News-Record.com

And yet more redistributionist socialist claptrap from the people's republik of chapel hill.
Can smell the winds of change, can you Anthony? A better world coming? An end to the nasty capitalists?
Hows about we stop confiscating half of America's working income so we can afford health care? When people want and can afford a product, the free market will rise to fill the need.

Sounds like Anthony is suggesting that we need to socialize medicine. What was the last thing that got better when it was turned-over to the government to run? I am not excited about having some Washington bureaucrat make decisions on what health care I can have and not have.

Anthony, are you prepared to go have your next major surgery in Cuba? Anyone that falls for Michael Moore's half truth, half lies deserves the consequences.

Either one of you fellows seen SICKO yet?
I haven't, but folks who have seem to be quite motivated to work for change. I'll reserve comment until AFTER I've seen the film.

Both of you, BO'R and ORR, deliberately miss the point of the letter. The point is, there are over 46 million people living in the "land o plenty" who have no health care coverage. Apparently both of you have insurance or you would not be so apathetic about the plight of those people who are not insured.

What neither of you think about is the fact you are going to pay for this one way or the other. Therefore, it seems to me you would want to be a part of the solution, have a say about the ways in which it will cost you the least. Is it cheaper to have your tax money pay for the uninsured's health care outright, have your premiums and deductibles go up to cover the cost of the uninsured or will some sort of program like MA is working on be less expensive? (I know that program is a long way from being perfected yet but at least they are trying.)

As it stands now, all of those of us who work and pay taxes are bearing the burden of the uninsured. MA is proposing working with insurance companies to come up with a less expensive plan that the poor can buy themselves. Even if the taxpayers have to subsidize (which they are not proposing) a portion, would that not be better than paying it all?

Insurance companies are among the richest businesses in the world. As a result, they write the laws regarding that industry. Much like pharmaceutical companies being allowed to write their own policies regarding drugs. By taking some of the power away from these gouging companies more people could afford both.

Then again, you can continue to beat your heads against that same brick wall, rail against paying taxes like AC, Ellis and neocon in some foolish attempt to eliminate taxes or you can accept reality and work within the system to try to help the uninsured become insured without outright paying their bills.

Yvonne, thanks for that reasonable posting! I am sure you speak with authority on this.

ORR, I am fascinated by this comment; "I am not excited about having some Washington bureaucrat make decisions on what health care I can have and not have." So, are you happy to have some non-medical dolt at some insurance company tell your physician the best course of treatment for any ailment you might have? Where is the difference? And trust me, that is what is happening in the US today (has been for quite a while)!

Please enlighten those of us on a better way than the comment above.

Shalom

"And yet more redistributionist socialist claptrap from the people's republik of Chapel Hill."

You're right, Bill .. we'll let the folks with the biggest wang take all they want - capitalism at it's best.

Here's a idea. Let's discover a cure for cervical cancer. Have it mandated by Congress that all girls get the vaccine, and that way we'll save, oh perhaps 425 lives a year .. the free market rising to fill the need with just a little help from the government and no discussion about how abstinence is already 100% effective.

Capitalism at its best, from Big Wang Inc.

“When people want and can afford a product, the free market will rise to fill the need.”

“Both of you, BO'R and ORR, deliberately miss the point of the letter. The point is, there are over 46 million people living in the "land o plenty" who have no health care coverage.
Apparently both of you have insurance or you would not be so apathetic about the plight of those people who are not insured.”

The first quote above is partly true and partly untrue. The insurance companies will fill the needs of those who can afford insurance, but the insurance companies have no interest in the individuals who want but can’t afford the insurance. The free market has failed them as Yvonne points out in the second quote.

It will be difficult to sell socialized medical care as long as there are people who take the attitude of I’ve got mine, screw everyone else, it’s not my problem. They are unwilling to have the Government manage health care as they already do for Medicare and Medicaid. The people who are left are the low paid working class.

Some states have started to push for affordable mandatory health insurance. The price will be lower so most can afford it and if so, must carry it. These types of plan are patterned after the health care plans offered to Government employees. The program offers several insurance companies to choose from with different amounts of benefits and coverage. Another advantage of the Govt. employees’ plan is that coverage can’t be denied for a pre-existing condition. (Currently, if you have a serious pre-existing condition, it is virtually impossible to get coverage and people do die.) What makes the program work is the large number of people covered. This gives the group an enormous ability to negotiate reasonable prices. Medicare and Medicaid have always had this leverage. The private insurers then put pressure on the doctors, hospitals, etc. to lower prices. The free market is still operating but the ability to price gouge is reduced. Notice that in the new Medicare Drug Coverage Plan congress passed, the insurance and drug companies had inserted a clause that the Government could not negotiate lower prices. This benefits no one but the insurance and drug companies. The new congress is seeking to change this but Bush has promised to veto it.

Even the most cynical should recognize there is a problem and affordable coverage is not available for WORKING people who don’t have company benefits (which is becoming more the rule than the exception).

LastVOR,
As Darryl might say, "You speak my mind".

Sorry, but Michael Moore has lost any and all credibility he ever had after watching him go into seizures about Bush for the last 6 years.

Michael Moore was a pretty good documentary film-maker until he decided to work for the DNC.

NP:

Michael Moore et al tend to pique my interest. I never take them verbatum but listen to discover what they are talking about. By going through the open gate and doing some independent digging I usually learn something .. not directly from them but while they often overstate or jump further than prudent to some conclusion, there is value in their commentary.

Nit,
Go rent Farenheit 911. Then assume that only 25% of it is true. Then tell us about President Bush.