News-Record.com

Oh J. Michael what have thee done. Hell hath no fury like the scorned Clintonista's. And to rile 'em up on a Monday morning too. Just you wait and see how many of them pile on . You 'll think it's a another Waco with Reno in command.

Another great lte!

"it wasn't Franklin D. Roosevelt's socialism that finally rescued the United States, it was our re-energized industrial infrastructure"...

These tidbits of truth do not sit well with those who worship the state, Mr. Crouch...nor with those who write the history books. FDR is portrayed as the second coming, in order to warp the minds of future generations.

However, it WOULD be interesting to see what those WH interns looked like with Hill doing the hiring...

Now I know who neocon really is!

It hadn't entered my mind that some, perhaps many, who are thinking of voting for Hillary are believing they will get Bill back. Dear Lord! how scary. Not the thought of Bill coming back because he really was a fairly good president and would have been better if the press hadn't made such a fuss over his womanizing. I frankly didn't care who he played with or where. History should have taught us that presidents are alpha males with the typical alpha male behaviors. It seems odd in this time of the public's total disregard of moral behavior we suddenly demand it in our leaders. Like is this hypocrisy or what?!!

No, my concern is that people actually believe Hillary will allow Bill any say at all in her administration. The lady will kick his bums out the minute she is elected! She is only using him to get in the White House and then by by Bill. Think about this people! Brenda Bowers

"Our government has never created and managed a program well nor spent a dollar of our taxes without wasting half. So the idea of turning over one-seventh of our economy to government bureaucrats (as Hillarycare would do) is the wrong answer."

Amen, however it's not just our govt. Mike.

For those here who want govt. health care, consider Canada, with only 1/10 the population of the US.

Ever heard of the "Wait Times Reduction Fund"?
It's a $4.5 Billion (Ca) fund for provincial initiatives to reduce wait times for medical treatment!!

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

I watched the Dem. debate, all of them were bragging about whose govt. run health care program covered more than the others.

Edwards is the scariest, mandatory insurance or the IRS comes after you:

"Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market). "

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-garnish.html

Do you pro-govt. health care types really want this?

"So, Willie, do the right thing. Vote for someone who is not crooked..."

And who would you propose -- Rudy G? What's the Republican's answer to the fantasy world of the Democrats? Let me guess: "anybody but Hillary", right? But if we are so stupid/blind that we apparently can't get out of our own way, then why don't you tell us all for whom we should be voting? I

f the government spending trillions sticks in your craw, then how did we get in this minefield we're in? I believe it was because of people like you who voted for our current Prez. So which of the "heroes" from the Republican side will light the path out of our current situation? And how will they do it without raising taxes? I'm no economist, but I think borrowing over a billion dollars a day is impractical.

So how does Neo-con, who considers it the re-energized industrial infrastructure as the tool that finally rescued the United States .. feel about the present DR-energization of America's industrial infrastructure?

For clarity - "service sector" <> "industrial infrastructure"

==
Mr. Crouch: Our government HAS created and managed a programs well ... you just chose to ignore them. Social Security is a great example: Created and managed well - with less than 1/2% used for admistration (contrast that to your 401k) .. the problem is those OUTSIDE the agency that spent the surplus. Consider the parent that habitually robs the childrens' piggy banks .. not the child's fault.

==

Dan - what part of " ... being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it." do you not endorse?

Once the people can vote for the government to give them sustenance as a right it is only a matter of time before the human nature of greed demands more bread and circuses.

Once the gross income of the government falls below that which is necessary to support the masses the system will fail and the people, incapable of the normal responsibilities of Free Man to provide for themselves, will suffer and endure hardships that make today's worst welfare cases look like paradise.

It's coming.

Hugh and Dan,

I agree.

When recession really kicks in and we don't need all that extra illegal labor anymore, what happens then?

Edwards is scary but they all are when they start talking government-run health care.

See, here's the problem. When the democrats are blasting Republicans instead of stating their own agenda they really do better. Sad but true. When they start talking about what they themselves would do if elected (besides end the war in Iraq) they do the Republican party a HUGE favor.

Here's what they'll do:

Increase personal income taxes. A lot.

Mandate government health care.

Legalize gay marriage and make it a crime for anyone to publicly speak against it.

Give terrorist the same rights that citizens of this country have.

Here's what they won't do:

Get us out of Iraq.

Deal with the illegal immigration problem. They'll actually make it worse by giving them driver's licenses.

As bad as the Republican candidates are, nothing is scarier than Hillary, Hussein, or the Breck boy with a democratically controlled congress.

I'd love to see a true independent run this year.

Here’s what I really think.

It's all partisan BS -- the kind Nixon practiced from 1968 through when he was thrown out by his own hubris: one is either a "Radical" or a "Law and Order" member of the "Silent Majority".

You want to subscribe to this shit - go for it - God Bless American Freedom .. But I suggest we are being played like a harp and most are to lazy to dig into stuff - just grabbing on to the first bit of hyperbole that supports their own prejudice.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=0006980B-6143-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&print=true

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0c5a28da-e67f-4607-a1cb-6d6115fd7c5f

Let's see .. OMG CANADA's up 3.6% .. "after inflation and population growth are taken into account."

vs.

"Health costs are rising an average of 18% a year for the 172 million Americans covered by health insurance plans."

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=435&v=5173966911

hugh:

"Once .. government [fails] to support the masses the system will fail and the people, incapable of the normal responsibilities of Free Man to provide for themselves, will suffer and endure hardships that make today's worst welfare cases look like paradise."

Isn't that kinda what Engels said, circa 1847?

" .. the lower and lower prices of industrial products brought about by machine labor totally destroyed, in all countries of the world, the old system of manufacture or industry ...

"In this way, all semi-barbarian countries, which had hitherto been more or less strangers to historical development, and whose industry had been based on manufacture, were violently forced out of their isolation ... Countries which had known no progress for thousands of years – for example, India – were thoroughly revolutionized, and even China is now on the way to a revolution.

"In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will have repercussions in all other countries.

" ... wherever big industries displaced manufacture, the bourgeoisie developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the bourgeoisie took political power into its own hands and displaced the hitherto ruling classes, the aristocracy, the guildmasters, and their representative, the absolute monarchy.

"The introduction of free competition is thus public declaration that from now on the members of society are unequal only to the extent that their capitals are unequal, that capital is the decisive power, and that therefore the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have become the first class in society.

"Free competition is necessary for the establishment of big industry, because it is the only condition of society in which big industry can make its way.

"Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution."

==

Kinda funny in an ironic way, huh?

"Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie.

"By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others."

Social "security" is an oxymoron, and the greatest Ponzi ever perpetrated on this country. Those who will retire in the next 5-10 years will likely not live long enough to get back what they've paid in, let alone get a decent return that money the government has mismanaged for up to 40 years. Put the same money in a simple money market fund (where no one has ever lost a penny) and 40 years later see how much your money has compounded.

Medicare, is going to be broke before Social "Security." Anyone who thinks that Medicare is a great idea simply knows little or nothing about Medicare. When in was introduced we were told it would cost 10 billion dollars after 10 years. The actual cost was 110 billion, a mere 1000% miscalculation. You cannot survive on Medicare without an expensive supplement plan because of the high deductibles and co-payments, not to mention the many physicians who won't take new Medicare patients. Oh, I sell Medicare Supplements!

Medicaid is bankrupting many states, particularly the large "blue" states who think the pockets of taxpayers are deeper than Everest is high. Yeah, the government is doing a great job!

"It's all partisan BS "

Damn right it is. And the S is flowing from the top 3 candidates of both parties.

I like the S flowing from the D's less that the S flowing from the R's.

But it's getting hard to tell the difference.

So, more than likely, I'll be voting for neither.

By the way .. speaking of the S flowing from the R's .. and from one of their top 3 candidates .. did you know "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [a.k.a. Mormons] considers Muhammad, along with Confucius, the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, to have received a portion of God´s light and that moral truths were given to them to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=bbaba1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

"OMG CANADA's up 3.6%" vs "Health costs are rising an average of 18% a year for the 172 million Americans covered by health insurance plans."

You've been busy JDR. Nothing about 13th century mongols?

I'd rather pay the 18% increase and actually get the service rather than the govt. telling me I have to wait X amount of months for services and deciding what I get or don't get.

If a govt. of 30 million people (Canada) has to spend $4.5 BILLION to combat excessive wait times then Houston we have a problem. Imagine what a govt. of over 300 million people would have to spend.

I've never said our system couldn't stand major improvements, but handing it over to the govt. to manage isn't the answer IMO.

Look at what Edwards is saying, insurance will be MANDATORY and proof thereof must be filed on your tax return lest the IRS rat you out to another govt. bureaucracy who will track you down and garnish your wages.

I gotta at least give Edwards credit in being forthright in his plan.

Is there anyone who supports this?

Dan,

Help me understand your position, s'il vous plais. If you agree that the system is flawed, what is the alternative that you are satisfied with? From my point of view, people dying because they can't afford coverage is unsatisfactory. People getting expensive treatments at the ER because they aren't insured and can't be turned away, is unsatisfactory. I pay for that and so do you.

So what is the prudent solution? I know neocon will suggest that the uninsured should be turned away, but I'd prefer to live in a society where people don't bleed to death on the sidewalk in front of Moses Cone. So what is the reasonable answer?

"Imagine what a govt. of over 300 million people would have to spend."

Well Dan, considering we spend about TWICE what the Canadians do .. there's your answer.

Howie - I thnk somehow we need to dial the Insurance Companies in - cause they're the one that're going to get away with the bank.

Consider this: The insurance Companies alread pick and chose the best clients - that is they set their rates based on your probability to get sick.

Do they ask if you smoke on the application? I rest my case.

Now with some kind of g-man Insurance - those that don't qualify for the cheap insurance get dumped on the public sector ... what a deal for the insurance companies and hospitals that now must absorb the "Charity" costs - yea let's dump them on the tax-payer.

One more thing - the next president will NOT be able to unilaterally declare Universal Health Insurance ... which would be a good reason for all to split your vote between red, blue and purple.

I'd rather pay the 18% increase and actually get the service rather than the govt. telling me I have to wait X amount of months for services and deciding what I get or don't get.

"Unmet medical needs during the past 12 months were reported by 13 percent of Americans and 11 percent of Canadians. Among those with an unmet need, Americans were more likely to identify cost as the primary barrier to health care (53 percent of unmet needs cases), while Canadians cited waiting for care as the primary barrier (32 percent of cases). Among the 11 percent of American respondents who were uninsured, four out of every ten reported an unmet medical need. Likewise, only 43 percent of the uninsured respondents said they had a regular medical doctor, compared with 80 percent of total American respondents and 85 percent of Canadian respondents."
http://cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/firstjointsurvey.htm

Dan you're straining at gnats & swallowing boulders.

At 18% the cost of healthcare doubles every 4 years whereas 3.6% would take 20 years to double. Compared to the subset of Americans that have insurance I suspect that Canadians have to wait on average longer for some treatments but that's only part of the story. On average they seem at least as happy with their health care as we are with ours. The annoyances are just different.

Again JDR, I'll pay twice as much for better, timely care.

Thanks for the question Howie. BTW it's s'il vous plaît, but we can chat on the less formal level so s'il te plaît is fine with me.

I don't think anyone wants to live in a society where people are left to die outside the ED.

I'm not a health care or insurance expert but here are a few things I would suggest:

1) Provide 100% tax deductions to those who purchase insurance. If I get it on my mortgage interest then I should get it on something more important as health insurance.

2) Streamline the health care savings acct. idea and offer tax deductions for those who participate. As it is now, people with insurance don't hesitate using it excessively as they don't get a bill, save a small co-payment. If they have an account to contribute to and withdrawal from they would be more conscientious of their use of the system.

2 a) As a corollary to this, make cheap insurance available to cover expensive catastrophic and/or chronic situations in which insurance kicks in. Lesser expenses are paid out of the account.

3) Put a cap on litigation awards which will lower malpractice insurance and impoverish trial lawyers like John Edwards.

4) Allow individuals to form large pools of insurance buyers to negotiate discounts with insurance companies. This is currently done with large employers but not for smaller employers and the self employed.

5) I don't know exactly how this one would be accomplished, but foster the idea in people's minds that they are responsible for their health, not some bureaucrat in DC. As long as we have govt. run schools then more emphasis on nutrition and lifestyle education would be appropriate. Leave out the condoms and cucumbers however.

6) For the truly poor, establish low cost clinics for basic health care needs in order to discourage expensive ED visits that could be handled at a clinic. Moses Cone has done this. Moses Cone is a client of mine. They told me the clinic is growing in popularity, but many do not know it exists and report to the ED for minor stuff. The ED will treat them but make them aware of the HealthServe Community Clinic for future visits.

http://mosescone.com/clinic.cfm?id=1244

Provide 100% tax write offs on the expenses of such clinics for hospitals who provide them.

7) Eliminate govt. cow towing to Big Pharma. The Medicare drug plan is a massive example of this abuse.

These are a few suggestions. Let me know what you think.

"The annoyances are just different."

Cheap, fast, good. Pick any two.

Cheap and fast but not good.
Cheap and good but not fast.
Fast and good but not cheap.

Ever live in a socialist country Rufus? I have. Give it a try some time. It's very revealing.

This may surprise you but I considered myself a liberal until 1) I spent a year in a socialist country and 2) I started a career and paying taxes.

Dan,

Double your health care cost a few times. Eventually even a well off fellow like you will feel it.

I agree with your cheap fast good logic. If Canada=cheap & good ( & universal) & US=fast&good (& spotty) that is a start for a conversation. Really Dan we can't keep going the way we're going. I don't know if Canada is the model we need but the US model is going to break under its own weight in a few years.

Agreed it's far from perfect Rufus. My insurance went up $80/month for next year. It's my third largest expense after taxes (By FAR #1) and the mortgage.

Did you read my suggestions in response to Howie's question? I don't know all the answers but it's a start.

Gotta go watch Andy.

Thoughtful Ideas, Dan .. a devil's advocate response:

1 - "don't think anyone wants to live in a society where people are left to die outside the ED."

Agreed

2 & 3 "Provide 100% tax deductions to those who purchase insurance" .. "Streamline the health care savings acct. idea and offer tax deductions for those who participate."

Both sound plausable .. also sound pretty tax-and-spend Democratic, don't cha think?

4 - "As it is now, people with insurance don't hesitate using it excessively as they don't get a bill, save a small co-payment."

A freakin' men. There is no incentive beyond personal discipline .. which your wife may have but most soccer mom's don't. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

5 - "Make cheap insurance available to cover expensive catastrophic and/or chronic situations in which insurance kicks in."

Are the tax-and-spend Democratics sponsoring that bill too?

4 - "Put a cap on litigation awards .. " I'd be very fine with impoverished trial lawyers .. just know you're addressing only 3% of the overall costs. I would address the issue through highly progressive taxes, but hey, I rarely wear red ties.

5 - "Allow individuals to form large pools of insurance buyers to negotiate discounts with insurance companies."

I'm cool with that .. does sound a little "union-ish" though .. has the Country Club Crowd signed off on that idea?

6 - " ... foster the idea in people's minds that they are responsible for their health, not some bureaucrat in DC."

A freakin men again. You might want to look into the steroid-fed happy-meal your kids eat.

7 - "more emphasis on nutrition and lifestyle education would be appropriate."

OK - but only in Govt. run schools? BTW - cucumbers are delicious (I know that's not what you meant).

8 - "... establish low cost clinics for basic health care needs in order to discourage expensive ED visits that could be handled at a clinic."

Sounds like a good idea.

9 - "Provide 100% tax write offs on the expenses of such clinics for hospitals who provide them."

What color tie are you wearing today?

10 - "Eliminate govt. cow towing to Big Pharma."

The original Hilary Care program did exactly that .. and but "Big Pharma", working though Krystal, put the nix on it. Look it up.

11 - "The Medicare drug plan is a massive example of this abuse."

Yep. Blue Tie Dan ... but I agree.

"I suspect that Canadians have to wait on average longer for some treatments but that's only part of the story."

Anyone have a story of a Canadian who die - or even suffered greatly .. because he had to wait a bit for wart removal?

Here is some recent news JDR, only 6 weeks old in fact. That's much shorter than the average 18.3 week (over 4.5 MONTHS) high (2007) wait time in Canada to have surgery. Seems the situation is getting worse despite the Canadian govt. pledging $4.5 billion (ca) to REDUCE waiting times!!!

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

The article didn't specify types of surgery JDR, but methinks they weren't all wart removals. Maybe a few bunions in there too eh?

No one has come out in support of the Edwards plan I mentioned twice. Any takers?

I've been away for awhile. So my question is this.

Where is "The Liberal Canadian". His voice of un-reason would sure be of little use now but it was fun to watch him squirm.So did you guys finally drive back under the rock or did he go back home to Canada? Or was that him that hi-jacked Hillary's office in N.H. ?

I've been wondering the same overtaxed. It's really weird having a civil conversation for a change. Haven't seen smearing insults in weeks. In a strange way I kinda miss the lunacy.

My theories: 1) He had a stroke from his intense anger and is recovering in Baptist Hospital; 2) His wife threatened divorce unless he gave her some and helped with the kids instead of blogging; 3) he became a closet conservative or; 4) he was run over by a truck.

I do like your N.H. guess as well.

T L Canadian is visiting London again.
Here he is entering a tea room in Piccadilly circus.
http://www.retroduck.com/cart/shop.cgi/display=07-0268

Good one Neo however I think this is the shirt I will get him for Christmas.
http://www.retroduck.com/cart/shop.cgi/SID=1196734679.53441/display=07-0589

I'll get him this one overtaxed:

http://www.stupid-idiot-club.com/index.php?i=test/stupid_idiot.14765682

"The 2007 survey found the total median waiting time ... increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006"

OH MY GOD .. What a TRAVESTY - That's a Whole 3-1/2 day INCREASE ...

Seriously - I don't know the Canadian situation, but if Blue Cross offered me a (18% - 3.6%) x $80 / month reduction if I were willing to wait an extra 4 days .. I'd take it in a heart beat - and so would Clark Howard.

I also don't know enough about Edwards' plan - I'm really not following the circus - but truth is we already have a garnished system - it's just BCBS and Moses Cone bumping rates vs. the IRS.

So there's your answer. Where's mine: Anyone have a story of a Canadian who die - or even suffered greatly .. because he had to wait a bit for ... (since you didn't like - or cite - wart removal) ... let's try "heart transplant" for 500 points?

Here's why I ask. Maybe Canadians want it faster .. who wouldn't ... but maybe it's not that bad. So looking for the comparison rates in the USA:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/16/1068

"The median waiting time for an initial orthopedic consultation was two weeks in the United States and four weeks in Ontario. The median waiting time for knee replacement after the operation had been planned was three weeks in the United States and eight weeks in Canada. In the United States, 95 percent of patients in the national sample considered their waiting time for surgery acceptable, as compared with 85.1 percent in Ontario. Overall satisfaction with surgery ("very or somewhat satisfied") was 85.3 percent for all U.S. respondents and 83.5 percent for Canadian respondents."

So again .. tell BCBC to change my $80 / month rate increase to .. (18% - 3.6%) x $80 = $11.52. I'll wait a couple extra weeks for the knee replacment.

by the way .. hella-of-a-game tonight.

Back on thread:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/4/429

"A lack of resources has created waiting lists for many elective surgical procedures within Canada's universal health care system.

"There were no differences in quality of life at baseline between the 2 groups."

and another study:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/I-92

" ... prolonged waiting was not associated with worse surgical outcomes"

"Anyone have a story of a Canadian who die - or even suffered greatly .. because he had to wait a bit for ... (since you didn't like - or cite - wart removal) ... let's try "heart transplant" for 500 points?

" According to Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker of Canada's Fraser Institute, the median wait for an appointment with a cardiologist in Canada's single-payer health care system was 3.4 weeks in 2003. The wait for urgent bypass surgery was another 2.1 weeks on top of that, while the wait for elective bypass surgery was an additional 10.7 weeks. Canadian doctors reported a "reasonable" wait would be 0.9 and 6.1 weeks, respectively. Great Britain and New Zealand have even longer waiting times for bypass surgery.

Esmail and Walker cite studies confirming that longer waits for heart surgery result in a higher risk of heart attack and death.

In fact, they report American hospitals act as a "safety valve" for Canadian patients who face life-threatening shortages: "The government of British Columbia contracted Washington State hospitals to perform some 200 operations in 1989 following public dismay over the 6-month waiting list for cardiac bypass surgery in the province... A California heart-surgery centre has even advertised its services in a Vancouver newspaper."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2812

One line in this article says it all:

"When government makes medical care "free," people demand medical care without regard to cost. Governments can't keep up with the excess demand and therefore must find some way of allocating care amid shortage conditions. Most choose to make patients wait."

Turns out our French speaking friends to the north are dying of bladder cancer due to wait times.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7b336fa9-7f7e-4327-bf1b-bc5cbbddb985&k=37419

That was a helluva game last night. I usually only watch the first half but stayed up for that one in hopes someone could knock off the Patriots.

Dan,

Sincere apologies to not getting back to you. I got bogged down in meetings and other work stuff until about 11 last night, and I forgot about this exchange until after I shut down. Then, like you, I got caught up in the faint hope that someone might knock off the cheating Patriots.

Anyway, thanks for the thorough reply. I'll summarize my response, as I have other pressing issues to attend to. Maybe I'll get back to a point-by-point later. I like some of your ideas. Health education and a plan for the "truly poor" seem logical, though who decides who that is? I recall you having trouble with $60,000/yr, so is it 40? 20? Who decides, if not the gov't? Also, we've stripped so much out of education, where does the money come from to out the nutrition plan back in? I'm guessing chicken nuggets are on the menu in part because of their cost; who foots the bill to replace them with healthy alternatives? BTW, agree with JDR that many of your options seem like they're out of the Al Franken playbook.

Some of your options are not so important to me. The cap on litigation is a red herring. JDR says 3%, I've read 2%, but either way, it is not the reason for the steady rise in costs. Look at the insurance companies who are jacking up malpractice insurance. There is the issue (though I'd imagine you know this topic better than I).

But at the end of this, my main observation is that we agree that there is a problem, which I think is huge. The Dems are proposing alternatives -- some good and some bad I presume (haven't read them all), and the Repubs are merely shouting about Socialism. If we can agree that there is a problem, and identify the root(s) of the problem, then we can begin to look at solutions. But as long as there are loud (and well-paid) voices denying that there is a problem, the solution will likely be out of reach.

Finally, thanks for correcting my spelling. I knew it didn't look right. Comme j'ai dit, j'ai oubliez la plupart de mon vocabulaire. And I'm sure I butchered that sentence. Pardonnez moi.

I wonder where the NFL will put the asterisk if/when the Patriots go undefeated for the season.

After all, they were caught red-handed cheating.

Had it not been for the slap on the wrist punishment, they'd probably not be undefeated right now.

Howie:

Lawsuits:

"The cap on litigation is a red herring. JDR says 3%, I've read 2%, but either way, it is not the reason for the steady rise in costs."

"PricewaterhouseCoopers calculates that medical liability concerns increase annual health care spending by $124 billion in 2006 dollars. The additional cost of liability-based health care costs adds 3.4 million Americans to the rolls of the uninsured."

"Ten percent of every dollar spent on health care is attributed to the costs of liability and defensive medicine."

http://www.sickoflawsuits.org/threats/CosttoConsumers.cfm#cost1

There are some other stats here, look under Cost to HealthCare Providers and Patients.

$124 billion isn't a small chunk of change IMO.

**********************************************

"Truly Poor". Again I'm not an economist, but I think a couple with 2 kids (all in good health) making $50K isn't poor. With 10 kids, yes.

It would have to be a case by case basis. For example, if the family with 2 kids making $50K has a kid with a chronic, expensive medical condition then the definition changes.

**********************************************

Schools and nutrition:

Just an idea I threw out. I do believe the schools have an obligation to provide a healthy meal. Unless I pack my kid's lunch I don't have control what they eat at school.

Of course parents have the same obligation, but that's out the window. Look at all the fat adults walking around.

*************************************************
"...the Repubs are merely shouting about Socialism."

Here's Rudy's plan:

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/commitment/indepth/8

Mitt's:

http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/healthcare

Mike's:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8

John's:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

All of them promote tax deductions and/or credits for purchase of health insurance. McCain specifically $5K per family. If I can write off $5K on my taxes it would REALLY make my insurance less expensive.

None of them promote govt. takeover of health care, surprise surprise.

**************************************************

Hillary's plan looks good on screen, it allows you to keep existing insurance. Her history back in '93 makes me leery of a govt. takeover. She happens to omit who is going to pay insurance for the 47 million insured and how much it will cost.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

Barack's is similar and mentions a "national health program". Like Hillary he also doesn't mention who is going to pay and how much it will cost.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

John's plan flat out uses the term "universal". Always wondered what that means, are we going to insure martians?

From his site:

"Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance."

Sounds ok to me but this doesn't:

"Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance."

He conveniently omits that he wants your insurance policy filed on your tax return and if you don't pay your insurance the IRS will turn you over to the "health care police" who will force you to pony up.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

Sorry don't have time for the 2nd tier candidates. Gotta go to Fayetteville.

BTW, glad to see we all agree on one thing: a Patriots defeat.

Dan,
Thanks for doing my legwork for me -- now I have no excuse for not being informed. It looks like I have some reading to do before I weigh in on the canditates and their approaches to health care. (Though I'm sure you'll understand if I seek source other than "sickoflawsuits.com" for litigation costs.) Anyway, thanks again. I guess you can look for my "educated" opinion in later posts. I have a hunch this topic will come up again.

On another topic, did the original LTTE writer -- or anyone else -- offer a candidate other than "anybody but Hillary"?

Howie, glad to be of help. Sickoflawsuits obviously has an agenda, but they and I cited figures from Price Waterhouse Coopers, which I don't believe has a political agenda. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Now I'm really leaving for Fayetteville, I'll check in tonight.

Good Stuff, Dan. My guess is the difference is the "Readily Identified Costs" and "Defensive Expenditures" .. but I will not have time tonight do read much. I will though, and will see you and everyone else next thread.

Dan,

Haven't made it all the way down the page of links you posted yet, but I did want to respond to the lawsuits thing. The PWC report (comissioned by a group called America's Health Insurance Plans) cites the total cost of medical liability insurance as 2% of the premium dollar. The remaining 5-9% estimate because of defensive medicine is from a different study. So the premise that tort reform would eliminate a large percentage of expense to you and me relies on the probability that a large proportion of these lawsuits are frivolous (unsupported in the PWC report), and that elimination of excessive damages would dramatically decrease the practice of defensive medicine. I can find no evidence to support that premise, but it's probably an important question to get the answer to.

With a cap on punitive damages, how far would malpractice premiums drop? From 2% to 1.5%? 1.3%? Would you and I feel that?

And how much would the culture of physicians practicing defensive medicine would have to change before you and I would see that 5-9% start to decrease? What would be the national cap on damages that would allow doctors to reduce the number of tests they order, or decrease the frequency of prenatal ultrasounds? $1 million? $500,000? And how low would the cap have to be before we felt it? So in the end, how much would my premiums drop? 4%? Would I even recognize that when offset by the other increases?

I'm not suggesting that there is not waste in the system. How many times are we going to hear about that jackass who sued for $54 million over a pair of pants? So go after the shysters who file the bogus suits, and hit them with penalties.

But the piece of the pie that relates to tort reform is tiny. I've equated it to being upset about the cost of gasoline, and blaming it on how much the guy behind the cash register is making at my local BP. This issue is a pet peeve of mine, and it is the most glaring example of a corrupt political system run by big business since Bob Dole had to grit his teeth and say that there was no definitive evidence linking cigarette smoking to cancer.

Just my $.02. I've still got homework to do on the candidates.

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/E4C0FC004429297A852571090065A70B/$File/ahip-factors_fueling_rising_hc-costs.pdf