans for cancer patients. That is, if you qualify. Nevertheless, health insurance is a cost of living. I know people who can buy trucks, cars, houseboats, vacation every year but choose not to buy insurance.

  Believe me I know these are not the people we are talking about such as those who are simply dirt poor and can't afford it or lost their job along with insurance. But these people are part of the overall statistic. I wonder what the uninsured statistic would look like if you took out those who could afford it and just don't want to come up with the money but go to Reno every summer.

  I am not saying it is the same for the uninsured as the insured but in some circumstances there is not that much difference and often the uninsured is better off: If I pay between $850.00 and $1,000.00 a month for insurance starting at age 40 and finally at 51 have a heart attack where I still pay a 5k deductible and the bill is 20K, who is financially ahead--me or your brother? At 51 I would much rather be on a payment plan to cover 20K.

  "If you are not homeless, there are dozens of programs that are available to cover the fees."

  I apologize here--I failed to say if they qualify. The statement is still true but there are many who do not qualify. I will never say that the uninsured will always walk away paying nothing. What started this was some writers were acting as if the uninsured were dying in the waiting room because they could not pay. That is not true.

  You said...

  This is non-sense! I know for a fact! We looked, searched, pleaded, and begged every agency we could find to help him with his bill. The best we got was a reduction in it to about $12,000 dollars. That was by negotiating with the hospital. NO "PROGRAM" OUT THERE WOULD GIVE HIM ANYTHING!

  Now, what if he was in England would he have to wait? Would the drugs be available?

  Sorry that your brother fell through the cracks and that happens. But now take that reduced price and apply it to the above discussion. I would certainly be far better off paying 12k over time than the $900.00 to $1,000.00 a month I have been paying for the past 15 years.

  Also, how often can you cut bills in half? Allstate my property insurance carrier demanded that I replace roofs on my buildings or I would be dropped. This was sudden like a heart attack. The cost was $18,000. Do you think the roofer would say sure just pay $10,000.00?

  Being responsible for your health is part of living.

  Quoting Obama is not very impressive--its all politics as usual. Sure--promise the world--now produce!

  He also said, let's have the rich pay their "fair share" of taxes. Then gave the most wealthy billions of dollars in bailouts.

  To pour gas on the fire, lets raise taxes on cigarettes that impact the poorer groups.

  We commonly call that hypocrisy.

  So--again repeating political slogans is exactly what he wants everyone to do. Notice also that he appeals to the "emotions" and not the intellect of people. I wonder why?

  I don't know where you came up with only 5% will sign up but that's not the issue. The issue is the government is in the position to dominate the health care industry once the door is open. Now that is old news. If the government did what they say they would do--I would be on your side--but they lie--lie--lie.

  Because the government of Italy needs money so badly to pay for social programs, everyone must pay a "food tax." This is what people "in the know" are trying to avoid.

  I agree, universal health care lone will not turn us into a socialist state but it's another nail in the coffin. Change takes time--and most of us know what to look for.

  As I said, read about socialists countries. While many today simply close to bankruptcy or have other serious issues, others are responsible for enslaving its citizens. Also, check the other related bills being discussed in the legislature. Health care is only one of many socialist programs waiting for us.

  Most people gladly support regulated social programs but we already complain that the government is incompetent so--lets give them more of our money? Health care is too big to give to bungling politicians.

  Again, sorry about your brother. I have had a heart attack--it's a rough go.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 10, 2009

  Steve,

  On the personal level, my daughter is classified as having a pre-existing condition. I was offered a job in the US by an American company with no Canadian subsidiary. As a condition of employment I filled out the healthcare coverage application and was denied coverage for my daughter. The only way that American company could retain me was to keep me in Canada and have me come across the border to do work in the US. That meant getting special visa working rights (L1B Working Visa) and 3 to 4 day commutes every week. I was outbound from home for more than 180 days every year. This became an impossible situation.

  I also know a number of families of children in the US with congenital heart disease. Several have maxed out on their insurance through their employers. Those who are wealthy can afford their medical bills. Those who are poorer ended up going to The March of Dimes for assistance.

  Now that my daughter is going to be 25 she will make her own arrangements with her employers in the future. But I cannot imagine any US employer getting coverage for her if she were to work in the States.

  Even the medical travel insurance we take out each year does not cover my daughter's heart and lung problems when in the US.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  Len,

  From my own personal experience I have had jobs with insurance since I was 18. I have NEVER been asked about preexisting conditions and have NEVER had issues being covered.

  I do not think that this is nearly as big of an issue as people paint it out to be.

  I will say that there are some reforms that I think should be made.

  (1) I think that health insurance should be underwritten like life insurance for a fixed term and at the rates based on your health at the time the insurance is purchased. I do not think that your premiums should be able to go up during that term except to adjust for the increase in the cots of health care. This will also make it portable and employers could still pay for a portion of it just as they do tuition or anything else, but it can go from employer to employer with no changes to the price, terms, or policy.

  (2) If there are no preexisting condition clauses, then people would not bother to get insurance until they become sick. Insurance is a shift in risk from one party to another for the payment of a premium. It is not a payment plan for the ill otherwise nobody would be able to afford it. I do think that some sort of preexisting clause should be in place still to prevent this. I do think that someone should not be declined for one illness because of another. This needs to be reworked, but they have to make sure it prevents people from only getting insurance when they get sick. That is no longer insurance. You can not get life insurance for someone that has died either.

  (3) I think that there should be more of a shift to a catastrophic insurance coverage where everyone is responsible for the first portion of their health care costs just as they would be any other expense. This will reduce costs, and is the only real way to reduce costs without rationing of care. I do think that basic well visits and scheduled exams such as breast and prostate should be covered as well.

  (4) I think that Health savings accounts should not be required to be used annually. I think that you should be able to budget money in there, and then carry it over year after year until they need it if they need it. That way they are not hit with a big bill all at once.

  (5) I think that insurance companies should not be able to have a cap on the coverage. If you pay to shift the risk, you should be covered. That is the purpose of it.

  (6) I think that insurance companies should be able to work across state lines. This will increase competition and prices. (Obama voted against this)

  (7) I think that small businesses should be able to pool together to get better rates for their employees. (Obama also voted against this). I realize this is similar to what Obama talked about last night, and I am willing to hear him out on his plan for this. Knowing Pelosi and Reid. This will not happen.

  (8) I think that insurance should e tax deductable for individuals just as it is for employers and those that are employer (Obama voted against this as well).

  (9) I think that there needs to be a pannel set up for Malpractice law suits of doctors that know about the procedures. Otherwise you have every day people that know nothing about it feeling sorry for the people that had a procedure turn out bad but within the normal risk guidelines of a procedure, and it drives up costs.

  I am willing to listen to whatever plan they come up with, but the existing plan is garbage except for a fey things.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Well, it's nice to be so fortunate Steve. Unfortunately too many people think this way 'it's never happened to me..therefore it must not exist'. Time to pop the bubble you're living in.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  Jeannette Barksdale,

  Unfortunately, people in the Uk who have socialized medicine were told the same thing we are hearing and what do they get? Rationing and denied cancer treatments due to expense.

  What we are going to get is worse health care, more expensively, and a massive pile of debt on our children primarily for able bodied people that really should take care of themselves, but find it easier to steal from our children. Right Jeannette? I assume you will be one of them.

  Time to pop that government is wonderful and magical and solves all problems bubble you are in as well.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  I never said the government is 'wonderful' and will solve all my problems. Should we just keep doing what we're doing then? Pretending. Living in denial? You think it will magically fix itself? What we're doing NOW is stealing from our children, and that should change.

  "We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone."

  That's disturbing.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  As an American, I am totally embarrassed at the action or lack of action of the Republicans at last nights speech. They sat on their hands and pouted as things were not going there way. I will follow up later with my comments on last night speech and what is happening here in WA. State. Right now too busy but am interested in hereing what others think.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  The lack of new jobs that will be created because they have less capital because they have to pay for this is disturbing as well.

  Every time the government takes from business and those that create jobs they take away from opportunity for those willing to work to provide for themselves.

  look what the democrats have done to manufacturing.

  Before Cap and Trade they can not afford to do business here.
• 

  Posted by Paul Petry, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  This whole discussion seems to be about whether we should or should not create an entire new government bureaucracy which would be more intrusive into our personal lives than any imaginable CIA conspiracy. As proposed, it would be the largest and most astronomically expensive siphon of our tax dollars, and our grandchildren's tax dollars, than anything in our history.

  We are having this discussion, because like any debate, the issues are being framed by the strongest debaters' rhetoric.

  What if instead of discussing whether we should or should not create this new government health program, we first look at scrapping all the junk that makes our current situation so frustrating that we would even consider letting the government take over?

  One of the many reasons our current system is so screwed up is the myriad of government-imposed regulations that have been concocted by unelected regulators, and by lawmakers who are incessantly lobbied by insurance companies and other special interests.

  Rather than arguing about whether we should or should not create a new bureaucracy, how about asking for deregulation of the current mess so that there can be more competition, greater consumer choice and freedom?

  For instance, currently, you cannot cross state lines to buy your health insurance, even though doing so may be cheaper. In my state, as a business owner you are forced to pay exhorbitant monthly premiums to self-insure, from less than a handful of insurers. My particular insurer just raised my monthly premiums by 30 percent, and this right on the heels of another recent rate hike.

  Intuitively, there should be nothing wrong with being able to shop around anywhere in the country to get the best deal, but regulations require companies to be licensed and regulated to sell to a consumer in each state. Different states have different requirements on what must be contained in a policy. There are over 1300 insurance companies in the U.S., but you may only have access to less than a dozen, and in my state, less than a half-dozen.

  If just this one change could be implemented - and there are plenty more that we should be discussing - competition would increase, prices would gradually fall, and health insurance would be more affordable for more people - without having to create a whole new government bureaucracy.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Oh right, so you'd rather put your future in the hands of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Those companies which you are defending are taking advantage of you.

  Look what George Bush and his republicans did to the country, can't blame that on the democrats. Time to stop pointing fingers, this is time for ACTION. Time to stop being so self-absorbed, we must start working together, and to put ourselves into other people's shoes every now and then, it can a rewarding lesson.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  yes, because the free market says that if the insurance companies do it to much and they develop a bad reputation then nobody will use them and they will go out of business.

  The government iss not like that. They are brute force, and they use and abuse you every day.

  Look at how Obama gave an earmark to Michelle's work for $1,000,000 and it just so happens her salary doubles for the same work. And you worship him.

  Look at the Jack Mertha Airport. It has flights to Washington DC only.

  As far as what the republicans did to this country, I assume that you completely give Obama a pass for Suing Citi forcing them to reduce their credit standards.

  That did great for city didn't it.

  What about Clinton. Sub prime mortgages were relatively non existand before Clinton and rose to 20% of all mortgages under Clinton. He also sued banks forceing them t o lower their credit restrictions.

  All Bush did was nothing. He did not cause the problem but he sure did nothing to stop it. The problem was brewing for decades.

  So you can stop with that Lie. This is not your little group of liberal friends. I am educated and know better.

  I think stealing from our children is much more self absorbed than simply expecting able bodied people to take responsibility for himself.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  You know, I’ve learned a lot chatting with Steven G. and John Voris. No joke guys, I have been exposed to your points of views and it has helped me understand why you feel the way you feel. This doesn’t mean I agree with them, but it does give me a different perspective to look at.

  John, I understand what you saying about ER rooms being our “universal healthcare” but can you not agree with me that there has to be a better way? You can’t say that anyone without health insurance can just pop in the ER anytime they need to. It’s not a doctor’s office. You don’t pay a $25 co-pay and walk out with your meds. Just walking into the ER will cost you THOUSANDS out of pocket for each visit. Why did my brother wait so long you ask? Do you have thousands of dollars to spend every time you need to go to the doctor? The obvious answer is NO. And neither does anyone else and that is why people are reluctant to go. Of course you could just refuse to pay, declare bankruptcy and ruin your life, go homeless, and THEN you can walk in anytime you want. No thanks. Come on… you have to admit that this isn’t universal healthcare and that as Americans, we deserve better.

  As far Socialism goes, I really do understand your concern there. I am by no means a Socialist nor do I want our country to turn into a Socialist country. I own my own small business and dearly love Capitalism. Without it, I would not be able to do what I love and get paid for it! But you have to admit… we need SOME government and regulation. Without it, big businesses would monopolies our country, take out the middle class, put all the money in the hands of only a few business Tycoons, and make the rest of us dirt poor (just like it was in the early 20th century). There has to be SOME regulation, agreed?

  The real question is: Where do we draw the line?

  Well, we know that the all the ADVANCED democracies in the world (that would exclude Cuba!) have universals healthcare for their people. All of them except for us. We also know through many polls and surveys that the VAST MAJORITY of the people there LOVE their universal healthcare and would not allow their governments to ever take it away from them! If our system is so great, how come we are the ones clamoring for major changes to our healthcare system? How come they are not clamoring to have healthcare like ours? Isn’t it obvious? Steve G. needs to do some more research but people are not denied healthcare for cancer treatment in Britain, Canada, etc. Sure, when they first switched over to universal healthcare they had their fair share of problems, but they have since fixed most of them. There are no more super long waiting lines and denial of healthcare for any reason. False emails and fear mongering from insurance companies and the far right have filled people’s heads with non-sense:

  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/englands-and-canadas-health-care/

  http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_health_care_better_in_canada.html

  http://factcheck.org/2009/06/health-care-battle-infomercial-style/

  The point I’m making is that if every advanced democracy provides universal healthcare for its citizens and the VAST MAJORITY of the people approve of that system (unlike here), would it be too much to say that maybe we could draw the “socialism” line outside of an OPTIONAL government healthcare plan that less than 5% of the American people are expected to use?

  Come on… work with me here! Isn’t it the right thing to do morally and socially too? I think we can draw the Socialism line AFTER universal healthcare and have absolutely nothing to fear.

  As far as saying all Socialist countries are going bankrupt because of their healthcare systems, isn’t that a stretch? I mean, there are LOTS of other reasons why these countries might be close to bankruptcy other than their healthcare being the culprit! Need proof? Look at us!!! We don’t have universal healthcare and we almost went bankrupt ourselves!!! Ironically, it was unregulated capitalism that caused it! So you can’t sit there and say that universal healthcare is causing these countries all their pain. Obviously, there are many more factors involved.

  Bottom line – I think its well worth the ‘miniscule’ nudge towards socialism to offer a government healthcare option that would provide healthcare for everyone. It’s the right thing to do morally and if any country in the world can afford universal healthcare for its entire people, it’s us, the richest nation on the planet. It is (in my opinion) the LESSER of two evils.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Hey, Steve, stop putting words in my mouth AND stop with the finger pointing.

  And I will have to agree with you on one point, Bush did a whole lot of NOTHING.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Steve said: "This is not your little group of liberal friends."

  No, and it's not your group of conservative friends either. Biznik is a group of entrepreneurs of all stripes and I would hope that our one common denominator would be our maturity and professionalism.

  This debate has been passionate and for the most part respectful. I've read every single comment and Steve, you're the only one I've seen repeatedly resorting to personal attacks. It detracts from your arguments and it's difficult to respect what you have to say when you don't show respect toward those who are dialoging with you. It's possible to vehemently disagree without getting personal.

  I'm done. I've made my points and I have nothing new to contribute, but I will enjoy listening to what others have to say.

  Vive la difference!
• 

  Posted by Dan McComb, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  I'd like to echo what Naomi said: this has been an excellent, vigorous discussion, the best and most voluminous this community has ever had, frankly.

  I'd like to remind everyone that personal attacks are a violation of the code of conduct you signed when you became a member of this community.

  Biznik members meet each other in person frequently, and I think that's why we've only ever had to moderate 3 conversations in the entire 4-year history of Biznik: we're all a lot more likely to treat people with respect if you might meet the person face-to-face. That doesn't work for Congress, apparently, but it does work here. Let's keep it that way.

  Follow me on Twitter - @danmccomb
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Naomi, I agree with you :). It is a passionate debate and its easy for stuff like this to fly out of control.

  I'm done as well. I've spent way more time than I expected to discussing this issue. But I did learn a few things.

  Later everyone!
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  Heath,

  Just because you said I have to do my research, I pass the same on back to you. before you attack someone, you should probably do your own research.

  UK Says Kidney Cancer Drugs Aren’t Worth the Cost http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/07/uk-says-kidney-cancer-drugs-arent-worth-the-cost/

  NICE attacked as cancer drugs rebuffed http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090826/tts-uk-roche-britain-a8bf950.html

  Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568605.ece

  Kidney cancer drugs under threat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8221720.stm

  Just a thought.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  I would also like to apologize for getting a little more heated about the debate on this issue.

  I am very passionate about what I think is best for this country and i guess I may have gotten caught up in it a bit.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Hey Steve, interesting articles (Last post I swear!). Still, having healthcare that covered everything else except for those drugs would be better than having no healtcare at all, would it not?

  The nice thing about the Government OPTIONAL healthcare plan is that you wouldn't have to use it. You could purchase a private insurance plan if you wanted to.

  But seriously, do you think that currently your health insurance covers these drugs? Have you checked? Insurance companies are notorious for not covering such drugs as well, so what difference would it make?

  You pick... either government regulation or insurance regulation. Personally, I trust the government more. I know that insurance companies #1 motive is profit (not my health). The government may be bloated and full of bureaucracy, but they aren't in it for the profit or the greed.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  The difference is that you can switch health insurance companies if you would like.

  I have a quick video for you:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&amp;feature=player_embedded

  Some times you can not believe what a sales man is selling you particularily when you heard him telling something else to his buddies.
• 

  Posted by Paul Petry, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Sorry, but I could not resist this one.

  Heath Huffman said, "I know that insurance companies' #1 motive is profit (not my health). The government may be bloated and have issues, but they aren't in it for a profit."

  It reminded me of what disgraced former Speaker of the House, Jim Wright of Texas, once declared in his thick Texas drawl: "We just wanna hep you."
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  I suppose that Pfizer's latest (their fourth) guilty plea to criminal violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding drugs, admitting that it had illegally promoted drugs people don't need is not "Greed" but their overwhelming concern for my health?

  Do you really beleive that insurance companies care about your health as well? Tit-for-tat Paul... all Pfizer wants to do is help you!
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 10, 2009

  Having three doctors in the family has always given me an interesting perspective on health care. Since we are talking about the veracity of drug companies, I thought it would be worth sharing this perspective.

  Drug companies do a lot of research that ends up going down black holes. That is they work on a potential drug to solve one problem and find out that the drug is ineffective for the intended purpose. But they discover in trials an interesting side affect. If you know where I am going with this you can stop reading now.

  The drugs Viagra, Cialis, and their ilk are in this category. The drug companies created a disease and got a buy in from the consuming public. The disease was erectile dysfunction. The drug companies made their billions selling these pills to a public that got suckered.

  Now there is a new use of a drug to grow eyelashes although the drug was intended for an entirely different purpose - treating glaucoma. Now Latisse is being sold to women with Brooke Shields as the spokesperson. These women formerly found mascara an adequate solution to short or sparse eyelashes but now there using a glaucoma drug to grow them instead. At $120 for a month's supply that's pretty good business for Allergan the company who created this latest marketing bonanza. And what's so interesting is the side affects when dabbed on the eyelid cause darkening of the lid or eye colour changes in a minority of users. What next, Latisse under a new name to be used for a new purpose, eye shadow and iris colour changes?

  We learn to swallow a lot of poppycock in this world, fed us by advertisers and promoters. This debate has, to some degree, suffered from sweeping statements and pronouncements that come across as dogma and ideology rather than well supported facts. One can dredge old statistics and old video and dress it up as evidence of the present.

  When I began this discussion I laid out my hypothesis very clearly. Without a safety net health system in place my family and I would have been bankrupted by my daughter's medical condition, or, we would have had to make the difficult decision to let nature take its course. Our daughter would have died.

  We were fortunate. We lived in a country with quality health care, with doctors and technology that could intervene and help her. We were fortunate that this help came without financial strings. I know I paid taxes to ensure that this health care was in place. I'm happy to say I would pay taxes anytime for the peace of mind that a health care safety net brings.

  Today my daughter is an audio editor and on air reporter for a Toronto all news radio station. She was able to graduate from university. She was able to live a reasonable life. The health system played an enormous role in this outcome. I will always be grateful for the fact that my forebears in this country, Canada, had the means and the will to implement a national health care program.

  I believe that with a program in place, even the diminished one that President Obama described last evening, Americans everywhere will be better off. Once in place there will be lots of experimentation to fine tune the system. But without it many millions of Americans will live with unsavory choices when they get sick....get medical help or take your chances. If this is a pocketbook decision, the latter choice will be made most of the time. And when the medical situation reaches an untenable point, then they will throw themselves at the mercy of an ER or hospital that may help them survive. I am sure these situations put enormous strain on ERs and contribute to misdiagnosis and malpractice claims. Although ERs are used to dealing with traumatic health situations, they are not the best place to deal with chronic health issues.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 10, 2009

  I thought you said she had to come here to be treated?
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  Oh my..
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  I watched President Obama's address last night. I think its important for everyone to watch them. He is our president, and at times, its important for us to know what is going on in the political spectrum. We saw that last night. The democrats cheering almost everything and the republicans sitting on their hands. It was embarrassing watching the republicans flashing papers and calling the president a liar. The health care debate has been pretty messy. Its' become a huge political pickle tha is running the rish of polarizing the populace. Here is what I think is going on with both sides of the aisle - fear. Fear that the plan wil ruin American. Fear that the plan will cost too much. Fear that the single payer system won't happen. Fear that I won't get what I want because you get what you want. Fear is not usually the best motivator. It can cloud your thinking, and keep you from using faith and facts to guide your decisions. As an insurance agent primarily selling health insurance, I have had mixed feelings about the proposals coming forward and still do but I am open to discovering more about what the plan has to offer me and my clients. I get really tired of delivering double digit rate increases when the group hasn't had a claim and wondering when it will end. Many have allowed fear to be the main motivator in the healthcare debate but need to check their fear and lets see what comes forward. Some people get so hunkered down in their own ideological camps, living in fear, that they don't allow themselves to be influenced or their minds to be open. This type of mindset can cripple your ability to grow as a person. Hear my heart on this, I'm not endorsing a political party. This isn't an endorsement for Obamacare, but I do allow myself the ability to change my mind from time to time, based upon the facts as they come forward and I think you all should too.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 10, 2009

  Ron, you are going to be one busy agent selling a lot of new policies...
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  This is REAL stuff, and it affects people from all walks of life.

  <object height="344" width="425"><param></param><param></param><param></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Y6HMw7rHJs&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Sep 10, 2009

  A good point was brought up earlier that I didn't see addressed.

  Would drug abusers be covered? Would smokers have to pay an additional premium? Drunk drivers?
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  The video Jeannete has shared with us everyone should watch. This is real and many folks have a $1 million or $2 million cap. Sounds like a lot, until you do in fact max it out. An 18 year old client who had both of his arms severed in a bailer and reattached. the tune of his medical expenses this year are $1.82 million of his 2 million cap. The injury occurred two years ago. Up to this time, he was in good health. Freak accident? maybe, but no one knows what will happen to them in the next 24 hours, do we?
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 10, 2009

  Hi Steve, On one occasion when she ran into a problem that affected her growth, and caused her uncharacteristic chest pain we sought a consult at the Mayo Clinic. They confirmed a suspicion that she had a syndrome that was very rare, slipped rib syndrome. When we got back to Toronto some of the recommendations of the Mayo were implemented. The Mayo took a unique approach to the complex of my daughter's congenital problems. When we brought back their recommendations, this holistic protocol was implemented in Toronto.

  All of my daughter's operations, tests, and the long-term care happened here in Toronto.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 10, 2009

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD0vIuPSFdo&amp;eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewhitehouse%2Egov%2Fblog%2FThe%2DSpeech%2DTonight%2F&amp;feature=player_embedded
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 11, 2009

  Ron,

  you commented on the heckler but none of the bashes that Obama was throwing at the republicans huh?

  The last I remembered he could push this bill through without their approval.

  Maybe he should get his own party in line before he spends a speech attacking the republicans don't you think.

  Particularly when you start the speech and ran the election campaign on bipartisanship. Those "lies" Obama talked about have some truth to them.

  I do not think that it was tasteful for either party.

  There are horror stories on both sides. The poor guy with no arms got treated didn't he?

  A Short Course in Brain Surgery highlights the plight of an Ontario man with a cancerous brain tumor who crossed the border to the U.S. to get the medical care that is rationed in his home country.

  http://freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php

  Here are a few other ones:

  http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html

  http://freemarketcure.com/twowomen.php
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 11, 2009

  His speech wasn't an attack, don't know what channel you were watching.
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 11, 2009

  Steve, I don't think you listened to the speach with an open mind. There were no attacks only frank talk that if you are going to continue to tell lies about any of the health care proposals you are going to get called out about it. I think that is fair. If a democrat or republican does this, they should be called out.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 11, 2009

  Jeannette & Ron,

  I apparently was not watching the same thing you were. Either that or you were cheering on the attacks on the republicans and appalled by the comment from Wilson.

  You may want to watch it againwith a little less bias.

  The president could have used his primetime public address to search for a moderate compromise. Instead, he chose to call those who disagree with him liars and to warn that if Congress fails to pass his plan "more (people) will die as a result."
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 11, 2009

  It wasn't a sporting event. I'm pretty sure I was watching the President deliver a firm message. He didn't 'attack' anyone. There ARE a lot of lies and misconceptions floating around, and reasonable so, we're talking about health care reform, that's no day at the park. He had to set the record straight, and he did a pretty good job of doing so.

  a) But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

  Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

  (I hardly call that an attack)

  b) Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

  Did he single anyone one out? He stood his ground, and set the record straight. Plain and simple.

  The only ones who WERE out of line were Joe Wilson and his entourage.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 11, 2009

  he is attacking people that brought up valid concerns about his bill. Do you not see that?

  Death Panels:

  Obviously they are not going to use that terminology in the bill, but a panel decideing who lives and who dies when two of the presidents close hand selected advisors believe on rationing health care by age is scary. Hence the name Death Panels.

  The bigger danger as far as a death panel comes from the powers of the Health Choices Commissioner (Sec. 203(a)) and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Sec. 123(a)&(b)):

  Sec. 203(a):

  "The Commissioner shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year..."

  Sec. 123(a)):

  "There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans."

  Sec 123(b) (1)

  "The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities."

  Covered benefits (Sec 123(b)(4), "including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing"), meaning things like knee replacements and cancer treatments, will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Choices Commissioner (to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (to be appointed by the President [up to 17 people] and the Comptroller General [9 people], without confirmation). There is obvious opportunity here for the Secretary, Commissioner, and Committee to recommend that some condition not be covered, such as dementia or other category-likely conditions. No one is going to pull the plug on grandma, but they could decide they just aren't going to pay for having her plugged in, at all. But let's assume that the conditions are officially covered. We aren't out of the woods yet.

  Title IV, Section 2404, covers the implementation of best practices. It involves changing the Public Health Care Act, by inserting some new sections, including Part D, Section 931(h), which says that in general, "The Director shall enter into voluntary arrangements with health care providers (including hospitals and other health facilities and health practitioners) in a State or region to implement best practices identified or developed under this section." (by the Secretary). The Director is defined in the Public Health Care Act, which I haven't looked up, but I believe the intent is that doctors will be informed of best practices but not required to use them, not even by having payment depend on having used them.

  Voluntary guidelines can be ignored. If the doctors don’t agree with the treatments recommended, they will generally be inclined to ignore them. Thus, no cost savings. Perhaps the government plans to incentivize the doctors by paying them more if they use the recommended treatments? That doesn’t sound like it would promote cost savings, even if doctors are all as greedy as the President has implied, so that they use whatever treatment enriches them the most.

  So if you have invested money in figuring out how to save money and then the recommendations are ignored, you have lost money. When this happens, what stops the government from taking steps to make the guidelines into requirements? To control costs, of course. To keep the health care financial burden from destroying the economy.

  Once the guidelines are requirements, the door is open to the government making recommended treatment guidelines based on political considerations to reduce the number of people in a category that is, shall we say, inconvenient to have around. That would fit the definition of a death panel, I think. It’s more impersonal and more efficient than what the phrase conjures up as a vision, but people would die as a result of the council’s decisions. People would die to save money. Think about that.

  The point is that the worst thing about the bill is that it gives government the power and authority to do terrible things. The bill contains fragile protections that could be overruled later with much less fanfare than the current bill has, when people have relaxed, thinking the fight is over. The only real safety is in keeping government out of the insurance business altogether. No Commissioner, Committee, Exchange, best practices recommendations...just you, your doctor, and your insurance company. This doesn't mean there is no useful reform to be had. Coverage of pre-existing conditions and ensured portability are good reforms. Letting people buy insurance

  As far as paying for illegals goes, The republicans tried on several occasions to place wording in the bill to verify citizenship before being approved for the government plan and the democrats voted it out of the bill. With absolutely no ID requirements as the democrats purposely did, anyone can have access to the plan.

  As far as abortions go, the Republicans tried to put wording in the bill that specifically prohibit it and the democrats pulled it out fo the bill as well. With how deep into the pockets of the special interest group Planned Parenthood the democrats go, and the flexibility of determining policy after the bill is approved, he can say all he wants, but if it is not in the bill it isn't true.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 11, 2009

  I support final Obama's idea to get rid of the "Public Option" on health care and go with customer protection plan
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 11, 2009

  Jeannette, thanks for posting those videos. It is absolutely criminal in my opinion that things like this happen in our country. These situations - especially the one with the little boy - are not a result of anyone being lazy or not prioritizing health care. A $1000 a day for medications? How can anyone afford that, other than the wealthy?? These people did receive care, but the burden of the medical bills is staggering. And in both these videos they had insurance!! I just don't understand how anyone with a heart can insinuate that people like this are suffering because of their own "laziness".

  Steve said:

  "...reduce the number of people in a category that is, shall we say, inconvenient to have around. That would fit the definition of a death panel, I think. It’s more impersonal and more efficient than what the phrase conjures up as a vision, but people would die as a result of the council’s decisions. People would die to save money. Think about that."

  Um, doesn't that sound a lot like what insurance companies are doing now? Certain people are inconvenient to insure, so they drop the policy or deny the claim. People can suffer or even die as a result of the insurance company's decision. People lose health insurance, and thus health care, to save money.

  If the idea of "death panels" is alarming to you, isn't our current situation alarming too?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  Thanks Naomi for bringing that to Steve's attention. That and his earlier statement pointing out the UK healthcare plan rejecting certain drugs to patients (when our insurance companies here don't cover them either) should open his eyes a little (I hope).

  Capitalism and healthcare do not mix. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies will ALWAYS have profit and greed as their #1 priority... not your health. Knowing that people will pay ANYTHING to stay alive or keep their loved ones alive, a capitalist ran healthcare system cannot help but exploit this. It's just the nature of Capitalism. That's why insurance premiums have doubled over the last 10 years. That's why insurance & pharmaceutical companies continue to enjoy huge profits (even during a recessions). It's not lawsuits that are driving our prices up. These companies profits continue to grow astronomically each year. That's called GREED.

  The government has to step in somehow to keep this abuse from continuing. I think a government ran OPTIONAL plan is a great compromise to a 'single payer' system.

  You know that insurance company sponsored TV ad that shows a government politician standing between a patient and his doctor saying the patient can't have a certain treatment he needs? Fear mongering of what 'might' happen? Well guess what? Right now, in the real world, it's an insurance company executive standing between the doctor and his patient with a pharmacuitcal sales rep whispering in the doctors ear.

  How the heck is this better?
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  Really good point in your last paragraph Heath (I guess we both jumped back into this, huh? :)

  I'm feeling kinda bad though about something I said in my last post. I know none of us are heartless and I didn't mean to imply that. We have different ways of viewing this situation, different beliefs about how the world works and how it should work.

  Also, there's been a lot of finger pointing at health insurance companies and while there are some huge problems there, insurance companies (and insurance agents) don't always do the wrong thing. Many times they do the right thing.

  Just wanted to acknowledge that.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  Your right Naomi.... I have nothing against people who work for insurance companies at all. As a matter of fact, I used to work for one :).

  Insurance companies are just following the rules of capitalism like every other company - but that's why the system is broke. That's why healthcare should not be part of the capitalism system.

  Think about it. The objective of every company is to maximize profits and increase shareholders worth. Insurance companies do this by putting caps on coverage, denying treatments, refusing to insure people with "pre-existing conditions", hiking up premiums, etc. Isn't it obvious that their goals and objectives are counter to what we, their clients, want as a healthcare solution?

  Their objective will always be to cover people as scarcely as possible while maximizing premiums as much as possible. Always. That's capitalism. Hasn't the last 10 years proven that beyond a doubt?

  Every other ADVANCED democracy in the world has figured this out except for us.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  I see your honestly trying to see the other side which I commend you for:

  "John, I understand what you saying about ER rooms being our “universal healthcare” but can you not agree with me that there has to be a better way?"

  Yes, there is a better way that I have outlined several times now. It is all about stopping law suit waste and making us subsidize the world.

  1 Adjusted malpractice legislation

  2 Treat illegals then deport them

  3 Make countries pay their fair share for pharmaceuticals

  4 Make countries pay their fair share for our research and development.

  These alone would reduce health care premiums and increase services. We do not need socialized medicine. We need to adjust what we have.

  Heath, nothing is perfect in life. There must be a better way to fuel cars, there must be a better way to generate safe, clean energy, there must be a better way to deal with crime, there must be a better way than the death penalty, there must be a better way to find a spouse, many ask, there must be a better way to make a living--it never stops.

  This country cannot afford to continuously lower standards to include the everyone. Look at education today. Still, how many politicians have said, "education is my highest priority?" Teachers agree it's worse than ever. Then the government wants more money for education--we give it to them--they hire their buddies--line their pockets--and education gets worse.

  When are we going to start smelling the roses? Why do some of us still vote them into office?

  Health care is just more of the same. They want us to be convinced that national health care is the best way to go--they simply have more money to play with. Slap their extended hand and make them work with what we have and stop giving our research and development away.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "You can’t say that anyone without health insurance can just pop in the ER anytime they need to. It’s not a doctor’s office."

  Please, go to your local hospital and ask to talk to someone in admissions. Say your doing a college paper on health care. You will discover that again, IT IS THE LAW.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "But you have to admit… we need SOME government and regulation. Without it, big businesses would monopolies our country, take out the middle class, put all the money in the hands of only a few business Tycoons, and make the rest of us dirt poor (just like it was in the early 20th century). There has to be SOME regulation, agreed?'

  When you have one government controlling all health care you do have a monopoly. Another word is Socialism another is a form of Totalitarianism.

  Government sets regulations for private industries that is recognized by all but is preceded by a mandate.

  That is what a monopoly is--one entity has total control. Big businesses means more than one--that means competition. Competition is the foundation of Capitalism that you seem to appreciate.

  Now, what if a government agent knocked on your door and told you that you had to provide full health care benefits to all of your employees. if you own a business you know how high businesses pay for taxes now. What would you do? How many would be forced to lay-off many employees to keep the few? What right does the government have in telling you how to run your business--because that is what they are doing. You are doing the work, taking the risk but they want to tell you what you are allowed to live on!

  Tycoons are directly and indirectly responsible for the creation and development of jobs and keeping the wheels of capitalism moving.

  Now notice the hypocrisy of many--a football player can make millions a year, actors can make millions from one movie, Oprah can give the entire audience new cars and build a financial empire--that's ok.

  But, when an executive earns millions he is called a rich Tycoon causing the rest of the masses to fall into poverty?? Oprah has more money than most of those called Tycoons.

  The difference--she is a liberal--that's it. No magic.

  When we see this hypocrisy we know what people are really up to. The facts don't matter.

  We have sunken to the point that our sense of identity is a political identity. With the complicit liberal schools, their brainwashing scheme has worked. At least with many.

  A free market enterprise is essential to this country. We will not change with one event as I said, but many of us have seen this "red herring" approach before. Obama is up to rhetorical "smoke and mirrors."

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "Well, we know that the all the ADVANCED democracies in the world (that would exclude Cuba!) have universals healthcare for their people."

  This is where it starts--what do you mean by advanced? Define it.

  Why? China is considered economically advanced but are your advocating we live in a Communist country so we can have universal health care? Does comparing us to China really make sense?

  Of course not and I know you know that. So be careful.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "All of them except for us. We also know through many polls and surveys that the VAST MAJORITY of the people there LOVE their universal healthcare and would not allow their governments to ever take it away from them!"

  When we judge people we consider all of who they are don't we?

  Look at all of what a country does and does not offer. Look at all of our freedom, our historical economic prosperity, how we loan money to countries and never get repaid, how millions of americans can afford to visit other countries and volunteer their skills and abilities, how foreigners visit the U.S. to received university education, how we are the leaders in overall research and development--the list just continues.

  Look at the whole not just the parts. What are you willing to give up? Are you willing to leave your country and business behind to live in a country with universal health care?

  Finally, do you really think people said in the poll, "Oh yes, I really love my health insurance?" As a 20 or 30 year old what he or she thinks of their universal medical plan and guess what--you will get a positive result because few that age are chronically ill. Survey them and yes, it would appear that most are satisfied.

  Now, go survey those 60 and older and see what happens. They will be relying on the plan annually. And only with use can anyone have an educated opinion. Also, look at who is doing the survey and where the poll is taken.

  We are grossly manipulated with the "results" of polls.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  Hey John,

  Are you actually encouraging people to use their ER as their doctors office? Isn't that one of the main reasons why our healthcare costs are so high?

  You never answered my question either about if you would be willing to pay thousands of dollars for each visit (or go bankrupt so you can go as often as you like)?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  John, I also noticed you said this:

  "When you have one government controlling all health care you do have a monopoly."

  That's not true. A monopoly is a private industry or corporation driving out competition for the sake of profit. There is nothing that keeps them in check (competition) so that is why this is illegal.

  A Government ran healthcare system could not do this. It is ran by the people, and can be adjusted by the people, through our democracy. As matter of fact, this has proven to work already. Both the UK and Canada have adjusted their laws since the inception of single payer systems to make their system more efficient and better.

  We the people would have no control of a privately ran monopoly. It's apples and oranges.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  I define an 'advanced democracy' as a country that has successfully embraced and implemented democracy to the point that it is cherished and supported overwhelmingly by its people.

  China is an "advancing" country, but it is not a democracy, and HAS NEVER BEEN ONE(that's the key).

  Apples and Oranges again. You can't compare the USA to China. You can, however, compare the USA to Canada and Britain. They are both advanced democracies. They have had socialized medicine for years and are not even close to becoming anything like China - ever. Their people would never allow such a thing to happen, just like we would never allow it to happen.

  Honestly, talking about China has absolutely nothing to do with our healthcare system. China shouldn't even be mentioned as we are nothing like them as a nation.

  According to your theory, Canada and the UK should be turning into China any day now...that's kind of laughable is it not?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  Are you actually encouraging people to use their ER as their doctors office? Isn't that one of the main reasons why our healthcare costs are so high?

  No I'm not encouraging it rather just pointing out what has been happening for decades. No one needs my encouragement.

  You never answered my question either about if you would be willing to pay thousands of dollars for each visit (or go bankrupt so you can go as often as you like)?

  As I said above, it is a crap-shoot. Which would you do: pay $1,000.00 a month for years and never get passed the deductible or have one 20K event that was reduced to 12K followed by payments. The uninsured is far ahead of the game and received the same treatment.

  Also know that everything is not covered even if you are insured. This usually refers to long-term therapy and everything experimental.

  So, it is not a bed of roses for us either. So, my answer is absolutely yes. No hospital demands full payment for past treatment. And those payments would be far less than my premiums now.

  I hope that did it.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Hi Heath,

  You said...

  "When you have one government controlling all health care you do have a monopoly."

  That's not true. A monopoly is a private industry or corporation driving out competition for the sake of profit. There is nothing that keeps them in check (competition) so that is why this is illegal."

  The notion of monopoly refers to control to the exclusion or other agencies regardless of who they are.

  According to Webster:

  A Monopoly

  Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

  When a government has a monopoly it is usually discussed and referred to in political rather than economic terms, such as nationalism, communism, totalitarianism, militarism etc. But the spirit of the term remains the same.

  Also, you said...

  "Without it, big businesses would monopolies our country..."

  This was our first use of the word and it was rather vague. I had to guess what you meant, since the word monopolize has dynamics effects on all markets.

  Regardless, monopolies exclude competition which tend to reduce effectiveness and opens the door for abuse.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  John, if you take all of medicare (all of the benefits, problems, socialism fears and budgeting issues we have had with it as a whole for the last 40 years) are we better off now as a nation for having it?

  Yes or no?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  John, you said:

  "When a government has a monopoly it is usually discussed and referred to in political rather than economic terms, such as nationalism, communism, totalitarianism, militarism etc. But the spirit of the term remains the same."

  Need I remind you we are a democracy? A government ran by democracy is none of these. A government ran by a democracy is not a true monopoly in the sense that we are 'controlling' ourselves. In a true monopoly, we the people, would not have a voice on how it was ran. That is not the case with democracy.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 12, 2009

  Heath,

  The term "advanced" has been traditionally used by Global research institutions as economic status. This brings China into the mix--in terms of "advanced." This explains the direction I took.

  Sorry, I do so much research that I focused on what I am used to seeing--advanced countries and not advanced democracies.

  "Advanced democracies" can be very convoluted and political in description as most countries function in the grey area.

  We are the only democracy left without national health care but our foundation is very different than other countries. Most importantly, just because other counties do anything does not me we should.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  I guess I'm not as convinced as you that they are that much different than us. Our cultures, ideology, freedoms, and values are very similar to those of Canada and Britain. Actually, they are probably closer to us than any other countries. I personally believe that the healthcare system that is now working for them so well would work just as good for us. What's even nicer is that they have worked out most of the big system bugs for us.

  If only we could have the approval ratings for our healtcare system that they enjoy. Does anyone dispute that the Canadians and Brits are much happier with their healthcare than we are with ours? Poll after poll after poll shows they are? Isn't that all that really matters?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 12, 2009

  Last time I checked, we were the one's in a healthcare crisis... not them.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 13, 2009

  Insurance companies are doing their very best to convince people that this will be the end of a 'good thing' if ANY reform takes place. I've seen a few pretty good videos featuring Canadians who supposedly despise the system they're 'battling' every day. a) these videos are so edited and dramatized, everything is completely taken out of context b) it's probably made and paid for by American insurance companies. It's BULL. What you should be doing is talking to people who have been affected negatively in THIS country. You might be secure in a job and have insurance today, but hey, what would happen if you got a serious cancer that lasted 10+ years, or more. You think your work insurance would carry you through? a) your insurance won't cover every test, every procedure, every drug b) it will run out c) it will most likely leave your spouse with a shit-load of debt once you're gone. Put yourselves in the 'what if' and start talking to people, they might be your neighbor, your cousin, you co-worker. This has to change.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 13, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "Our cultures, ideology, freedoms, and values are very similar to those of Canada and Britain. Actually, they are probably closer to us than any other countries."

  I agree that is how it is TODAY. Twenty years from now we could be just like England and the Brits--but can you guarantee me that our health care won't end up like Italy--South American or China?

  Much of this discussion is about those who are looking at the present and those who know the past and project it into the future. If this county's politicians did what they said--I would agree with you. If there was not a socialist faction trying to take over this country--I would agree with you.

  As it is---we are at war and good Americans are just now realizing what they voted for in Obama. This is the tip of the iceberg. People don't have time to look into the bills and see what is coming along if the Obama plan passes. That is why he getting the support he is now. But to those of us who do, there is a definite pattern of socialist take over.

  Look at the protests in this country. They are not all rich Republicans. They are not even all Republicans. They are people who know history and fear socialism and communism as they should. They are the blue and white color workers of America. There is no conspiracy as the Liberal media wants all to think.

  Health care is only one battle in the political war. If we lose this battle what's next? What are you going to do when they come into your business and take control? What are you going to do when the taxes of daily living exceeds 80%?

  Heath----it will be too late. You cannot undue government--we know that--the protestors know that---do you?

  And I have written here 3 times, ways to dramatically decrease the health premiums and no one has responded.

  I wonder why? Well not really.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 13, 2009

  There's no 'socialist takeover', that's also another 'scare tactic', and people are gobbling it up. George Bush deregulated EVERYTHING and has basically created a free-for-all, which is why we're in the huge the mess that we're in right now. Obama has the unfortunate job of 'fixing' this problem (which will make him seem like a 'bad guy'.) Health care has been on the table for decades, this isn't an Obama socialist takeover. Funny, I was at at a bbq with a few Italians and quite a few Canadians last night. It's MIND BOGGLING to all us that this is such an ORDEAL. It all comes down to who controls us (the insurance companies) and what/how they're willing to sway us in their general direction, and obviously are succeeding. It doesn't make sense to any of us. It's an OPTION plan. ALL Americans will have health care, that's a civilized thought now isn't it?
• 

  Posted by Paul Petry, Seattle, Washington | Sep 13, 2009

  "Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security.

  "The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.

  "At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas. Usually so-called new remedies are not new at all.

  "Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction." -- Henning Webb Prentis, Industrial Management in a Republic, pg. 22, Princeton University Press (1943)
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 13, 2009

  John, I'm confused. You say "there's no conspiracy theory" and yet you're talking about a socialist takeover. Sounds like your trumpeting a conspiracy theory of your own.

  I'm sure you have reasons to be concerned about socialistic tendencies in our country. I have reasons I'm concerned about fascistic tendencies in our country. Others are concerned about some other pattern of warning signs that they see. I'm sure we could all find plenty of evidence to support our positions, but but where does all this fear and concern get us?

  Each side points at the other and says "there's a vast [fill in the blank] conspiracy poised to take over our nation." And the next line is usually some form of "so please send your generous donation today to help us fight [fill in the blank]".

  I can't help but feel cynical.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Hi Naomi.

  Been a while. Glad your here.

  You said... John, I'm confused. You say "there's no conspiracy theory" and yet you're talking about a socialist takeover. Sounds like your trumpeting a conspiracy theory of your own.

  I said...

  Look at the protests in this country. They are not all rich Republicans. They are not even all Republicans. They are people who know history and fear socialism and communism as they should. They are the blue and white color workers of America. There is no conspiracy as the Liberal media wants all to think.

  I said there is no conspiracy regarding these independently driven, locally created, town-hall meetings that have been springing up across the country. They were my sole reference.

  We are all familiar with the 1960's protests against the Vietnam War. They consisted of concerned citizens who recognized the futility of a war plus they had proof of government coverups and media manipulation.

  These people came from a diverse demographic just as the protesters of today. Neither group belong to an orchestrated and focused organization with leaders in place to control motivating information that is common conspiracies.

  The Liberal movement however is clearly delineated with leaders reaping double standards that have been anointed by the liberal media. That is conspiratorial designed to monopolize public access to information. You see there is nothing inherently wrong with conspiracies. There goals and methods define their moral intent.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  I'm sure you have reasons to be concerned about socialistic tendencies in our country. I have reasons I'm concerned about fascistic tendencies in our country. Others are concerned about some other pattern of warning signs that they see. I'm sure we could all find plenty of evidence to support our positions, but but where does all this fear and concern get us?

  This is not a free for all. It's not that everyone's opinion counts. There is available factual information that trumps political sound-bites and campaign slogans. We need to listen to those of both sides of the issue that can demonstrate either a factual analysis that does not fly in the face of common sense or deductive, supervening theoretical realities.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "Each side points at the other and says "there's a vast [fill in the blank] conspiracy poised to take over our nation." And the next line is usually some form of "so please send your generous donation today to help us fight [fill in the blank]"."

  There is a difference--social liberty and democracy was here first. This "New Left" that Ayn Rand wrote about, is here to break down society first by destroying our basic moral values, then come in and heroically save the day by replacing it with socialism. Of course they all get high-paying jobs and their friends are set for life.

  And it has been working. Don't you see it? Maybe not because you have not experienced the false promises long enough to know their false. Do you really want to live in a commune on day?

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 14, 2009

  Seriously John?? Commune? That's exactly the kind of bogus rhetoric I was talking about.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 14, 2009

  John, I totally agree that we should listen to the facts even if they come from groups we at first think we wouldn't agree with. I've learned many things by setting aside my own bias (we all have it) and considering for a moment that my opponent may actually be right.

  I'm curious, when you say "the liberal media" are you referring to the mainstream media? I don't disagree that there are liberal media sources, but I think they are the smaller independent outlets, not the mainstream national media outlets. Those I would call "corporate media". Just my point of view.

  I grew up in a very conservative family and I spent many years believing that the media was controlled by liberals bent on tearing down our nation by assaulting our basic moral values. When I got out on my own I came into contact with other points of view and started reading real "liberal media" from sources like Alternet and Truthout, and I changed my mind about a lot of things.

  You may say I've been brainwashed. I may say you have been. We have to be really careful here too because we could mean completely different things by "liberal", "conservative", and "media", causing a lot of confusion.

  You said there was a socialist faction trying to take over this country and you said that the new left is here to break down society first by destroying our basic moral values. People have been saying this as long as I've been around, and longer than that I'm sure. Has it happened yet? I guess that's a matter of opinion too.

  Yes, I would like to live in a commune. :) (I grew up in a family of ten, does that count?) I'd give it a try at least. I'm sure there would be pros and cons. I participate in a local currency group (not exclusively of course) in my community. Some of us bleeding heart liberals also own our own businesses, appreciate many tenets of capitalism, and aren't actually whackos as so many of the "conservative media" are so quick to label us.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "I'm curious, when you say "the liberal media" are you referring to the mainstream media? I don't disagree that there are liberal media sources, but I think they are the smaller independent outlets, not the mainstream national media outlets. Those I would call "corporate media". Just my point of view."

  The bulk of mainstream media is controlled out of New York. Test it. Take any 3 national media formats and trace them back to who has ultimate control. Where are most of the major magazines published? You will discover that the New England states have the money and control--New York especially generates what others in the media business as the quintessence of liberal extremism.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  naomi,

  You said...

  "I grew up in a very conservative family and I spent many years believing that the media was controlled by liberals bent on tearing down our nation by assaulting our basic moral values. When I got out on my own I came into contact with other points of view and started reading real "liberal media" from sources like Alternet and Truthout, and I changed my mind about a lot of things."

  The real truth lies in the middle. Even I agree with some liberal views. Some who call themselves Liberals however, are basically centrists. So, while I am still opposed to the overall Liberal agenda, which is determined to tear down traditional American values and replace them with their Political values , not everything they stand for is destructive.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "You may say I've been brainwashed. I may say you have been. We have to be really careful here too because we could mean completely different things by "liberal", "conservative", and "media", causing a lot of confusion."

  Good point. There are dozens of texts on both liberal and conservative concepts. While I will never claim to know all there is to know, there are many like me who follow history and at least know how to keep them separate. We are also familiar with what is honest as opposed to manipulating rhetoric.

  One point that gets confusing is defining Liberalism before the 1960's compared to after.

  At the time of WWII, fascism was considered to be the far Right. Today, with the new definition of Liberalism, writers are referring to fascism as Liberal. Political Correctness is a perfect example of modern Fascism.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "You said there was a socialist faction trying to take over this country and you said that the new left is here to break down society first by destroying our basic moral values. People have been saying this as long as I've been around, and longer than that I'm sure. Has it happened yet? I guess that's a matter of opinion too."

  We are all egocentric to a point. We forget that life existed before us. How often do I hear young adults in their 20's refer to a music artist as a great writer when us older members of society recognize the song as one written by Bob Dylan 30 years before they were born.

  Looking at your youthful photo, you are right. Liberals have been doing just that but it takes time. A 30 year period when discussing the history of a country is like a blink of an eye.

  Talk to your parents and ask them what was and was not acceptable behavior years ago. What was moral and immoral in 1960? You were born in the middle of these changes. You can't go back and see the difference, older people can. Ask them for a review of morality in the U.S. at the time you were born. Ask them what it was like when they were children.

  Some of these changes were good but many more are directly responsible for our current struggles.

  Political movements take time. But today's Liberalism generated momentum in the late 60's and early 70's. The date of our birth has a lot to do with this country's current political differences.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 14, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  "Yes, I would like to live in a commune. :) (I grew up in a family of ten, does that count?) I'd give it a try at least. I'm sure there would be pros and cons. I participate in a local currency group (not exclusively of course) in my community.

  Lol--living in a family of 10 is very close. The commune way of life exists still but is considered to be an alternate way of life with many negative aspects. The main drawback is the loss of freedom and personal growth restrictions.

  You also said...

  "Some of us bleeding heart liberals also own our own businesses, appreciate many tenets of capitalism, and aren't actually whackos as so many of the "conservative media" are so quick to label us."

  See, you may be more of a centrists than you think. People who own their business usually resents those who milk the system and take our tax money.

  Those who earned their citizenship the hard way, resented our former Liberal governor Gray Davis for wanting to give illegals recognized drivers licenses.

  Just because you own a business, I know there are many areas we would find agreement.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 15, 2009

  Hi John,

  Thanks for your thorough and reasoned response. I feel like we're getting way off the topic of the article so I hesitate to go into too much further detail.

  I am a centrist in many ways, I'll readily admit that. But on many topics I'm very solidly liberal. I think it's possible to be reasonable, open minded, and still hold some very strong opinions. It seems like there's this idea that those who are "extreme" are extreme on all issues, as if it's not possible to hold what are traditionally considered opposing views.

  I have yet to meet anyone like that. My experience has been that when you sit down and really talk with them, you find more common ground than anything else. Many of my more conservative family members and friends are surprised to find that I agree with them about things like gun control or affirmative action. (It's no surprise that we disagree on issues like abortion and gay rights.) But we can almost always find common ground on what we want for our families and communities. We just have wildly differing ideas about how to reach those goals.

  You didn't really answer my question about what you consider to be the liberal media. I agree with you about tracing news and information back to its source. This is exactly what convinces me that the media is not controlled by any liberal faction (at least what I mean by liberal). I read the New York Times every day and it is certainly not what I would call "liberal extremism". I'm not sure what other media sources you were referring to, since you didn't give any examples.

  I get concerned when people start talking about the "Liberal Agenda" or the "Right Wing Agenda" or any other agenda. I really think this terminology is one giant straw man. I personally haven't found any truth behind any of it. I'm not saying there aren't movements and memes, but agenda to me signifies a much more planned, coordinated effort that just doesn't sustain itself on a nation-wide scale. People are too diverse. More often than not, these "agendas" are created out of thin air by opponents as a fundraising campaign and supported by flimsy evidence. Now, the PNAC - that could be an agenda. (If you're not familiar with that term, you're not reading liberal media. :)

  My youth is indeed a handicap. It's an uphill battle to be taken seriously sometimes because people can always say "well, what do you know." And they very well may be right! I've done as much learning as I've been able to do in my 30 years, and I'll be a life-long learner. That's all I can promise. :)
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Sep 15, 2009

  Paul Petry nailed it in his post above that no one has responded to. The conspiracy John refers to is not an organized one, it's a drift, a trend, based on the plenty we live in. We're so far removed from the importance of freedom that we're letting it be nibbled away like a leaf by a rabbit.

  The media is also drifting. They are liberal because the mainstream is liberal. The founding fathers would like at John and myself and be agast at how liberal we are.

  Ultimately, if government gets control of health care, it will eventually become a monoply. It will be ineffiicent but not overly destructive in a health sense, though certainly in a financial sense. Some people will die who wouldn't under the current system, and many will live who otherwise wouldn't. The trade off in lives supports the move, the loss of freedom and evermore growing in government dependence argues against it. The poor will remain poor, which seems the liberal agenda but isn't really. Their short sightedness assures it, though.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 15, 2009

  Paul,

  You said...

  Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction." -

  Very well said. As you know, to impose an ideal requires despotism, for by definition ideals transcend empirical application. Ideals are meant to function only as sign posts. To implement them requires force as they run counter to the natural inclinations of the human spirit; demanding those liberties.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 15, 2009

  This morning I read an interesting book review in the New York Times. This book is a journalist's journey to 10 countries where he presented a medical problem and asked for a solution. He has documented the experience. The author is T. R. Reid. What is most interesting is that the solution for the author's frozen shoulder produces some interesting physician advice, from shoulder replacement surgery in the U.S. at a cost of thousands of dollars to a regimen of meditation, lentils, rice and massage paid out of pocket in India at a cost of $42.85 per night and producing "obvious improvements in my frozen joint" to the author's amazement.

  The reviewer's last comment about U.S. healthcare is most interesting: "And then there is the insured working person who discovers, with surprise, that health insurance is a for-profit industry, that the industry term for payment is “medical loss” and that the process of extracting payment for a dire health condition can turn into a bizarre game of “catch me if you can.” .... A person’s last days can be spent in any number of ways. But on the phone pleading with an insurer, that’s only in America."

  Check out the article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15book.html?_r=1&amp;th&amp;emc=th and the book: T. R. Reid, "The Healing of America."
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 15, 2009

  Len,

  Please not the New York Times.

  You most likely don't know this but...

  ...that publishing house is the bastion for liberal ideology. They have been sued for fraud and misrepresentation. People from the very top to bottom who struggled with their political bias, quit or got fired over it. Those who remain are dedicated to moving the Liberal machine forward--and journalists around the world, who deal with American reporting know it.

  Court Cases have proven them to be solely focused on political sensationalism at the cost of truth. They have no integrity. I would get more verifiable truth reading The Enquirer.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 15, 2009

  Hi John,

  Good grief!! I'm very aware of how some Americans view the NY Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and other publications.

  This is a book review not an editorial. Can you not separate a columnist writing a book review from your own viewpoint about a publisher's editorial stance?

  Why don't you read the article and the book and then draw your own conclusions without any preconceived bias about the media in which it is placed.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 15, 2009

  When has it ever bothered the Nnew York times if it is an editorial or not?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 15, 2009

  Len,

  You said...

  "Good grief!! I'm very aware of how some Americans view the NY Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and other publications."

  LOL Ok-I am a bit reactionary. I deserve 20 lashes with a wet noodle :). But when it comes to Liberal publications I am always on the defensive.

  That's because they produce the most banal statements today that turn out later to be contrary to how they portrayed the piece and often very damaging.

  Given what the New Your Times is:

  1 Can you guarantee me that the writer and journalist are not both on the payroll?That has happened. They are no stranger to be sued for literary fraud.

  2 Why did the author single out an American case scenario to stereotype the industry and why did New York Times believe it worth reviewing? Or were there other countries just as demeaned?

  3 Then there is--"... A person’s last days can be spent in any number of ways. But on the phone pleading with an insurer, that’s only in America."

  So, this is how all Americans experience healthcare? Is it to be assumed that insured Americans have to always fight for medical care?

  4 Or "And then there is the insured working person who discovers, with surprise, that health insurance is a for-profit industry."

  So, is this really a surprise? Working people don't know that the insurance business is like all others--having to make a profit to survive. Why was this placed here--is it true that Americans are that ignorant--or just another "dig?"

  5 Did the journalist review the writers qualifications or facts?

  6 Then, "...Good grief!! I'm very aware of how some Americans view the NY Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and other publications."

  The New York Times is a Liberal publication, not that "some" people "view" it as such. There has been several in-depth talk-shows on how Liberalism has changed the face and direction of the publication since the 1970's. They have also been losing their once rich market share to more objective sources.

  7 "This is a book review not an editorial. Can you not separate a columnist writing a book review from your own viewpoint about a publisher's editorial stance?"

  When it comes to the New York Times--NO! They are one and the same. There was a time when the New York Times had integrity but that was long ago.

  Imagine if a staff member of the New York Times, hated America and wanted to bring it down, he or she would use the review process to get that point across:

  Select a Liberal author, select the points you agree with, ignore any proof you may be wrong, and herald the book as the greatest event since the printing press was invented. That's all. It's done all the time.

  And why would anyone travel through 10 countries to gather such information in the first place. Why not read independent studies? He did so--not to prove a point but to make one.

  Ok Len, I'll back off but this is exactly the method Liberals have used for the last 40 years to sway public opinion. Your comment was innocent and with good intent. But the effect is, another dubious comment made without anyone being held accountable.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 15, 2009

  John, you're not making any sense. It's one thing to be defensive or reactionary on an issue you feel strongly about, but to me you're coming across as quite closed minded. You accuse "Liberals" of ignoring any proof they may be wrong, but you're kinda doing the same thing...

  But then, of course I'm too young to be able to see things clearly. ;)
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 16, 2009

  Naomi,

  "John, you're not making any sense. It's one thing to be defensive or reactionary on an issue you feel strongly about, but to me you're coming across as quite closed minded. You accuse "Liberals" of ignoring any proof they may be wrong, but you're kinda doing the same thing..."

  While the topics here are very interesting, this forum is quit overwhelming and claustrophobic at the same time. There are books dedicated to explaining the vicissitudes of almost every phase that is discussed here.

  I said...

  Imagine if a staff member of the New York Times, hated America and wanted to bring it down, he or she would use the review process to get that point across: Select a Liberal author, select the points you agree with, ignore any proof you may be wrong, and herald the book as the greatest event since the printing press was invented. That's all. It's done all the time.

  I would equally protest if the reference was lifted from the website of Rush Limbaugh. That was my point. I am a reactionary whenever a very biased source is offered as "proof" of anything.

  When I research a topic (which is the primary focus of my business) I go to at least 5 opposing camps if possible. If that is insufficient I begin exploring European publications. Very often Europe is the only source for independent study--depending on the topic of course.

  So, whenever you use a known heavily biased source like The New York Times or Rush's website, expect that any proof demonstrating that they may be wrong will be ignored.

  So, I accuse extreme liberals and conservatives of ignoring what will not promote their champaign.

  I am also too young: to young to be able to understand what it was like during the depression.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Hi John,

  It's really interesting that you put the NYT in the same camp as Rush in terms of bias and extremism. I've never heard anyone say that before.

  I'm not beholden to any one media source as a bastion of "fair and balanced" reporting (and certainly not Fox News), but of the four sources I have been reading daily for about 9 years the NYT is, I feel, the most mainstream. (The other three are aggregators that pull articles from both American and global media: Alternet, Truthout, and Information Clearinghouse. They definitely take a "progressive" slant.)

  Here's what I get from what you're saying: you're taking issue not necessarily the content (although that's important too) but moreso with the process by which it's gathered and filtered and presented to the public, and the process by which opposition is (or is not) allowed.

  What are some media sources that you feel are reliable and unbiased?
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 16, 2009

  Naomi,

  You said...

  Here's what I get from what you're saying: you're taking issue not necessarily the content (although that's important too) but moreso with the process by which it's gathered and filtered and presented to the public, and the process by which opposition is (or is not) allowed.

  Exactly! Follow the process from beginning to end and learn what is closer to the truth.

  As far as selecting and unbiased publication is concerned: it depends on the political issue, the publishing country, the publication brand, the publication owner, the political climate, the date of publication, the reputation of the publisher and the individual writer, if the publication is mainstream or alternative, if it is an election year, the writers stand in the industry and his or her in-house influence.

  As you can see it takes work.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 16, 2009

  Naomi,

  I placed Rush with the New York Times because the Liberals vilify him charging him with extremism.

  The fact is, his show is about quoting publications across the country written from both liberals and conservatives. That means he is often quoting liberals and not making anything up. That infuriates them.

  Here's another double standard: congress booed and openly attacked Bush for years---where was his defenders? Even if you didn't like him--this issue is the same: respect of the office.

  All of congress knows that Obama's plan will cost us millions in taxes--either today or tomorrow. When he said that it would not cost us "one penny" he lied. Again, even the democrats knew this.

  Wilson called him a lier as you know and they are still talking about it. All the liberal and Democratic publications, television broadcasts, and radio talk shows have been pummeling him. The Democratically controlled Congress has censured him.

  Then Carter says it was racially driven?? I was embarrassed for him. That is nothing more than NAACP driven rhetoric. What an outrage.

  So, now if anyone criticizes Obama they are a racist? Isn't that scary? What--no one is allowed to question him?

  Carter should never be allowed to make any public comments again if he is going to be so irresponsible.

  This is one reason why many associate this administration with fascism. Obama followers know what to say and do by just following the liberal agenda.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  John,

  Your list for determining whether a publication is biased or unbiased includes "the political issue, the publishing country, the publication brand, the publication owner, the political climate, the date of publication, the reputation of the publisher and the individual writer, if the publication is mainstream or alternative, if it is an election year, the writers stand in the industry and his or her in-house influence."

  I see one major factor missing: the content itself. All of these factors are important, but mustn't we also analyze the words and ideas themselves, regardless of our opinion about the author or publisher? Several items on your list are also highly subjective. (reputation? mainstream/alternative?)

  It would be possible to use your criteria to judge a publication without ever having to consider what the publication actually SAYS. You seem to have decided that the NYT is unreliable based on your criteria, so now you can dismiss anything that comes from them without actually responding to the content itself.

  Of course, we don't have time to read everything so we have to apply some sort of filter to decide what to pay attention to (and thus, we have a personal bias). But I think it's imperative to at least try to stay open minded.

  As you may have deduced, I don't care for Rush Limbaugh. (It's not the facts he quotes that bother me, it's the conclusions that he draws and the personal opinion he interjects that seems to me to be way off base.) Should I dismiss him out of hand, or should I keep an open mind? Maybe he makes a good point now and then.

  According to your criteria, I would dismiss him and refuse to listen to anything he has to say ever again under any circumstances.

  You said, "Obama followers know what to say and do by just following the liberal agenda."

  Uh, no one sent me the memo. I don't know what the liberal agenda is. Why is it that everyone seems to know what the liberal agenda is except the liberals? Hmm....
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Again, this was merely a book 'review'. You should read the book before forming such opinions.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Here is what factcheck.org found from Obama's speech:

  http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

  They summed it up by saying:

  "Overall, Obama got good marks for clarity and accuracy from at least one expert who’s sometimes been critical. John Sheils, senior vice president of the Lewin Group, which has analyzed the House bill and health care proposals, told us that there was “a lot of stuff you could quibble with” in the president’s speech, but overall he was “impressed” with the way Obama explained a “hugely complicated issue.” “I think in the main of it, I think he did pretty well.”

  All speeches made by all presidents throughout history have "lots of stuff you can quibble with". The fact that he got such high ratings regarding his "truthfulness" on explaining such a complicated issue is commendable. Instead he get's called a flat out 'liar' by a Republican congressman.

  I'm pretty sure that that outburst was not the result of any 'lies' (as proven above) but more a result of disrespect. A disrespect that probably goes beyond ideology differences...
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 16, 2009

  Let’s learn what is true or what is not/ and coming from democrat’s corner: Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The pro-life Democrat who says he had 40 Democrats who will vote against the health care bill in the House because it funds abortions can't get a meeting with President Barack Obama. Rep. Bart Stupak, in a new interview, talks more about how the pro-life Democrats can hold up the pro-abortion bill, HR 3200.

  Responding to the speech President Obama gave last week promoting the bills, Stupak told the Weekly Standard that "there certainly is public funding for abortion" in the House measure.

  He says the legislation would allow both the public health insurance plan, known as the public option, and federally subsidized private plans to pay for abortions using taxpayer funds.

  Stupak, a Michigan congressman, told the conservative magazine that he has repeatedly asked for a meeting, or even a few minutes on the phone, with Obama but has been consistently refused.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 16, 2009

  Has been mentioned on the FOX this morning as well
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Rush Limbaugh? Are you kidding John? There is no greater source of bias and disinformation from the far right than he (except maybe FOX). Just as Michael Moore does the same for the far left. Both sources feed on the drama from their exaggerations, twisting of facts, and fear mongering.

  If people cannot admit this, there is little hope of any 'open minded' discussions occurring here.

  Just my opinion of course. That's why I try an use organizations that do their best to be non-bias like www.factcheck.org.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 16, 2009

  You are really comparing Michael Moore to Fox?

  look, I am not saying that Fox is not pretty far right leaning but they at least report news unlike the rest of the "traditional media".

  Have you heard much about the vast ACORn scandal on your Obama worshiping stations. Likely not. They are likely forced to now, but come on.

  MSNBC's CEO is forming a 'partnership" with the Obama administration and sells Obama merchandise in their gift shop.

  The obvious Bias of the "traditional" media is more and more blatant every day.

  And "factcheck.org" is not exactly not bias.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Steve G.,

  Every reporter in every organization brings their own bias to to every story they do. There probably doesn't exist any media source that is 100% non-bias. But an organization like www.factcheck.org builds it's whole reputation on being non-bias as possible. I would trust them over any other sources of political news.

  I hope you are not implying that they are a liberal media source as well?
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  At first I thought that all this talk about media was a little off subject. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that our perceptions of the healtcare issue are directly linked to the media sources we use.

  In many ways it is futile trying to change anyone's perception of the healtcare issue once they have made up their mind.

  Perhaps this forum is really for the undecided. As we lob our concerns back and forth, I doubt any of us will change our mind. But maybe an undecided reader will read this forum and it will help them make up their own mind. Who knows...
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  Yeah, I heard about the ACORN scandal on NPR yesterday. That's pretty awful, and they fired those who were in the wrong. Unfortunately ALL THE GOOD they do isn't publicized, but the one bad thing becomes a huge media frenzy (on FOX news.)

  Here's the NPR article:

  text sizeAAASeptember 15, 2009 The community organizing group ACORN is under attack after hidden-camera videos captured its workers giving advice on falsifying taxes to conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute.

  The Senate voted Monday to block ACORN from getting any Housing and Urban Development grants, and Republican leaders in Congress are calling for an investigation. The Census Bureau severed ties with the group last week for all work related to the 2010 census.

  ACORN has dismissed what it calls a concerted political attack, and says it plans to sue the activists who made the videos, the Web site that posted them and FOX News, which aired clips.

  The videos were posted on the Web site biggovernment.com, which was started by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, a former editor for the Drudge Report. They show activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles posing as a pimp and a prostitute while visiting ACORN offices in Brooklyn, N.Y., Baltimore and Washington. The activists in disguise are given advice on how to falsify tax returns so they can buy a house.

  "He [O'Keefe] has clearly made it a point to try and go around and expose some of the failings in ACORN operations, and he's clearly hit a nerve with these videos," NPR's Pam Fessler tells Melissa Block.

  ACORN says it has fired the employees involved, and that the videos show a few bad apples at the organization.

  However, Bertha Lewis, ACORN's chief organizer, says that the videos were doctored. She also said O'Keefe made similar attempts to solicit information on illegal activities at several other ACORN offices around the country, but was turned away. After O'Keefe visited ACORN's Philadelphia office, workers there called police.

  ACORN is a community organization that works mainly in poor communities around the country. It has faced controversy in the past. During the 2008 presidential election, ACORN faced charges that its workers widely submitted fraudulent voter registration forms.

  "They've had problems with this kind of thing before, where they just don't have very well-trained people, in a lot of cases, providing their services," Fessler says.

  ACORN says the allegations against it are part of a larger effort by conservatives to discredit the group because it deals mainly with Democratic voters.
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  factcheck is not biased, it tells it like it is.
• 

  Posted by Zoran Lozo, Thousand Oaks, California | Sep 16, 2009

  I share a belief of many, that liberalism is rather a result than a cause. People have been taught for a long time not to see what is in front of their eyes. The most shocking example is ACORN. All people see what arise but they are told that it is the illusion. And they eagerly agree and trying to find the answer, not the obvious one, but what they thought was "correct." That's how political correctness works.
• 

  Posted by Paul Petry, Seattle, Washington | Sep 16, 2009

  "A hammer is a marvelous tool, but only for the right job. If you took an expensive watch to a repairman and he pulled out a hammer, you would be extremely nervous, if not aghast. Maybe he could find a way to do some good with that implement, but you would be more focused on the damage he could cause.

  "A similar scenario is playing out in the public anxiety over health care reform. Plenty of people think the existing system is in need of repair. But when they hear about expensive plans that require a more powerful and intrusive federal government, they fear that what is best in our approach to medicine may get smashed in the process..."

  -- see "What's Scary About Healthcare Reform?" by Steve Chapman, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/16/whats_scary_about_health_care_reform_97901.html .
• 

  Posted by Rob Swanson, Orlando, Florida | Sep 17, 2009

  "A disrespect that probably goes beyond ideology differences..."

  I have a suspicion what this is implying, and it's exceptionally sad. The idealogical differences are HUGE. A naive, inexperienced person was put into the highest position in the land making poor decision after poor decision. That's enough. It isn't necessary to go beyond idealogical differences.

  Jimmy Carter - the worst president in living memory and perhaps longer - proves it. When he made dumb decision after dumb decision based on naivete and inexperience, conservatives didn't respect him, either. There was nothing "beyond ideology" there and there isn't now.
• 

  Posted by Naomi Whitmore, Yakima, Washington | Sep 17, 2009

  Heath, I think you're right - any discussion of this nature eventually comes around to media, sources of information, and worldviews.

  Zoran, I agree with you about how we often try so hard to find the answer we think "must" be correct instead of accepting the facts that are staring us in the face. Even if the Emperor has no clothes, those who really want to believe he does will convince themselves that he does. I think this is a tendency everyone has to guard against. We tend to notice information that supports the view we already hold. I know I'm prone to this, anyway.

  I'm going to try, once again, to bow out. Very interesting conversation everyone. I apologize if I contributed too much to going off topic, but hopefully it's all for the best. :)
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 17, 2009

  Sorry everyone, but I'm going to have to try and bow out as well. I wish I had more time to devote to this but between my business and family there is little time for else.

  I can honestly say the different perspectives people have posted here have made me think about things I never considered before. Though my opinion hasn't changed much, I feel I am more aware of many of the concerns other have.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 17, 2009

  Naomi,

  "I see one major factor missing: the content itself. All of these factors are important, but mustn't we also analyze the words and ideas themselves, regardless of our opinion about the author or publisher? Several items on your list are also highly subjective. (reputation? mainstream/alternative?)"

  The issue was bias. The content is the affect of bias and not the cause of bias. If I wrote a biography of Obama without bias, the content may not be accurate but it will not have been intentionally inaccurate due to bias.

  Bias is subjectivity by definition therefore such factors must be considered.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 17, 2009

  Heath,

  You said...

  "Rush Limbaugh? Are you kidding John? There is no greater source of bias and disinformation from the far right than he (except maybe FOX). Just as Michael Moore does the same for the far left. Both sources feed on the drama from their exaggerations, twisting of facts, and fear mongering."

  Thank you. I mentioned Rush for the exact reason you site.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 17, 2009

  Jeannette,

  "Yeah, I heard about the ACORN scandal on NPR yesterday. That's pretty awful, and they fired those who were in the wrong. Unfortunately ALL THE GOOD they do isn't publicized, but the one bad thing becomes a huge media frenzy (on FOX news.)"

  Remember Hilter did good also. Has history been unfair to him?

  Explore the private life of any serial killer and you will discovery they to had friends and contributed to society on some level.

  Everyone associated with ACORN knows the good they did but does that really trump the evil?

  Notice what the Liberals have been doing to Wilson for calling Obama a liar. Wilson said "one word" (and he was right) and look what he gets----the double standard is disgusting.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 17, 2009

  Heath,

  "Every reporter in every organization brings their own bias to to every story they do. There probably doesn't exist any media source that is 100% non-bias. But an organization like www.factcheck.org builds it's whole reputation on being non-bias as possible. I would trust them over any other sources of political news.'

  I agree it has thus far been the least unbiased.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 18, 2009

  Since this discussion has rapidly moved from health care to political ideology and on which side of the political spectrum some of us reside, I thought it would be useful to turn to the subject of private health insurers so that we could maybe apply some of our vitriol and verve to the health care debate.

  I'd like to begin with the story that appeared on Monday, September 14, in TheSunNews.com, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

  Here is the link: http://www.thesunnews.com/575/story/1068536.html

  I chose to present this subject from this particular article because if I had chosen the New York Times version it might have been seen as biased and transparently ideologically driven. Whereas I believe The Sun Times has a more conservative readership and therefore may be more acceptable as a credible source.

  What is interesting about this article is the question it raises about the moral responsibility of insurance companies in dealing with clients on a health care related issue. It is this type of reaction, canceling a policy because a patient has an undesirable diagnosis, that makes one raise questions about the real motives of private insurers. It is certainly not to provide care but to create a capital pool that expends less than it takes in so that it can report profits to its shareholders.

  What is so sad is the only way this person could get justice, having been diagnosed with HIV, was through the law courts and through multiple trials and ordeals. At $10 million this settlement exceeds substantially the cost of treatment by a factor of five.

  In a public payer system this is not a conceivable outcome. No one enrolled is denied coverage. No one enrolled gets coverage rescinded because of a diagnosed medical condition that might require significant costly intervention.

  In any case, based on my review of the highlights of the proposed new health care bill that is coming to the Senate floor, and I'm sure, a similar one to the House shortly, the health care reform isn't for a single payer system so I'm not sure what will happen if someone enrolls in the government option and then is discovered to be sick after the fact. Let's hope that a government inspired insurance will not end up doing the same thing that Fortis Insurance tried to do - not honor a policyholder's rights to coverage.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 18, 2009

  Len,

  Thank you for taking the time to explore sources and get this to us. I always follow court discussions as such reporting is prima facie credible: we know this happened.

  "In a public payer system this is not a conceivable outcome. No one enrolled is denied coverage. No one enrolled gets coverage rescinded because of a diagnosed medical condition that might require significant costly intervention."

  I agree with all you said however,

  1 in most socialists systems you cannot sue the doctor. Would the U.S. citizens go for that?

  2 while everyone is covered we're back to old issues of the waiting lists, drug availability, quality of care etc.

  3 And let's be clear--the insurance company is in the business of making a profit--they have no moral obligation only a contractual one. However, the government is just as heartless.

  4 Len, when you talk about one payer care systems please remember to include other countries besides Canada and England. Canadian standard of care is far superior to many and we are comparing overall systems of care. South America is also in the mix for example.

  We have no guarantees that our health care system would resemble Canada years down the road. So, we don't have a model to look to with certainty.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by John Huddleston, Bellevue, Washington | Sep 20, 2009

  I tend to be an economic conservative but the cost for US healthcare is just out of hand. I pay over $600 a month for lousy insurance for my family, and we are all healthy. Although I'm covered for catastrophic events, my insurance company doesn't generally contribute a dime. The main benefit is that my doctor charges the insurance company significantly less than he would charge me if I paid cash.

  John Huddleston

  Huddleston Tax Accountants

  CPA tax preparation in Seattle Bellevue Redmond
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 21, 2009

  It is in my comfort zone to talk about the Canadian single payer system because that is the system under which I live. Interestingly, I have friends in The Netherlands and my brother, who is a doctor, worked in that country some years ago. The coverage under their system appears to be far more comprehensive than the system here in Canada. Whereas Canada covers catastrophic injury and medical issues in totality, The Netherlands extends that coverage to include pharmacare, eye glasses and I believe dental. Would it were so here in Canada.

  In looking at the level of care provided by Medicare in the US, or Military Veterans medical coverage, I would think that a single payer system or government option would more resemble that type of coverage. Certainly if I were an American I would be asking specific questions about what is included in the coverage provided by a government option. I would also want to know at what price?

  I think the challenge for most Americans in understanding the implications of a government offered option is to do a fair side-by-side comparison among competing plans. Then Americans could make up their own minds.

  A government option is just that, you can opt in or you can choose alternative care through a for-profit insurance company.

  Is this creeping socialism? No more than Medicare and Medicaid, and no more than social security.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 21, 2009

  len,

  That may not necessarily be the case:

  Sometimes you have to listen to what politicians say among like minds and not just when they are trying to sell to the masses.

  Obama saying that his goal is a single payer system:

  “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” said then-Senator Obama

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

  Barney Frank:

  Single Payer Action:

  Why shouldn’t we start with single payer new?

  Barney Frank:

  Because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.

  Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) says that a single payer system is part of the " conversation" on health care in the House.

  www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/24/democrat_single_payer_is_part_of_the_conversation.html

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc

  Eric Massa of New York says that he will vote “adamantly” against the interests and opinions of his constituents regarding voting for a single-payer healthcare bill in Congress

  Questioner #1: “So, if there was 80/20 in the room, and there was a single-payer bill…?

  Democrat Massa: “I will vote for the single-payer bill.”

  Questioner #1: “You will vote for a communist bill, even if it meant being voted out of office?”

  Democrat Massa: “Listen, I will vote against the interests.”

  Questioner #1: “So why should we pressure your room? We should be pressuring the caucus?”

  Democrat Massa: “I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.”

  Questioner #2: Inaudible

  Democrat Massa: ” I will vote against their opinion, if I actually believe it will help them.”

  (Elitist maybe)

  You have to wonder what their true intentions are.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 21, 2009

  I've tried to stay out of this for awhile, but I can't resist. I really get tired of people playing the "socialism" card as if we would become China's next province if we adopted a single payer system. We can afford it. We as a people cannot afford to continue as we are. We must make the changes to reach a system that allows each and every citizen health care when we need it, without having to declare bankruptcy.

  All the screaming regarding lower payouts to the doctors misses the fact that the insurance companies now pay the doctors/hospitals much less than we have to pay if we are forced to pay cash. Where is the rational in that?

  I really wish we (populace and politicians alike) could put aside politics and just get real! Enough game playing. We live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Societies advance or decline. There is no holding pattern; just like any other living organism they evolve (which is just another way of saying they change). There are 2 things in this world that are constant: #1 God, #2 Change. Period.
• 

  Posted by John Voris, Carmel, California | Sep 21, 2009

  Len,

  You said...

  "A government option is just that, you can opt in or you can choose alternative care through a for-profit insurance company.

  Is this creeping socialism? No more than Medicare and Medicaid, and no more than social security."

  What option is there for Medicare? What option is there for Medicaid?

  We have many social programs but they serve as safety nets for people--they are not the main course of action. The government is involved with segments of the population and regarding a very specific issue.

  Eventually health care will not be an option and everyone in congress knows it.

  John Voris - Motivation Analyst
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 22, 2009

  Protect Insurance Companies PSA Hollywood speaks out to help insurance companies

  http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa
• 

  Posted by Ron Copple, RHU, LUTCF, Auburn, Washington | Sep 22, 2009

  Oh Jeannette thanks for sharing this site. This was funny. One of the best comments in it was insurance companies need to make huge profits so they can afford to provide health insurance for their employees. What a satire, but oh so true. As an insurance agent selling health insurance I can promise you we don't make the millions, but the executives do. We must make a change in our health care system so people can afford to get coverage and everyone needs to have the coverage, not just those that are sickly. The immortal age groups have to get the coverage as well and that seems to be one of the places the politicians are having a problem with.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 23, 2009

  People sure like to paint the health insurance companies as evil, but when has the Government EVER done something more efficiently than the private sector?

  The lats report that I saw concluded that a similar program in the public and private sector costs 3 times more in the private sector.

  The CBO said that our health insurance costs are going to go up under the bill and not down.

  But some people choose to ignore these realities.

  Medicare and Medicaid ended up costing 9 ties the projections.

  Hopefully this bill will not do the same.

  It should be a crime to pile so much debt on our children primarily to pay for able bodied people that simply are not taking responsibility for themselves and their conscious decisions in life.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 23, 2009

  People sure like to paint the health insurance companies as evil, but when has the Government EVER done something more efficiently than the private sector?

  The lats report that I saw concluded that a similar program in the public and private sector costs 3 times more in the private sector.

  The CBO said that our health insurance costs are going to go up under the bill and not down.

  But some people choose to ignore these realities.

  Medicare and Medicaid ended up costing 9 times the projections.

  Hopefully this bill will not do the same.

  It should be a crime to pile so much debt on our children primarily to pay for able bodied people that simply are not taking responsibility for themselves and their conscious decisions in life.
• 

  Posted by David Losh, Seattle, Washington | Sep 24, 2009

  I'll take that because it's not true.

  Medicare, medicaid ended up costing 9 times more because it is the dumping ground for the uninsurable. If you are truely sick and out of options to pay for insurance premiums then you end up with Public Assistance.

  Ask the simple question of how are you going to pay your insurance premiums if you are deathly ill? I can go into the long history spanning twenty plus years of medical insurance dumping but you brought up another point.

  The CBO with the release of one of the last set of proposals was finally able to cost savings. The CBO even said in it's original report they were unable to calculate savings without a plan . The last savings estimate was $400 Billion.

  Last but not least is that as one other gentleman pointed out 4 out of every 10 dollars flows through government programs. There are many things the government does well. Police, fire, roads, dams, Veterans Administration, Medicare, medicaid, Farm subsidies, oil industry protections, just to name a few.

  When the goverment steps back like with the auto industry or banking things seem to go haywire. The private sector has a tendency to take every advantage and the American people kind of like that, I don't know why.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 24, 2009

  David,

  I think that you have a few things wrong with your analogy.

  (1) Police and faire are state, city, and municipality.

  (2) The government can not build dams right now because the democcrats have caved to the environmental groups. Also, most dams are past their anticipated life span and are in dire need of repair. Many would not stand up to minor earth quakes, and are in dire need of repair. Another bad example.

  (3) The VA is a mess. They had rats, or did you miss that. They have been shut down because congress was arguing over budget proposals. There are not any new hospitals for the veterans, look at all of them in the private sector.

  Do you recall the huge scandal at Walter Reed a few years ago? The MOLD found in rooms with the patients? the peeling paint - the bad plumbing - and the lack of sufficient workers to care for the number of patients?

  Is that really what you want?

  What about the Native American Federal Health insurance plan. Have you done any research on that one at all. Scary that that might be how your children are taken care of all so we can give able bodied people insurance when they could get it themselves if it was their priority.

  (4) Medicare and Medicaid, are you kidding me? Remember 9 times what was origionally estimated. Huge amounts of fraud. Doctors that will not take it. Give me a break.

  (5) Farm subsidies and oil industry protections. Did you really go there. really.

  (6) The last I checked the banks and the auto industry are two of the most heavily regulated aren't they. The Government has been beating manufacturing up from every side, and they are continuing with card check, cap and trade, tax increases, law suits, and on and on. Why do you think that all of the manifacturing jobs are fleeing this country.

  (7) As far as banks go, Clinton and Obama forced sub prime loans on banks if you will remember correctly. They set the prices and the underwriting standards of mortgages, yet banks get the bad wrap from those that do not have a clue. Yes they are not innocent, but before Clinton started forceing them on banks sub prime loans were about 1% of mortgages, and after Clinton they had climbed to 20% of all mortgages. Look how well that went.

  A pure capitalist system would not have allowed that, that is for sure. Otherwise, why would Clinton and Obama have to sue them to force them on them.

  Also, in case you did not know, every time the government steps in our children are exploited getting burried in piles of debt, those that are responsible are punished, those that made conscious decisions in life to not be productive get rewarded (for the most part), and opportunity is stolen from the hard working people that want to realize the American dream and work hard and become successful. That is what happens every time you take money from businesses.

  You are out in left field just a bit here.
• 

  Posted by David Losh, Seattle, Washington | Sep 25, 2009

  Actually I'm a fiscal conservative, a conservative in general.

  The stories about VA are true. VA hospitals are woefully underfunded and limited in the services they provide. That system should be expanded to include any one who serves in the military not just Veterans of Foriegn Wars.

  Of course doctors want to make as much money as possible so they refuse Medicaid and Medicare which have caps based on a national rather than regional cost comparison. That can be corrected.

  The only point is that our government does many things right. If you are saying to leave business alone and that will fix things that would be contrary to what I know about human nature.

  The Clinton Obama sub prime loan point is lost on me. What I know is that securities sold by the creation of sub prime loans made a lot of people extremely wealthy during the Bush years.

  George Bush, both Senior and Junior, are international embarassments. I voted for both, Senior once, until he raised taxes, Junior twice because there was no choice.

  Junior has done a lot of damage to this country. A lot if not everyhting he touched needs to be unwound. The health care issue is just one thing that went terribly wrong under the Bush administration. Banking, auto, insurance, stock market, and financial markets not to mention international trade all need to be severally brought into line.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 25, 2009

  Steve G: Have you forgotten your basic high school history? What happened in the 1800's before the federal government began regulating big business? The "Robber Barons" were not called that for no reason. It would be really nice if people could control their greed, but unfortunately that isn't the case. I believe in making a profit from my efforts, but greed ruins a good thing.

  It was not the VA that had the problems, but Walter Reed Army Hospital (run by the Army) that had the mold and all the other problems.

  I have used the VA system during times I have been without health insurance, and found the system to be as good as private doctors. They try to do a good job, but they're not funded enough for the huge volume of people they see.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 28, 2009

  What makes you think that a National Health coverage would not be equally underfunded?

  Have you seen the Nnative American Health Insurance (Government run)

  What about Medicare (underfunded)

  Medicaid (Underfunded)

  Social Security (Underfunded)

  Also, I am not an anarchist. I do think that there should be some government regulations, but the government causes far more problems that is fixes, that is for sure.

  I know my history quite well actually, I think that you are the one having trouble with history as well as what is going on in present times.

  More and more of our economy is coming under the control of the government and the government does nothing well.

  Capitalism has created more wealth and raised the standard of living for everyone and no other system on earth has done a better job.

  As we shift towards socialism, where has it been successful?

  Why would you trust a governnment to get bigger and stronger and steal more money from our innocent children by pileing more and more debt on them, when the government does nothing as well as the private sector.
• 

  Posted by Steve G, St. Louis, Missouri | Sep 28, 2009

  David,

  my point of the sub prime post was that sub prime loans were the main issue causing our current situation. If you look at the percentage of sub prime loans in relation to traditional mortgages they were relatively non existand prior to Clinton. Clinton pushed them because he though everyone should have a home. When Banks refused to lower their credit standards, Clinton's administration sued them forcing them to do so. Obama also sued Citi. barney Frank was integral in making it to where people did not have to put hardly anything down on their home increasing the chance that people that were not fiscally responsible were able to get the loans. Mmany people when their homes dropped in prices simply walked away because they had nothing in them. If a bank takes a $100,000 loss, It takes them $10,000,000 to make up for that loss, so you can see the impact.

  Now people blame the banks, andn then run to Obama to fix the mess he was integral in creating. People think that the government needs to fix the problem that they were key in creating.

  I challenge you to cite one thing that Bush did or one policy of is that was more damaging than what I mentioned above.

  You can not.

  Bush brought the issue up 16 times trying to rectify it, and here is a video showing the reaction from the democrats in congress"

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs

  The government cause far more problems than it fixes.
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Sep 28, 2009

  I have promised to faithfully represent Canada's public payer health care system to all of you so that you can get a better understanding of both its strengths and weaknesses.

  On Monday last week my wife was told by her family doctor that she needed to have a colonoscopy to rule out the possibility of a malignancy in her large intestine as a contributing factor to an outbreak of hives. Normally, in Ontario, scheduling a colonoscopy is done by the family doctor who refers the patient to a specialist. Normal got us a 5-month wait for a consult. To my wife that was absolutely intolerable and she did something about it. She emailed the assistant to the doctor in question and told her the circumstances. The result was the test was done on Friday morning and the results showed a benign polyp that was removed.

  The cost to us was parking at the hospital for the day and me grabbing a bite to eat in the cafeteria.

  Why I am sharing this with you is for two reasons.

  1. Every system that works on the basis of supply and demand, and our health care system works this way, creates bottlenecks. Doctors may be overbooked. Assistants may not recognize the level of urgency in a faxed request. The hospital schedule may interfere with OR and lab bookings for doing a procedure. You can be a victim of these inefficiencies or you can take "the bull by the horns" and make sure that you act as your own advocate. That is what my wife did and she broke through the bottleneck and got the test she needed.

  2. The cost to us for this test involved only a small out of pocket expenditure: $21.50 for the parking for the day and $10 for food. It is true I lost a day of consulting work but I gained peace of mind when my wife's doctor came out and explained the findings and her recommendations.

  For Americans wrestling with the issues of a public option or private health insurance, these are not concerns for me or for other Canadian citizens. Our provincial and federal governments are probably no more efficient with money than your state and federal governments. And yet as inefficient as our governments are, our costs to deliver health care on a per capita basis are much lower than yours.

  I suspect if we can make it work here with a public payer system then Americans can come up with a public payer option that should function reasonably well. Your worst case can be emulating the Canadian system. Your best case could be coming up with something even better. What you don't want, at least from my perspective as an interested observer, is to continue to accept the status quo as the best solution.
• 

  Posted by David Losh, Seattle, Washington | Sep 29, 2009

  George Bush junior invaded Iraq as an answer to an attack on the World Trade Center. He made that a major theater of opereations. His military advisers bombed infrastructure in Iraq with shock and awe. The military once on the ground surrounded the compound where Sadam's sons were and bombed them, then put the bodies on display. George made the speech using the rise in home ownership as proof our economy was sound. You have just provided evidance in your youtube links that George knew there were major financial market problems in the country, but never addressed Congress on the matter or included those comments in his State of the Union. Obama on the other hand did convene Congress on the very important topic of health care.

  I can go on for a very long time about what Bush Senior and Junior did to this country.

  Let me however address your assertion that lending practices caused a global economic melt down. It is actually the face value of the Notes that were traded that are the problem. If Real Estate sold for fair market value there would be no problem with who was paying on the mortgages. Property prices became over inflated, far in excess of any financial reasoning. The thought was that inflation would wipe out the defeciancies, but as you have shown inflation was never possible.

  Your bio is incomplete and you state you are in the mortgage business if I recall correctly. Our government has the ability to regulate itself out of this crisis but it will take some proactive measures which Obama has advanced.

  When I was younger the thought of a large government concerned me. Now that I'm older I have seen Congress voted out, a Bill Clinton elected, a Ronald Reagan address the American people in person on television explaining the budget process, and the election of an African American. Our government works. Our Constitution has no provisions for capitalism. It does clearly state provide for our common defence and promote our general welfare.

  As an American I find insurance companies the enemy, along with banks. Large corporations have tried to become the new nobility. As Americans we don't like that.

  Any time some one claims an insurance company is better than our form of governmet I wonder if that's even possible.

  Now you said under funded and I agree. There is no place in the Constitution that calls for a standing army on foriegn soil. For that kind of money I know we can fund a lot. Our military is comprised of our militia for common defence. I take that duty very seriously. Our government's charge is to regulate, but not prohibit that militia.

  Plainly put we spend way too much on military nonsense. If we want to kill Osama Bin Laden let's go over to Afganastan and do that. All this shock and awe kill them from the air is just a waste of money. Let's go kill him and spend the savings on health care, Social Security, and the American people.
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 29, 2009

  Len,

  I find it rather amusing how some people keep preaching the horrors of what will happen if the government were to run healthcare. About how screwed up it would be because the government never does anything right. About how we will all turn into “socialists” like in China or South America. How we could never afford to pay for it.

  Yet everything you have explained and shown to us about Canada’s healthcare is completely contrary to all of this! Here sitting before us is reality (not theory!): Canada has had Universal Healthcare for decades now and it is adored and fully supported by the vast majority of its people. Canada is not even remotely close to becoming anything like China. The evidence is overwhelming that the people in Canada fully support their healthcare way over anything that we have here in the U.S. And they do it at HALF the cost!

  After you filter out all the disinformation from insurance companies and special interest groups and actually talk to people from Canada (like Len) that have been hit with a catastrophic family medical issue versus those in the USA that have been hit with a catastrophic family issue, it’s a no brainer. Sure, there are few people that might complain (there always are) but they are very much a minority.

  Go talk to Ron Copple’s 18 year old client that lost both his arms in a combine accident. Ask him how he feels about paying for all his medical expenses from here on out after only one year of surgeries and reaching his insurance cap. Ask him if it’s worth doing so to protect us from a ‘theoretical’ socialist takeover. Tell him he’s a scrub and deserves to be broke and bankrupt for the rest of his life because he didn’t save up enough money when he was 16 to cover the millions more of medical care his insurance won’t cover. It’s absurd. The only people I see complaining about universal health care and socialist takeovers are those who have been fortunate enough not to have had a catastrophic medical incident within the last 10 years. Those that are ignorant of what their insurance plans REALLY cover because they have never had to really use them. I bet you every single one of them would sing a different tune if it was them that lost both their arms in an accident or had to pay $1000 out of pocket each day for drugs to keep their son alive (not covered by their insurance).

  I sit hear and read Len’s words and they amaze me. How great it would be to be able to live your life without fear of losing everything. A catastrophic medical incident could hit any of us at anytime. I am more than willing to pay my fair share for such a program in case I (or my family) ever fall victim to such an unfortunate (and unforeseeable) incident. To have a government plan that works WITH you versus an insurance plan that is always working AGAINST you. Like Len said, they keep tweaking and tweaking their government healthcare plan to make it better and better. While our insurance companies keep tweaking our coverage to make it worse and worse.

  The Canadians know this and that is why they will never get rid of universal healthcare. Like I keep saying, they aren’t the ones in the middle of a healthcare crisis – we are!
• 

  Posted by Heath Huffman, Seattle, Washington | Sep 29, 2009

  Len,

  The last two paragraphs of your last post sum it up perfectly. I have to re-post them:

  ---

  For Americans wrestling with the issues of a public option or private health insurance, these are not concerns for me or for other Canadian citizens. Our provincial and federal governments are probably no more efficient with money than your state and federal governments. And yet as inefficient as our governments are, our costs to deliver health care on a per capita basis are much lower than yours.

  I suspect if we can make it work here with a public payer system then Americans can come up with a public payer option that should function reasonably well. Your worst case can be emulating the Canadian system. Your best case could be coming up with something even better. What you don't want, at least from my perspective as an interested observer, is to continue to accept the status quo as the best solution.

  ---

  All we need to do is look north to see what would REALLY happen with a public payer system. Not the rhetoric and disinformation from the far right or special interest groups.

  Indeed, you should "Ask a Canadian!". Just make sure you are talking to a REAL Canadian and not someone who knows someone whose best friend's sister's boss lives in Canada and they said.... blah, blah, blah...

  Real and valid research into any complaints against the Canadian healthcare system will reveal a very small minority of people unsatisfied with their current system (unlike here in the USA).
• 

  Posted by Jeannette Barksdale, Seattle, Washington | Sep 29, 2009

  Real Canadian here. Most Canadians are very satisfied with their health care system. There is the odd time when a person has to wait for a procedure, but those instances are so random, depends on where you live, and what you need. My mother had (yes had, she's now in remission) lymphoma for 12 years! 12 years of constant chemo, radiation, ultrasounds, mri's, CATscans, minor surgeries, blood transfusions, etc. etc. etc. She never had to wait for anything. SHE DOESN'T OWE ANYTHING. They still have the luxury of owning their home, and she's cancer-free. 12 years of cancer care, plus a bone marrow transplant, and all that entails, would have racked up the bill in the millions. There's NO WAY that they could still dream of owning their own home in States, they would be BROKE. Ask any Canadian living in the States what they would do if they became very ill, chances are they will tell you they'd move back in a heartbeat. It's tough enough to imagine how much $$ we'll be needing in order to have a somewhat secure retirement, if you get cancer, or any serious illness, you can kiss that security goodbye. It's not right. Everybody has health care in Canada, no matter what. Joe Blow millionaire is as much a human being as Joe Blow down-on-his-luck living out of a van down by the river, and they both get treated as such.
• 

  Posted by George Beltzhoover, Atlanta, Georgia | Sep 29, 2009

  Does anyone know why we, as Americans seem to so easily fall prey to the rhetoric spouted by special interest groups that play the "socialism" and "patriotism" cards so quickly when confronted with a reality check like the healthcare issue?

  The Senate committee has just defeated a "national option" in the healthcare plan. Where is the logic? Where is reality? We just have to look north to see how a national healthcare plan plan can work. No one who has direct experience says in their postings that it is perfect, and I haven't read any posts that say they'd trade that system for the mess we have bought into here! The Canadians are anything but socialists.

  I think we have for so long been lulled into a dreamland by the hypnotic drone from our corporate puppet masters and their puppets (the politicians) that we cannot see reality when it is right before our eyes.
• 

  Posted by Stephen Lachuta, Seattle, Washington | Oct 23, 2009

  Thank you for sharing a touching and difficult story. For most people they can't get past the goverment side of it all and forget that it's actually about taking care of the people. I am a Canadian living and practicing health care in the US. Both systems have their plus and minus' but overall the Canadian system is much much stronger and better. My parents and family are all still and Canada and my father has had alot of health problems over the last few years. He was diagnosed with Parkinson's. And I agree fully that when things are catastrophic that the Canadian system is amazing and it can be frustrating when it's non-life threatening. My dad had to wait a few months to get the CT scans and such he needed but the thing is that is he would of gotten them the next week or wait a few months it really didn't make any difference on his care.
  All too often when it comes to health, everyone wants it NOW. Unfortunately that's not how life is. My parents would never of been able to get the tests my dad needed in the US with the jobs they had. There is no way they could of afforded the $3grands plus for them. So thank you for putting your story out there. ALot needs to be changed and hopefully your story will help people realize what is really there. ~Dr. Steve
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Oct 25, 2009

  Hi Dr. Steve, The debate on creating a public option for health care in the US comes as a bit of shocker for most Canadians. When I speak with acquaintances, and people I meet in my daily business calls up here they just don't understand why the issue is seen by any American as negative.

  We here in Canada grumble about some aspects of our public payer system. We know it has flaws. We know that many doctors feel challenged by it although just as many if not more are happy to work within the system.

  I often wonder, and having read so many of the comments posted here, if this says something about the difference between Americans and Canadians. America is founded on rugged individualism. It is plainly stated, not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence, that the individual's contract with government is to ensure the pursuit of "happiness." In Canada our founding document speaks of peace, order and good government, a statement that evokes collective rights and government responsibility. Maybe that's why we expect government to deliver services while many Americans see menace in any government intervention that interferes with their individual rights. Mind you, a public option for health insurance is just that, an option. I think Canadians would consider an option not good enough.
• 

  Posted by trisela jam, bpl, Madhya Pradesh India | Nov 19, 2009

  Thanks for such a useful article . I liked it and also encouraged others to view this post. Medical Travel Insurance
• 

  Posted by Len Rosen, Toronto, Ontario Canada | Nov 19, 2009

  Hi Trisela, Thanks for your positive comment. In revisiting this article and the multiple dialogues it encouraged I hope it served to pave the way for a better understanding of the fundamental principle of basic health care as a human right. I would be most interested in learning more about health care as it is practiced in India. Is there a safety net for the entire population of the country, or is this state determined? What kind of common health policy is in place in your country?
• 

  Posted by Shaun Lawrence, Irvine, California | Dec 06, 2009

  Your article made me think and I do wish everyone would have health care. The problems with Canada's system as some touched on above is that if its not life threatening then you have to wait and wait and wait. My Grandma had to wait 2 years for a heart operation and was somewhat miserable those 2 years. Its a hard issue because very costly in US, but service and needs are met 10 fold.
• 

  Posted by Elvis Arias, Jersey City, New Jersey | Nov 07, 2010

  great piece thanks for sharing and keep them coming
• 

  Posted by Gary Franke, Bellevue, Washington | 1 week ago

  I sell Health Insurance in Washington State and everyone is GUARANTEED INSURABLE. Problem solved.

  92% are accepted for Regular Coverage and the 8% that are higher risk simply pay more (since they are using more coverage).

  Obamacare is an overreach and there are much simpler ways to reform the system than to totally reboot it. Honestly, there are some good things in Obamacare, yet "Insurance" will now be a Pre-Paid use plan, as everyone has "mandated coverages". Im a guy and will NEVER use Maternity coverage and have to pay more.

  Policies should be priced by Age, Sex, Smoker and Risk Catatory.

  www.achieve-alpha.com/unbiased-overview-of-obamacare

  Gary Franke