NYT: Public overwhelmingly supports public option for healthcare.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

There are major differences in all the polling because they are not asking the same questions in regards to healthcare. As for the Pew Poll specifically, that poll did ask the exact same questions 16 years ago. It shows an across the board drop in support for what is generally considered government increasing control in the healthcare industry.

HA!

A drop from very overwhelming support to overwhelming support. I'll take it.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by ssmoore

These are not the people or so called leaders I want running my healthcare.

I don't see how healthcare executives and the stockholders of the insurance agencies are much better. Their interests are in direct contrast to the patient. At least with the government, there is no incentive for denying people coverage.

[ssmoore]

What kind of system do you prefer? A system Like Canada?

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by ssmoore

What kind of system do you prefer? A system Like Canada?

A system like France.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...thcare_system/

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

I know how conservatives react when they hear the word "France", but this system seems to work out pretty well at half the cost per capita that we are paying.

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

A system like France.

France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe



I know how conservatives react when they hear the word "France", but this system seems to work out pretty well at half the cost per capita that we are paying.

I trust the French finally found a calling beside food and wine. Would like to know more.

[ssmoore]

I went and read up on it after you suggested France. Sounds like some of it is good and some bad. I read that its going bankrupt from one article and read in another that the alot of people still pony up for private insurance to cover co pays. One thing I read also was that the Fed tax rate is 40 percent and 25 in the U.S.

The good is everyone gets insurance.

In the end it still comes down to someone's gonna pay and that someone is the taxpayer.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

I trust the French finally found a calling beside food and wine. Would like to know more.

...and sex.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by ssmoore

I went and read up on it after you suggested France. Sounds like some of it is good and some bad. I read that its going bankrupt from one article and read in another that the alot of people still pony up for private insurance to cover co pays. One thing I read also was that the Fed tax rate is 40 percent and 25 in the U.S.

The good is everyone gets insurance.

In the end it still comes down to someone's gonna pay and that someone is the taxpayer.

Right. The taxpayer is going to pay. But the taxpayer here pays as well -- only it's not to the government, it's to for-profit companies. And we end up paying about twice as much as the French do. I know we have unhealthy habits here, but can we really justify paying almost twice as much per person in medical costs?

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Have you been to an ER lately?

I was in there for a staph infection on a Sunday night about 8 months ago. It was packed...standing room only. From the looks of things, most of those people weren't there for emergencies, and most of them didn't have insurance. They skipped me ahead of about 100 people, though, because my situation was urgent.

Couga, between myself and my parents, I've likely spent more time in our health care system, and hospitals (including ER's) than you have eating out at restaurants. Now, I can't speak for your local area and it's demographics, but I've never encountered that many people at any ER. Maybe you guys need more hospitals built down there. Either way, I'm not basing much on your one visit to a busy ER 8 months ago. As billms said to me, "I also know not to use anecdotal evidence to try and prove a point". That was the one time I should have listened to him.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Have you been to an ER lately?

I was in there for a staph infection on a Sunday night about 8 months ago. It was packed...standing room only. From the looks of things, most of those people weren't there for emergencies, and most of them didn't have insurance. They skipped me ahead of about 100 people, though, because my situation was urgent.

You were able to diagnose them just by looking at them while having a staph infection? Ok, Dr. Couga.

[Melody]

Typically when you go into the waiting room of the ER, fewer than half of the people sitting around in there are actually patients. The rest are family members.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Melody

Typically when you go into the waiting room of the ER, fewer than half of the people sitting around in there are actually patients. The rest are family members.

No, Dr. Couga knows which ones were which. He also was able to sniff out their insurance situation just by looking at him. Maybe his staph infection granted him temporary powers to use X ray vision to look into their wallets or purses.

I went to teh emergency room with my dad back in February. Most of the people there DID have insurance and needed to be there. How do I know this? I don't. I'm just making it up, like he did.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Oblong

I went to teh emergency room with my dad back in February. Most of the people there DID have insurance and needed to be there. How do I know this? I don't. I'm just making it up, like he did.

I spend about a full day a month in the ER with my MIL, both in the waiting room and back in the examining room with her. (She has dementia and is unable to answer questions appropriately, etc.) The thing I find outrageous is how many are there all day long waiting for a hospital bed upstairs. On our last trip, she went by ambulance at about 8:30 a.m. They did some tests and decided to check her in to the cardiac unit by noon. It was almost midnight before we finally went upstairs to a room. The nurse told me that it's not uncommon to have patients being treated in the ER hallway.

I can tell you that the old people who go in have insurance: medicare. And I can also tell you that medicare (i.e. government insurance) is part of the problem. They only reimburse a very small percentage of the charges, yet by law the patient can't be billed above what medicare allows. The hospital has to absorb the difference. Guess who pays for that? The uninsured and those with private insurance.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Melody

I spend about a full day a month in the ER with my MIL, both in the waiting room and back in the examining room with her. (She has dementia and is unable to answer questions appropriately, etc.) The thing I find outrageous is how many are there all day long waiting for a hospital bed upstairs. On our last trip, she went by ambulance at about 8:30 a.m. They did some tests and decided to check her in to the cardiac unit by noon. It was almost midnight before we finally went upstairs to a room. The nurse told me that it's not uncommon to have patients being treated in the ER hallway.

I can tell you that the old people who go in have insurance: medicare. And I can also tell you that medicare (i.e. government insurance) is part of the problem. They only reimburse a very small percentage of the charges, yet by law the patient can't be billed above what medicare allows. The hospital has to absorb the difference. Guess who pays for that? The uninsured and those with private insurance.

A blog I read posted 4 emails from doctors on this subject. These doctors said it's not uncommon at all for them to just treat medicare patients for free rather than waste the paperwork and time to get reimbursed $25 for an office visit.

Maybe that's the ultimate goal here. Of course they can do that when they can let the others absorb the cost. But what happens when everybody is on medicare? Those doctors are going to say "Screw it, I'm doing something else with my education." Then we'll have fewer doctors and more patients because it will be "free".

[Sparks4Ever]

The devil is in the details. I support a universal public health care plan that is efficient and effective. The democrats in the past have been unable to convince the public that their plans are either of these things.

If the public is so strongly behind any old universal health care plan, then the democrats would not have been thrashed in the '94 elections after the GOP defeated the democrats health reform effort.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Maybe that's the ultimate goal here. Of course they can do that when they can let the others absorb the cost. But what happens when everybody is on medicare? Those doctors are going to say "Screw it, I'm doing something else with my education." Then we'll have fewer doctors and more patients because it will be "free".

I wonder if we aren't already seeing some of this. On our last trip, there was a man on the other side of the curtain in the same room. We were there where she could be on the monitors waiting for a cardiac bed upstairs. They were there while their doctor called all over town to find a vascular surgeon who could do an emergency surgery that, if delayed, could have resulted in the man losing his leg. I felt so bad for them. Nice couple with both medicare and private insurance. Recently retired with cruise tickets to celebrate. Very sad. They finally found a doctor who could do the surgery but had to transfer him by ambulance to another county.

We don't have a third word medical system in my city. We have several very large private hospitals. But certain specialities are already in short supply.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Oblong

You were able to diagnose them just by looking at them while having a staph infection? Ok, Dr. Couga.

The nurse literally told me that I was being skipped over them because I had a real emergency.

Where do you think people go when they get sick but don't have health insurance? Do you think they just sit in their bed quivering? Where would you send your family if you didn't have health insurance? They go to the only place they can -- the emergency room. Someone ends up covering the cost anyways, and it's done in the most inefficient manner possible. My mom works at a hospital, and it's the same story there. The emergency room probably treats more uninsured patients with common illnesses than they do emergencies.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The nurse literally told me that I was being skipped over them because I had a real emergency.

Where do you think people go when they get sick but don't have health insurance? Do you think they just sit in their bed quivering? Where would you send your family if you didn't have health insurance? They go to the only place they can -- the emergency room. Someone ends up covering the cost anyways, and it's done in the most inefficient manner possible. My mom works at a hospital, and it's the same story there. The emergency room probably treats more uninsured patients with common illnesses than they do emergencies.

Didn't Obama once upon a time support putting some community heath centers in poor areas in order to provide "free" routine care to people without insurance? That seems like a much more responsible use of the public fisc than the federal government taking on trillians more in heath care expenses by usurping the whole system.

[JohnJMS]

If I'm a small businessman, or even the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, if there is Universal Health Care - I'm far more likely to make my employees shoulder an even larger burden of their health benefits, provided I continue to offer them at all. Why? Because there will be an insurance option available that allows me to look my employees in the eye and say "Use the Government plan". And I'll tell you what - they won't share this new found wealth with their employees - they'll pocket it as additional profit. The quickest way to grow the "uninsured" in this country would be to provide a government alternative. Every action has a ton of counteractions - and this needs to be a well thought out plan if it's going to work and not cause more problems than it solves. UHC could turn into a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.

[RedRamage]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

When 53% of voters picked Obama, and 48% of respondents report that they voted for Obama, that is not evidence that a poll "obviously skews left"

Check your numbers again...
[img]http://powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/NYTPoll290-thumb-410x62.jpg[/quote]
You are factually correct, but drawing incorrect conclusions. Did 48% of the poll say they voted for Obama? Yes. Did 53% of the public vote for Obama? Yes. Does that 48% of the polled people supported Obama? Very much NO.

Why? First, 5% said they voted, but didn't say who. Second, 19% didn't vote. What do you do with those numbers? You could assume they fell along voting lines... ie, 53% for Obama, 46% for McCain. This would add 12.7% for Obama and 11.1 percent for McCain, giving totals of 60.7% for Obama, and 36.1% for McCain. That's awfully skewed... nearly 2-to-1.

Of course, we could also assume that they were all for Obama, or all for McCain. Possible, but unlikely. It might be somewhere in between, again we just don't know. So, another option is to just throw out everything except what we know for sure... that represents 74% of the polled people (48 for Obama, 25 for McCain, 1 for other). This works out even worse... 64.8% for Obama, and 33.8% for McCain. Again, well off the average of voters.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

If I'm a small businessman, or even the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, if there is Universal Health Care - I'm far more likely to make my employees shoulder an even larger burden of their health benefits, provided I continue to offer them at all. Why? Because there will be an insurance option available that allows me to look my employees in the eye and say "Use the Government plan". And I'll tell you what - they won't share this new found wealth with their employees - they'll pocket it as additional profit. The quickest way to grow the "uninsured" in this country would be to provide a government alternative. Every action has a ton of counteractions - and this needs to be a well thought out plan if it's going to work and not cause more problems than it solves. UHC could turn into a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.

This post makes absolutely no sense. None. You don't understand how a public option works.

[djhutch]

I'm no expert, but here are the problems as I see it.

• Any such plan would not "compete" with private health plans, it would replace them. Companies would save a ton of money by allowing the gov't to catch all of their workers who would suddenly be without health insurance.
  
• This would no doubt cause a mass exodus from private health insurers, who would either fold or boost their rates so high that it makes no sense for workers to take their employee plan.
  
• With all of these workers suddenly without health care, the gov't picks up the slack - but there's no way they're ready for the amount of people that will want it this quickly. It will play havoc with their estimates, costing tons more than they expect it to.
  
• The only way to then cover what they've promised is by raising taxes - a lot - & by stepping in to effectively set doctors wages, prescription drug prices, & tell people where they can go to the doctor & where they can't.

People think this is going to be free health care. It isn't.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

This post makes absolutely no sense. None. You don't understand how a public option works.

No. I understand how you want it to work. How you think it will work. It's the consequences of the public options that you choose to ignore. Do you really think business owners will have no reaction to the introduction of Universal Health Care?

Email | NewsBusters.org

George Will Tells Dirty Little Secrets of Universal Healthcare
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2009-06-14 16:57

As President Obama tours the country advancing his universal healthcare initiative, there are some dirty little secrets that he and his minions in the media don't want Americans to know.

On Sunday, George Will during the panel discussion on ABC's "This Week," exposed some inconvenient truths about this controverial subject that would likely change much of the public's view if they were regularly made aware of them.

After host George Stephanopoulos opened the roundtable segment, Will marvelously cut to the chase (video available here [1]):



GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS ANALYST: [T] this is now a single issue argument about whether or not we’re on a slippery slope to a single-payer system. That is, it’s about the so-called public option. And the president has said, “If you are starting from scratch” -- he said this very recently -- he would go to a single payer. That is, government as the single provider of health care.

Now, there are four arguments for the public option. One is, in the president’s words, it will keep them honest. To try to preserve the government as a lagoon of honesty, you can argue, refuted by anybody who reads any budget of any administration.

Bullseye, for all one need do is look at the totally absurd economic assumptions in Obama's 2010 budget, and one would have to agree with Will. But I digress:

WILL: Second, he says, it will play by the same rules as the private insurers, and therefore, won’t drive them out of business. If you play by the same rules, as you said to the secretary, what’s the point?

Exactly. If the rules of the private insurers are sound enough to be adopted by government, why change things?

WILL: Third, it’s necessary to give what Secretary Sebelius said a choice to the consumers. There are 1,300 entities offering healthcare plans in this country. Another one isn’t going to change that.

Precisely. Taking this a step further, many of these 1,300 entities will likely cease to exist if government gets involved. As such, Americans will have far fewer options.

WILL: Finally, there’s the argument that the American people are not smart enough to handle something as complicated as healthcare and have a competitive market. They’ve done rather well in computers.

Yes, but a common liberal meme is that people aren't smart enough to figure things out, and that's why government needs do it for them.

Fortunately, Will wasn't done, for he later dispelled another media myth about this issue:

WILL: Donna [Brazile], you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to.

Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens.

Bingo. So, this 47 million uninsured number the media always throw around is totally disingenuous and largely irrelevant.

That said, it was awfully nice hearing somebody say it this morning.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by djhutch

People think this is going to be free health care. It isn't.

No one thinks it will be free.

Evidence suggests that it would cost substantially less, though.

[Buddha]

A couple of points:

1) I doubt many of us spend a lot of time in the emergency rooms of hospitals in neighborhoods where most people don't have health insurance. So most of our experiences with emergency rooms and people with or without insurance really doesn't get to the point. But I could be wrong.

2) Americans think everyone should have health insurance, but they don't want to pay for it. Welcome to every issue in politics.

3) Every health care system has flaws. The Canadian version has flaws, the French version has flaws, and the American version has flaws. It's just a matter of what flaws you're willing to accept and what your ultimate goal is.

If universal coverage is your goal, you're never going to get that in the US private based system. These are "for profit" companies that are concerned with making money, not keeping you healthy (ergo why they won't cover pre-existing conditions). And most Americans don't realize the cost of their health care visits because they don't have to pay for it, their employer pays for it.

It's quite the cunundrum and it has no easy solution.

/captain obvious

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

No one thinks it will be free.

Evidence suggests that it would cost substantially less, though.

Replace the word EVIDENCE with SPECULATION.

[Ingefanclub]

If the democrats pass health care reform they are going to cement the 2010 election as a huge whitewash Republican victory. I suspect republicans will pick up a bunch of seats even without Obamacare.

[Ingefanclub]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

No one thinks it will be free.

Evidence suggests that it would cost substantially less, though.

By cost less you mean the rate of increase will be 5% instead of 10% yearly.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by Ingefanclub

If the democrats pass health care reform they are going to cement the 2010 election as a huge whitewash Republican victory. I suspect republicans will pick up a bunch of seats even without Obamacare.

2010 will be considered a disaster for the GOP if they do not pick up seats.

[holygoat]

Originally Posted by Buddha

And most Americans don't realize the cost of their health care visits because they don't have to pay for it, their employer pays for it.

This is the biggest problem with the American system, from my perspective. This idea of health-insurance-as-part-of-normal-work-compensation is a huge reason for escalating health costs. I'm think that health care needs to be rationed, but by the consumers, not Federal bureaucrats. A lot of people consume more health care than they need because they can, not because they need to. "What the hell, I've got the coverage -- run whatever tests you think are necessary!" If people got all the money their employers pay for coverage as salary, then had to buy their own insurance plans with that money, I think most would buy lesser plans. If they had to pay for health services a la carte, I think less time and money would be spent on running as many tests as possible.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by holygoat

If people got all the money their employers pay for coverage as salary, then had to buy their own insurance plans with that money, I think most would buy lesser plans. If they had to pay for health services a la carte, I think less time and money would be spent on running as many tests as possible.

I think a large number of these people would end making the choice to not buy insurance. They'd rather get a new car, go on vacation, or get the new 52" LCD or game system. They figure they don't need it, they're not sick. 10 million people who make more than $75,000 already make that decision. Then when they do get sick.... guess who will be paying? After all, we have to be compassionate.

I agree with your premise though. I have no idea what the stuff costs. I just go wherever I'm told to go and get whatever tests I they tell me. If I knew then maybe I wouldn't get those tests.

[Ingefanclub]

Originally Posted by holygoat

If people got all the money their employers pay for coverage as salary, then had to buy their own insurance plans with that money, I think most would buy lesser plans. If they had to pay for health services a la carte, I think less time and money would be spent on running as many tests as possible.

My employer pays about $16,000 a year for my family coverage. If they just gave me that money as salary I would buy the catastrophic plan which probably runs what $2,000 a year? Every time I went to the doctor to shell out $100-300 instead of the $10 co-pay would hurt but I would pay it if I was really sick. Also I would shop around a little more to find the best rates.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Ingefanclub

By cost less you mean the rate of increase will be 5% instead of 10% yearly.

No.

I mean that developed societies that have implemented government-run health care pay about half as much per person as we do here.

[atomicrod]

Originally Posted by Ingefanclub

My employer pays about $16,000 a year for my family coverage. If they just gave me that money as salary I would buy the catastrophic plan which probably runs what $2,000 a year? Every time I went to the doctor to shell out $100-300 instead of the $10 co-pay would hurt but I would pay it if I was really sick. Also I would shop around a little more to find the best rates.

You just described exactly what I'm doing after working out a deal with my employer to drop the coverage but up my compensation. Employer wins with less money paid, I win because I now pay a 5k deductible policy for $155 a month and I have an HSA where I can save tax exempt money for routine office visits.

Just my opinion, but this is the type of system we should be moving towards. If you want to require everyone have some form of coverage I'd be more open to that then saying we need a single payer or have the Government enter the insurance industry.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by atomicrod

Just my opinion, but this is the type of system we should be moving towards. If you want to require everyone have some form of coverage I'd be more open to that then saying we need a single payer or have the Government enter the insurance industry.

ahh.... but you see the mistake you make is assuming that getting the best scenario is the actual goal. No, the actual point of all of this is to, in the words of Larry Kudlow

has always been a class-warfare, anti-business attack on private-sector doctors, hospitals, insurance firms, and drug companies. It’s all about control, knocking down their profits, and telling them what to do.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

I trust the French finally found a calling beside food and wine. Would like to know more.

Food. Wine.

Hmmmm....

Is there anything else that matters awfully?

[atomicrod]

Originally Posted by Oblong

ahh.... but you see the mistake you make is assuming that getting the best scenario is the actual goal. No, the actual point of all of this is to, in the words of Larry Kudlow

This has been my largest problem with President Obama up to this point. When he proposes a program, he states that he's open to any sort of debate as long as it reaches the overall goal of coming up with the same outcome as his program.

There are alternatives to the President's plan as shown here.

Today, Safeway has accomplished what Washington claims is the goal: The company's per-capita health-care expenses have remained flat, compared to the near 40% increase experienced by the rest of corporate America over the past four years. This has not been done by cutting care or shifting costs to employees. Nearly 80% of the 30,000 nonunion Safeway workers who take part in the program rate it good, very good, or excellent.

Magic? Not even. Mr. Burd explains that the "cure for today's ills is simply removing the obstacles to a free health-care market."

The Safeway plan has two main parts that work in tandem. The first involves giving employees a financial stake in the system. Safeway demolished the traditional PPOs and HMOs that encourage consumers to be cavalier about costs. The company today fully pays for an array of primary and preventive visits and tests. But beyond that, employees have skin in the game. The company deposits $1,000 each year into a "health reimbursement account," which workers can use to pay for care. The next $1,000 in expenses is the employee's responsibility. After that, employees pay 20% of costs up to a $4,000 maximum.

Safeway workers these days treat that first $1,000 carefully, since anything beyond it comes out of their pockets. The company is alive with stories of people who no longer visit the emergency room for routine care but instead call around to doctors to ask prices, and swap information with colleagues. Safeway is doing its part to improve price transparency, by having its care administrator, Cigna, analyze claims information. One discovery was that within 30 minutes of its California headquarters routine colonoscopy prices ranged from $700 to $7,000. By the end of the year, employees will be able to go on a Web site, punch in a zip code, and get a list of providers and costs.

The second part of Safeway's plan was an embrace of the obvious: Healthy people cost less. Mr. Burd notes that 75% of health-care costs are the result of four conditions -- cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. The majority of these are preventable. "Obesity in this country went from 18% to 40% in 20 years -- this is not genetics, this is behavior," he explains. He says that an obese employee can require 10 times the number of doctor visits in a year than someone of healthy weight.

The result was Safeway's "Healthy Measures" program, which is voluntary. Employees are tested for smoking, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. Every area they "pass" results in a reduction in their premium, of as much as $1,560 for a family, a year. Those who fail but prove progress can get refunds. Safeway complements this with an intense culture of health: weight-loss tips, fitness competitions and smoking cessation programs.

Critics of price incentives argue that they pressure consumers to forego necessary care. Mr. Burd counters that Healthy Measures and the company's free preventive care -- designed to catch problems before they become expensive -- have in fact resulted in a healthier work force. Safeway's smoking and obesity rates are roughly 70% the national average. The program has even been cautiously greeted by Safeway's union leaders, who understand that soaring health costs are eating into union wages.

These are programs where people take responsibility for their own actions and health. In addition, you could policies like this where your health care becomes portable. The impact of job changes or unemployment are less severe than trying to make COBRA payments which eventually run out.

I agree with Kudlow. This whole notion is trying to control lives and it is unfortunate that people are willing to trade security for freedom.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Replace the word EVIDENCE with SPECULATION.

How many times do I have to do the thing with the costs per capita compared?

[Ingefanclub]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

No.

I mean that developed societies that have implemented government-run health care pay about half as much per person as we do here.

Do you really believe if the government starts to run the entire US health care system that it will become cheaper? Call me a skeptic.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by atomicrod

This has been my largest problem with President Obama up to this point. When he proposes a program, he states that he's open to any sort of debate as long as it reaches the overall goal of coming up with the same outcome as his program.

There are alternatives to the President's plan as shown here.



These are programs where people take responsibility for their own actions and health. In addition, you could policies like this where your health care becomes portable. The impact of job changes or unemployment are less severe than trying to make COBRA payments which eventually run out.

I agree with Kudlow. This whole notion is trying to control lives and it is unfortunate that people are willing to trade security for freedom.

What's missing from all of that is the payback Obama needs to make politically to certain groups. That's what this is all about.

I know I'm repeating myself but it's worth repeating. Don't be fooled into thinking these politicians have your interests at heart. They only care about buying their next vote and securing their personal legacies.