Scan Medical Insurance

is there a online website that will find the lowest private pay medical insurance for my needs? I'm looking for a website, where i can plug in some basic information, where basically all the major or most competitive private pay medical insurance companies input their pricing costs, and i can find the lowest price insurance company based on my needs ? what are the urls for the best websites for this sort of thing ?

Why do people in countries with state socialized medicine live longer than Americans with private insurance.? Medical insurance in the USA is at least twice as expensive as in Canada or any of the major european countries, yet the USA has the lowest life expectancy by 2 to 4 years and the highest infant mortality rates. Everyone in europe gets the same prevention and treatment options for half the per capita cost and no one is uninsured, Pharmaceuticals are a fraction of the cost in the USA and no one has to go without. Private medical facilities are available for the people who have the money to pay for them with a level of service as good or better than the USA, and the cost of private insurance is still less than the USA. Costs in the USA rise faster than any other nation in the world putting medical insurance and services out of the reach of 20% of the US population. How can you, as leaders elected to defend the interests of the entire American populace, support a system that promotes a lower life expectancy and because of elevated individual costs of maintaining insurance coverage, a lower standard of living for American citizens.

How to get low cost medical/dental help in Georgia? Greetings, I am an adjunct instructor in the technical university system of Georgia. As an adjunct I get no medical/dental insurance. I work in the joint enrollment program so basically I teach high school students. Due to the nature of adjunct instructing I don't always have steady employment it bounces from month to month so I can't afford private insurance (who want upwards of 1/2 my monthly income at times) and I am currently in a lot of pain. I've always had poor teeth, despite constant brushing and flossing, and this is really bad. My wisdom teeth have all come in, one of them has a crack in it, and together they are just insanely painful. I've gone for three weeks in daily pain and I simply can't take it any more. I found out the procedures I will need will cost about $800 per tooth to have the wisdom teeth removed, and that is more (for all 4) than I make in 4 months, at full pay, which isn't possible with rent and bills. I don't think I qualify for medicare or anything like that and I am at my wit's end. If anyone has any advice I'd love to take it.

Why shouldn't women be allowed to ask their medical insurance carriers to cover the cost of contraceptives? Why is the GOP getting in the way of a legal, private business transaction? Insurance companies WANT to offer contraceptives, because Insurance companies understand that women who have them prescribed to them by their doctors have lower instances of ovarian cysts and other health problems, ultimately reducing the insurance company's costs. Why is the GOP getting in the way of a legal, private business transaction? Why is the GOP AND CHRISTIANS getting in the way of a legal, private business transaction? @Rachel: If you are a real female, yet think that "Contraceptives are not medicine", then you are an idiot. Read this: Health benefits of oral contraceptives. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11091985 @bibigirl: If you have to lie to make your point, then you have no point at all to make.

low-cost health insurance company? I have been trying to do research on the state of health insurance in the US and am not getting much informative stuff. What is stopping a private, non- or for-profit company setting up a lower-premium health insurance company? these are the possible problems i have come up with so far: - the insurance claims will far exhaust the float (is this true?) - the demand will be overwhelming (but this shouldn't be too bad considering the insurance business is not heavy on capital expenditures?) - it would be difficult to cover the high costs of drugs and specialist medical costs with lower premiums - getting hands on enough and reliable data in order to calculate proper costs, probabilities of claims against a potential pool of funds, etc. possible solutions would of course begin with restricting the pool of people granted insurance (restrict by probability of claiming insurance) until more data can be gathered to offer insurance to less healthy candidates.

I need help finding insurance for a major medical procedure. Texas, low income and don't qualify for medicaid? I'm uninsured, and due to the psychiatric disability i need the procedure for it is difficult for me to hold onto a job. I have found one i am managing to keep but its part time, min wage with no guaranteed hours and they won't let me work for their competitor. The procedure I want done is electroshock, I've tried dozens of meds over the last 4 years and none help. But it can cost 800-2000 per treatment and usually takes 4-8 treatments to kick in. Public health services only push meds. I think my only option is to find some private insurance and find some way to pay the premium. This is so confusing!! How do I choose one? Last time, i had BCBS but they had a one year waiting period for mental health costs and i cannot wait that long. And they didn't even pay for one hospital stay i had because "We have reason to believe this was self inflicted and we wil not cover" And i didn't even hurt myself, i just admitted because i was having an emergency. Or even... are there people, like counselors or agents that could help me find the right company or even public aid and set this up?

Why does Privatized healthcare cost so much more? Canada spends 10% of GDP on healthcare (and everything is covered) while the US spends 16% (and very little is covered). The extra 6% is equal to 800,000,000USD per year. All that only covers medicare while the majority is expected (if not forced now) to buy private medical insurance. On top of that, the government of Canada has enforced laws that protect consumers from pharma companies charging extortionate rates for medicines but it seems in the US the government restricts low cost medicines from entering the country. If competition brings lower costs, then why is it medical care in the US costs at least 5 times what it costs in UHC countries?

Benefits of Universal Healthcare for Conservatives? Just like to explain something to Conservatives and see if you agree with the advantages in cost savings with a Universal Healthcare system: In insurance there's something called anti-selection. It means insurers don't want to insure people who want insurance because they probably have an existing problem basically. Obamacare is supposed to force insurers to remove anti-selection / cover pre-existing conditions. The insurers of course informed the government, that their client base is too small to cover losses from taking on pre-existing conditions and said the only way we're going to do that is if you force people to buy insurance so our base is bigger so we can cover the added costs. The people who don't want insurance are the people the insurers want to sell to the most. They are the most likely to never use it and you can just collect money off them. Further, UHC works the same way that private medical insurance does. With UHC, people pay tax (Canadian taxes are about the same as US taxes) and that money is pooled and when someone gets sick, the money comes out of that pool to pay for them. With private insurance ditto, only the pool is much smaller and filled with people more likely to want insurance because they are people with problems or more worried than usual and making frivolous claims. Then add the biggest cost in private insurance - me, brokers, insurers. You pay for example $5,000 a year for private medical insurance and we take $2,000 right away and put it into our pockets. In a UHC system, there's no insurance company, so that $2,000 isn't needed. Also, since everyone's paying in and it dramatically lowers the risk, that too lowers the cost. Add to that, the doctors in UHC countries do not work part time for pharmaceutical companies trying to over-prescribe over-priced drugs to increase their salaries and the costs are even lower. Canada spends 10% of GDP on UHC. America spends 16%. Think about that. Canada's GDP is already a lot lower than the US overall. I don't know how to do the math representative but the difference is huge. Basically, Canada pays out a fraction of the US for UHC which covers everyone for everything, people live longer, healthier lives and the population is much more satisfied according to all surveys. Obamacare only amplifies the problem of inflating costs, as does the current system. The best tried and true method in UHC. Considering the cost savings, shouldn't UHC be backed by fiscal conservatives? *I know these things because I sell medical insurance. Johnny: If abortions are carried out for free in the NHS, it doesn't mean they must be under an American UHC system necessarily if Americans think that's a big issue. Sega: I am a Canadian, there are no bigger line-ups than there are in the US. Medical insurance doesn't magically put everyone in the front of the line at the same time. Also Canadian UHC doesn't cover dental. Liddel: I am a broker. As such, depending on who I'm working with I take between 15% and 20% of the premium. The insurer of course takes their 10% to 15%. At the end of the year, they take off the top what more they made on top and hand out bonuses with it. It ends up at 40% easy.

Benefits of Universal Healthcare for fiscal Conservatives? -this is not pro-Obamacare!? I would just like to explain something to Conservatives and see if you agree with the advantages in cost savings with a Universal Healthcare system: In insurance there's something called anti-selection. It means insurers don't want to insure people who want insurance because they probably have an existing problem basically. Obamacare is supposed to force insurers to remove anti-selection / cover pre-existing conditions. The insurers of course informed the government, that their client base is too small to cover losses from taking on pre-existing conditions and said the only way we're going to do that is if you force people to buy insurance so our base is bigger so we can cover the added costs. The people who don't want insurance are the people the insurers want to sell to the most. They are the most likely to never use it and you can just collect money off them. Further, UHC works the same way that private medical insurance does. With UHC, people pay tax (Canadian taxes are about the same as US taxes) and that money is pooled and when someone gets sick, the money comes out of that pool to pay for them. With private insurance ditto, only the pool is much smaller and filled with people more likely to want insurance because they are people with problems or more worried than usual and making frivolous claims. Then add the biggest cost in private insurance - me, brokers, insurers. You pay for example $5,000 a year for private medical insurance and we take $2,000 right away and put it into our pockets. In a UHC system, there's no insurance company, so that $2,000 isn't needed. Also, since everyone's paying in and it dramatically lowers the risk, that too lowers the cost. Add to that, the doctors in UHC countries do not work part time for pharmaceutical companies trying to over-prescribe over-priced drugs to increase their salaries and the costs are even lower. Canada spends 10% of GDP on UHC. America spends 16%. Think about that. Canada's GDP is already a lot lower than the US overall. I don't know how to do the math representative but the difference is huge. Basically, Canada pays out a fraction of the US for UHC which covers everyone for everything, people live longer, healthier lives and the population is much more satisfied according to all surveys. Obamacare only amplifies the problem of inflating costs, as does the current system. The best tried and true method in UHC. Considering the cost savings, shouldn't UHC be backed by fiscal conservatives? *I know these things because I sell medical insurance. Queen: Well, Clearly you didn't even read the first line of the question, so why did you answer? Do you meet people in town and they ask "How's you're father doing?" and you say "My truck has a flat tire!"...? Little Red: "10%, 16% whatever". Is that the way you'd run things? "Whatever"? That 6% represents at least $800,000,000, and that's "Whatever"? Wow, a real cagey one aren't you. Smsmith: Actually Canada has a huge problem with Americans coming across the border and scamming free medical care. Hundreds of thousands of cases per year.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how brainwashed is someone who says the Canadian healthcare system is failing? Every statistic and actual fact points to the direct opposite. The American Journal of Medicine says over 3 out of 5 personal bankruptcies are due to medical debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States). That’s 60% of all personal bankruptcies which make up the vast majority of all bankruptcies. There are a total of 0 (zero) bankruptcies due to medical bills in other industrialized nations. Canada spends 10% of GDP on healthcare, the UK spends only 8% of GDP on healthcare while the US spends 16% and still has to pay for insurance! UK and Canadian small businesses are not burdened with having to pay for employees insurance making them more competitive. Every industrialized nation with Universal Healthcare (UHC), bar none, has longer lifespans, pays less than the US and is happier with their systems. Even when Americans buy private medical insurance, they’re still not covered for many problems. You would never be turned away in a UHC country for a pre-existing condition. The American system works just like a UHC system. Americans that say “I don’t want to pay for someone else” obviously have no understanding of how private insurance works. AIG pools your money and when someone gets sick they use that money (your money) to pay for the sick person which is exactly how UHC works, except the pool is bigger which leads to lower risk and lower costs. Canada and Australia run UHC and not one bank collapsed during the financial crisis, in fact both country’s economies grew significantly. The cost of private insurance is climbing much faster than in UHC countries and families cannot afford proper care and preventative checks. This leads to higher costs when they finally do go to the hospital and the problem has become severe. Americans pay 5x what Canadians pay for medical treatment and yet their life spans are lower, their infant mortality is very high and How can someone looking at these facts say that it’s UHC that’s failing without being brainwashed?

Is there any assistance out there to help you pay for therapy? I just lost my private medical insurance what can i do when it comes to someway - somehow continuing my therapy? In any way I can ... obviously first by staying with the therapist I have now and finding help to pay for it or else anywhere I could free or low cost help???

Americans, do you think that nationalised healthcare will drive the private insurers out of business? Because you're wrong. We've had Nationalised Healthcare since 1947 in the UK and we still have private medical care and plenty of private insurers who anyone can use if they so choose and can afford to do so. What it actually does is rob the private insurers of the monopoly on healthcare, so they have to lower their prices and become more competitive to lure people in. Just for kicks I checked out what it would cost for me, my husband and son to have private medical insurance cover in the UK (we've never used the private system so I have no idea, the NHS has always met all our needs). For all 3 of us, the cheapest policy which covers all our needs would cost £52 per month (thats about $104 USD per month I think) with no excess - ie I wouldn't have to pay anything extra on top of that when I go to see a doctor or have treatment, that would cover the whole of the bill with nothing for me to contribute towards it. Actually I think that pretty affordable. If there was no NHS the companies could charge what they liked simply because people would have no option other than to pay for it. Does that compare to the rates you are offered by your companies in the US? I won't be bothering to take out private cover though, partly because my employer already offers it as an "extra" and partly because I have never needed to use the private system and I can't see that I ever will. "No -- their form may have to change though -- they may end up just being supplemental insurance for people who want better insurance" Thats pretty much what private healthcare in the UK is - a bit of extra for those who can afford it. And the insurance companies know this, which is why their premiums are cheaper and they don't demand excesses or exclude people with pre-existing conditions etc. They know that unless they keep on top of their game, people won't bother to use them and will stick with the NHS. They don't have a stranglehold on people in the UK like they do in America. "I know that people come from Canada and Europe because they can get the some of the best medical care now without waiting in line." As I have already explained, we have private healthcare here in the UK too. So those same people who did not want to "wait in line" could get their treatment privately any time they wanted in the UK without going to America. As I have already explained in my post (maybe you didn't read it?) private medical insurance is even cheaper in the UK than in America! There is absolutely no reason for anyone to go to America for treatment unless its for some specialist/experimental treatment which is perhaps not yet available outside the US. People come to the UK from other countries for the same reason. And we do not "wait in line" in the NHS for any essential procedure. The NHS even has targets it has to meet to make sure people do not wait. Anything urgent is dealt with immediately. And you ALWAYS have the chance to go private here too.

Why has no nation on Earth ever had a successful private, for-profit, universal health insurance system? Attention, high school drop-outs! Free debating lessons here: ************************************************************************ Before answering the question above, please read my answer below. If you disagree with my facts and logic, please tell me why I am wrong. Then I will tell you why you are wrong. That is the way grownups do it. If you only want to type a sound bite, go away. *********************************************************************** Profit-making is incompatible with the prevention and cure of sickness. Healing sick people is not a service in the same sense that fixing a car is a service. The auto-repair industry serves its customers profitably in a free market for several reasons that do not apply to the health care industry: 1. The cost of an auto repair rarely exceeds 50% of the cost of acquiring an equivalent vehicle and is usually less than 5% of that cost. The patient cannot acquire another body. The cost of an illness may exceed the combined cost of a buying a home and raising a family of university graduates. 2. Garages stay in business by making good decisions and providing good service. Health care providers stay in business (retain their medical license) by conforming to industry standards. The health care industry (as opposed to the health care INSURANCE industry) does not want customers. They do not have to attract customers. There is no point in advertising for customers. The doctor regrets that the patient needs his help. The patient regrets being a patient. 3. Auto repair is based upon commodities: widely available parts, repair manuals, tools, and mechanics. Costs are well known and prices are regulated by competition Health care equipment is highly technical and very expensive. Doctors are mostly specialists, often researchers with few students. They sometimes build their own equipment. The customer’s life may depend upon finding the right doctor. If that doctor does not have a contract with the patient’s private insurance company, the claim will be denied. (http://www.creators.com/liberal/froma-harrop/free-market-death-panels.html) 4. All drivers can afford to drive – until they can’t. If too many drivers can’t afford to drive, some garages may suffer or fail. It’s tough on the ex-drivers and ex-garage owners, but that’s the free market. Patients must be served whether they can afford to pay or not. If they cannot pay, the cost must be shifted to others. In particular, children and students cannot afford to pay for their own care. But they must receive the finest possible health care (and education) regardless of the wealth or poverty of their parents. This requirement is enshrined in our Constitution’s Preamble which vows to “promote the general Welfare and to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity.” Posterity is our nation’s ONLY product. We MUST do it right. Spending large public funds on the postponement of death for a few very uncomfortable months is an irrational betrayal of our heritage and our national interest. For the above reasons, universal health care costs can only be met by payments of deductible claims made through an insurance system financed by premiums that are subsidized for the poor. Costs are paid from the insurance pool. For statistical and administrative reasons, the larger the pool, the lower will be the premiums. The risk is spread over a larger population. That is why single-payer policies are the least expensive: everybody is in the same pool. This is a mathematical CERTAINTY. Breaking the insurance pool into a hundred different pools adds important costs: financing, administrative, advertising, customer selection, claims denial, high executive salaries, and profits. These additional costs (over 25% of the total current cost and over 33% more than the single-payer costs) represent a “tax” paid to private insurance companies by all its customers with no benefit to the consumers. The usual objection to single-payer is government inefficiency. And reduction of Medicare and Medicaid costs are part of the legislation before Congress. But the Veterans Administration provides excellent care to millions of veterans suffering a wide range of problems at a very reasonable cost compared to private industry. Government rationing of health care is another objection. But, without exception, every private health care insurance company has a large building with an entire floor or two devoted to a department that does nothing else but ration health care. These claim deniers are answerable only to their highly paid management, not to Congress or to a State Legislature or to the voter. The only recourse to denial of a claim is to file a suit through the court system and pay the lawyer. There are now insurance solutions approximating single-payer before Congress. They need your support. General answers: Success means that, with relatively few exceptions, everyone is served as well as possible within the available resources regardless of previous history or ability to pay. Of course, some will be served better or worse than others. It's the intent that counts. We have two excellent VA hospitals in the Chicago area. I receive excellent service in my clinic. The brouhaha at Walter Reed was solved by firing a general. There are problems at all hospitals, VA or not. Most of the VA problems arise from PTSD cases. No civilian hospital has that problem. I can't believe how many high school drop-outs skipped reading my carefully thought out essay and just dropped a sound bite. That's rude. I begged you guys to go away. For those who got ripped off at a garage, welcome to the free market. If you were treated that badly in a hospital, you might want to hold off on tort reform. jwoody88: The USA has a private (not public), for profit, health insurance system. It is neither successful in economic terms nor universal. Many people, including me, have been very well served, whether private or public. I am on Medicare and have no complaints, nor have I ever heard a senior complain. The problem lies with those who are not served. Texas Tre. The US Army, Navy, and Air Force are models of efficiency. Expensive, yes, but efficient in the sense that they do their best and are held accountable. That is somewhat like the USSR, which could beat us into space but couldn't make bumaga (that's toilet paper). The civil service people in our government are excellent. The problem is the guys like Brownie, who did a hekkova job at Katrina. Bush tried to run Iraq with born-again Christians just out of Bob Jones college. He tried to replace federal attorneys from the same source, which is getting Karl Rove into trouble now.

Why is insurance a necessary element of a universal health care system? We seem to be blinded by the insurance companies' lobbyists. Most universal health care systems require that even the poorest among us buy health insurance. Why? If this country can spend trillions of dollars on an immoral 'war', it can afford to spend a few hundred billions of health care for every American. For those who have the resources or desire to buy their own medical insurance and have their own private doctors, let them do it. For those low-incomed legal citizens of the U.S.A., let them be allowed to walk into any hospital, show their Social Security card, and receive whatever medical treatment they need - at no cost, and without laborious paperwork. Hospitals should not be "for-profit" - they should be ready and able to serve the health care needs of every legal U.S. citizen, whether they have private insurance or not. -RKO- 04/21/08

Does AARP offer affordable health insurance? What is the best medical care option for low income Americans? I am helping someone trying to find health benefits. She saw an add for AARP on TV and asked me to check into it. From what I can see AARP is a magazine subscriiption that offers a few discounts and offers a plan to suppliment existing insurance. It does not appear to be a place you can go for affordable primary health insurance. She is 55 years old, in relatively good health, except for taking high blood pressure medicine, a legal U.S. resident and currently unemployed. He last job was a Nanny job and that is probably what she will find next, but those kind of jobs are usually with a private family and they offer nothing in way of benefits. I have tried to GOOGLE "low income health insurance" and the best I have found is a short term policy, with a 7500 hospital deductable that costs 256.00 a month, still out of her reach. Are there any alternatives for low income Americans? Is AARP a possible solution to get her access to affordable medical care? All input is appreciated. She is just wants to be able to get affordable medical care and I really do not have an answer for her

How would you label me politically? Just curious. Have been told lately that my hands-off positions on social issues make me conservative. 1. I'm strongly pro-gun. If I can't fight back I have no last-ditch defense against tyranny or abuse. I'll drop my gun when the last cop and the last criminals drop theirs, many thanks. 2. I'm strongly pro-choice. I believe in self-ownership. Thus, as long as something is an unwelcome host in your body you can throw it out. 3. I'm strongly against censorship. Free speech means free speech, I won't buy onto none of that "decency" BS. Burn the FCC. I'm not offended either by hardcore conservative propaganda or BDSM porn. in primetime. If I don't like it I can swap channels. 4. I'm strongly against morality enforcement. Thus I oppose the war on drugs, bans on prostitution or gambling, sin taxes and having a drinking age higher than the age of majority. I'm also against laws forbidding consensual sexual acts. 5. I'm a strong supporter of religious freedom. If some folks want to pray let them pray as long as they don't coerce someone else. It's none of my business. Conversely, if some folks want to be hostile to religion, as long as they don't coerce someone else, by all means, let'em. It's again none of my business as long as no-one coerces each other. 6. I support a capable military, though not neccessarily one that is able to play world police. One that is enough to keep us and our allies safe, not a dime more. I oppose wars of aggression and imperialism, though I'm by no means a pacifist and when we have good reason to go on and kick butt, by all means do so. 7. I'm strong on privacy rights. While I don't think the Ten Commandments should be displayed in coutrtrooms, a golden script of the Fourth Amendment should be. Forbid cops from even buying a doughnut without probable cause. Allow them to do what they have to do when they have it. 8. Stop the marriage nonsense. Civil unions for all, and everyone shuts the f*ck up. 9. I'm pro-union, but I dislike them working like a mafia. Combine the open shop model with nondiscrimination laws that protect union members from management's retaliation and labor laws that let unions work. Let unions freely compete, as well as businesses. 10. It makes no sense to favor rich blacks over poor whites. Scrap affirmative action. Replace with free superior education and nondiscrimination in hiring laws. 11. It is outrageous that medical costs can drive people bankrupt. Single-payer, government-funded catastrophic health insurance for all (let the government bid with private contractors and lobby them for lower prices). Small medical costs let private insurance freely compete, and people choose whether to buy or not to buy it. 12. Welfare as is doesn't work. Replace with unemployment benefits to help people when they've been laid off. Good benefits that last for a reasonable while. Let them expire if they won't work. Aside from that, provide for the kids for they have no fault. That means food stamps and clothing vouchers and section 8, but no welfare check when mom's unemployment benefits run dry. 13. We need social security. We don't need it to go unchanged and untouched for the eras. Fix what doesn't work. Get ways, aside from taxation, to get revenue for it (such as investing part of the fund in a controlled way.) 14. I support the free market and free trade as long as there are reasonable protections for workers and the environment.

Hepatitis A - how long will it last, what can i do to get rid of it faster? Join Army after that? Medical ins? I'm 35, White male, American, WAS in perfect physical shape before i got it. I think i got it from my last visit to Thailand. Hepatitis A - have gotten it for 17 days already. All STD are negative. Went to doctor, of course, did all the test. So it's confirmed. Feeling better now, less stomach aches, less vomiting, but still have very low appetite, cannot eat meat or sweets at all (have no cravings for it), still have yellow eyes and sometimes pain in my belly, very tired, no energy, depressed, have to drop all my college classes this semester. My questions are: 1. How long will it take to recover and feel better ???? 2. Is it OK to go back to work? I've been staying home for 17 days already. Losing money every day. 3. Can I join the US Army after this? After 6 months? Can i still pass the medical after I had HP A? 4. What can i do to get rid of it faster ???!!! I drink a lot of mineral water, herbal teas, take Milk Thistle with meals, eat A LOT of watermelon, avoid sweets, caffeine and alcohol. 5. I do not have an insurance and went to a private doctor with this issue. If I apply for a medical insurance will it cost me much more if I told him I had HP A? Is there any way they could find out i had it if i don't tell them? Thank You, Alec. 3. Can I join

Is this a reasonable solution to the healthcare problem? I would favor the establishment of a publicly owned, non-profit insurance company which provides a lower tier, basic healthcare insurance. Private insurance companies could continue to sell policies for upper tier coverage that fill in gaps from the basic plan. Every American would be required to purchase this basic, affordable coverage. The cost of the policy should have an upper end cap and progress downward based on income level to the point of free for poverty level incomes. This would put all Americans in a single group fund, which will create economy of service. It would be vitally important that the funds generated in this entity not be mingled with the general treasury funds, as done with the social security funds. There would be years that this insurance group would have a surplus and years with a deficit. In surplus years, the cost of the policies should be lowered. In deficit years it should be increased. If the funds go into the general treasury, the cost of these policies would never go down. They would only increase when deficit years roll around. One deficit years would create an increase, which might be followed by 4 or 5 surplus years. The government would enjoy the surplus, then increase the cost again in year 6 because of another deficit. This is one of the major problems with the social security system. The government uses the social security system as a revenue source. There is a major danger of the same thing happening if a national healthcare system is established. Americans would find the cost of healthcare continuously going up if it becomes a general treasury item. Eliminating the profit from a basic health plan could lower the cost of insurance 20% or more. With a group that includes every American, we could see a 40% drop in insurance cost. Keeping upper tier insurance available thru private health plans would keep the medical industry vibrant.

Just curious.How much does it cost $ to see a Doctor in America? I have always wondered this. I am Australian and we have the Medicare system, everyone pays approx 1.5% levy in their taxes so medical care is cheap. Everyone gets treatment if they need it. Is it true that if you dont have the money to pay a doctor or hospital, say for surgery, you dont get treatment? I have seen this in a lot of American TV shows and movies and wondered. What about people with low incomes? And families struggling? Can they get treatment for free somewhere? We have the option here to have private health insurance but its not compulsory. How much is your insurance, say basic, for a family etc?

So why are the Big Health insurers against Canadian style Health insurance? The following story was posted in AP News today. My question is if insurers don't want an Obama Healthcare System that is socialized and a far cry from the "Best medical system in the world", then why are insurers content to send the insured overseas for "knee-replacements" and "heart by-pass" operations? I'm for Obama's plan and KEEPING AMERICAN JOBS HERE !!! (i.e. doctors, nurses and support staff). Screw the insurance companies as they have us for so long ! Insurers aim to save from overseas medical tourism Costa Rican Dr. Luis Obando prepares to perform a root canal on Bill Jones, of Dallas, Texas, at Meza Dental Care in San Jose, Costa Rica. Jones said he elected to have the surgery in Costa Rica because he was able to save substantially compared to what he would have had to pay in the USA. Enlarge image Enlarge By Kent Gilbert, AP Costa Rican Dr. Luis Obando prepares to perform a root canal on Bill Jones, of Dallas, Texas, at Meza Dental Care in San Jose, Costa Rica. Jones said he elected to have the surgery in Costa Rica because he was able to save substantially compared to what he would have had to pay in the USA. COSTS, SAVINGS Medical tourism trips offer steep savings, but they don't pack enough financial might to play a key role in President Obama's push to lower U.S. health care costs. Medical travel cost U.S. health care providers about $5.1 billion in business in 2007, according to estimates by Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. While significant, that amounts to less than 1% of the $2.36 trillion spent on health care in the United States that year. Medical tourism can yield savings of as much as 80% on some procedures compared to care in the United States. But traveling isn't for everyone and these trips are generally not an option for emergencies. A patient's willingness to travel for non-emergency care often depends on the savings at stake. With a low deductible and no incentives from an insurer or employer to travel, a patient may have little motivation to make a trip. Any result from the Washington reform push is unlikely to affect medical tourism, Keckley said, because it won't lower costs enough to erase price gaps with foreign care providers. By Tom Murphy, The Associated Press Elizabeth Kunz left her dentist's office this spring with a mouth full of problems and no way to pay for them. The South Carolina resident went out of her way, literally, to find a solution, which turned out to be in Central America. Her trip to the tropics is part of a health insurance experiment for trimming medical costs: overseas care. As Washington searches for ways to tame the country's escalating health care costs, more insurers are offering networks of surgeons and dentists in places like India and Costa Rica, where costs can be as much as 80% less than in America. Until recently, most Americans traveling abroad for cheaper non-emergency medical care were either uninsured or wealthy. But the profile of medical tourists is changing. Now, they are more likely to be people covered by private insurers, which are looking to keep costs from spiraling out of control. The four largest commercial U.S. health insurers — with enrollments totaling nearly 100 million people — have either launched pilot programs offering overseas travel or explored it. Several smaller insurers and brokers also have introduced travel options for hundreds of employers around the country. FIND MORE STORIES IN: South Carolina | Costa Rica | PricewaterhouseCoopers | Southern Methodist University | Aetna | Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association | Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu | Frequent flyer program Growth has been slow in part because some patients and employers have concerns about care quality and legal responsibility if something goes wrong. Plus, patients who have traditional plans with low deductibles may have little incentive to take a trip. But a growing number of consumers with high-deductible plans, which make patients pay more out of pocket, could make these trips more inviting. In the meantime, the insurance industry's embrace of overseas care has had a pleasant side effect at home: some U.S. care providers are offering price breaks to counter the foreign competition. This domestic competition and the slumping economy have led to slower growth for medical tourism over the past year, as patients put off elective procedures that involve big out of pocket costs, said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Last year, the center estimated that 6 million Americans would make medical tourism trips in 2010. But Keckley has since shaved that projection to about 1.6 million people. Still, that more than doubles the roughly 750,000 Americans who traveled abroad in 2007, the last year for which Deloitte had actual numbers. Keckley expects the medical tourism industry to recover, as more health insur

Does setting welfare income limits too low discourage success? First of all, I would like to say that I support social welfare, especially for the legitimately disabled. I support increases in disability SSI that actually meet the minimum cost of living. I see a problem with how benefits are allocated. I think we need programs that assist people who are above the poverty line but still struggling. I think its totally backwards that somebody who is totally broke can qualify for free medical care but someone who actually works but barely makes ends meet is unable to afford their medications or necessary medical procedures even with private insurance. I think we need to raise the income limits for various assistance programs. By raising the income levels, this encourages rather than discourages recipients to make more money if they are able until they are actually self sufficient. By setting the limits too low, it may seem like you are saving money by denying more people but you are also setting the bar lower for recipients and not encouraging them to try. By raising income limits and offering the disabled more leeway with trial work periods without losing their benefits you are actually doing more to get people to become self sufficient and eventually get off the system (If they are able). What do you think the answer is? How can it be implemented? I think its great that some people donate to churches. Keep up the good work and you are a good man for doing it. I dont believe that most Churches are equipped or have enough funding to cover peoples medical expenses (Maybe the rare charity drive for 1 or 2 members), and they dont have the resources for housing assistance, so I do not believe that giving money to your local church is a suitable replacement for social welfare, but I do fully support your donations as long as they are an adjunct to a comprehensive government plan rather than a replacement for them.

From Health Care to Health Insurance Reform? Now that the White House has decided that calling it Health Care Reform has become to divisive we have changed the name to Health insurance reform. My question is this.....If the government offers a low cost health insurance that covers you as well as your current private plan does will you switch? If enough people switch will that drive Health Insurance companies out of business? If there are no more private Health Insurance companies doesn't that effectively put everyone on a government plan? If the government is the only health insurance provider don't they by default own the hospitals, pharmacies, clinics, nursing homes, home health care, ambulance companies, medical supply companies, doctors, nurses and on and on and on..?? Just something to think about.........oh you can report me at------------ Flag@WhiteHouse.gov

What would you do? - health insurance? Here is my situation. I graduated college last year and was covered under my parent's insurance. When I timed out of their insurance I had health insurance for 6 months under a temporary catastrophic coverage plan. My current job does not have health benefits so I tried to buy an individual insurance plan. However I was denied because I am 6 pounds underweight. Yes, just six pounds underweight. You'd think that in an obesity epidemic being a few pounds underweight would not be a big deal. Especially since I have never had a single health problem due to my weight. I just have a high metabolism that makes it difficult to gain and keep on additional weight. Since I got declined for private health insurance I had the option of applying for the Oregon Medical Insurance Pool (you have to be denied by another insurance in order to qualify). But the shocker was the price. It would cost almost $300 a month and the OMIP barely covers anything. and has a $1,500 deductible. So I have been without health insurance for over six months now. I haven't had any health issues. Since I am young (23yrs) the only likely health problem that could occur would be from an accident such as a car wreck. So I upped my car insurance so it would pay for medical injuries up to $100,000. I know there is always a possibility that a major health problem could arise but the chances are pretty slim. I have the chance to go onto my dad's insurance in January. However, I have been reading over his plan and learned that his company's insurance doesn't cover my primary care doctor. To me it seems pointless to pay over a hundred dollars a month and not be able to go to my doctor. My mom's company's enrollment is coming up next July. I am fairly certain her plan will have a much lower deductible plus it would for sure cover my doctor. I am leaning towards just waiting until July. Would you do the same?

Is the Health Industry killing USA's global competitiveness? American are paying almost 1/3rd of their salaries to private insurance companies every month for medical insurance. These insurance companies are making almost 50% profit every year i.e. more than oil companies. No other business in the world makes so much profit. But these high costs are burdening American workers as people in other countries do not have such high medical insurance expenses and are therefore more competitive when it comes to hiring them for jobs such as manufacturing. Look at American companies too, aren't they hiring more people outside USA especially in Asia simply because they do not have to provide medical insurance at such high costs and therefore can get same manpower at lower costs in other countries. aren't the American losing both ways i.e. paying major chuck of their salaries to a louzy medical system and losing their jobs to people living in other countries? Is the Medical insurance in USA actually killing America's competitiveness?

How would a tax on health insurance reduce health care costs? House Dems are considering a tax on "high-cost" health insurance plans. "Proponents of the insurance tax, which President Barack Obama has endorsed, say it would help to lower health care costs by encouraging people to become more cost-conscious health care consumers. Some of the high-cost plans are so expensive because they come with no co-payments or deductibles, and cover every dollar spent for health care. Not all of them provide such "Cadillac" benefits, however. Some are very expensive because they're sold to companies with older employees, or workers in high-risk occupations." Senario: A wealthy person buys an expensive health insurance plan for $8000 a year that comes with no co-payments or deductibles, and covers every dollar spent for health care. He remains healthy and has few medical expenses, but they're all covered by his private insurance. No public money is involved and his insurance company pays in a timely manner. The patient is happy and the medical people are all happy because all his bills are paid. The next year, the government begins to tax his "Cadillac" insurance plan, so he now has to pay an additional 25% tax on his insurance premiums, raising them to $10,000. "If House Democrats adopt the insurance tax, it may help them to reduce the income tax increase that they've proposed." How exactly would that reduce health care costs, when all it would really do is REDUCE THE INCOME TAX INCREASE THEY ALREADY HAVE PLANNED TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE PLAN? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Health care suggestion or comment please? I live in Europe and I pay the equivalent of about $200 a month for private health insurance. I can use the public health care for free if I want to as well of course. What I found interesting is that I can use my private health care all around the world except for Canada and the USA. I would need to pay $900 a month instead. I was really shocked. The reason is because in Canada, the health care is very expensive since it is 100% socialized (no private). And...in America, it is high on account of the medical insurance costs for the doctors which they need to pay on account of multi-million dollar lawsuits. The great thing about private health care along with free health care, is that it keeps the costs down...and we also don't allow these types of lawsuits which is the other reason why our costs are lower. I was wondering what any of you would think of adopting a system like this? It's so logical, keeps costs down, and absolultely everyone has access to free health care.

Is It Expensive To Be A Physician? I have a friend who is a hospital administrator and said "don't go into medicine to get rich. You'll be dissatisfied with the results!". He said that doctors in private practice/salaried doctors have tough regulations/restrictions in which the government and the insurance companies have upon them. Many doctors are frustrated with the pair, because it limits them to truly practice medicine. Next has to do with low reimbursements. Both the government/private insurance companies are making medicine unprofitable for physicians to stay afloat or break even in private practice and as a salaried doctors. Between extremely high medical debt, malpractice insurance, and annual licensing fees, many say its not worth continuing because of high cost! For these reasons, many physicians feel that its too tiring, too, expensive, and too regulated to continue on. Is this true? If that's that case how expesive can it be to become a doctor and to maintain the status?

Should I leave my good paying job for a lower paying one with benefits? I work as a contractor making 17/hr. I don't get medical, dental, vision, sick leave or vacation benefits which really blows because I have been to the dentist four times in the past 14 months for root canals, crowns, cavities, etc and am due for several more root canals and crowns which cost a lot of $$. On top of this I drive 80-100 miles a day round trip to and from work on my own dime and with gas being so expensive, well. Not just that but the commute is long (2hours most days round trip) and wear and tear on my car sucks too. I could leave this job and make the same doing roof construction with full benefits and be miserable in the winters here in Western Washington OR I could take a low paying office or factory job and have benefits but barely be able to pay my bills. The lack of benefits sucks because i have to pay for everything out of pocket even with my private insurance. The wear and tear on my car, the gas, it all blows. What should I do? I am two years away from graduating with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration. I used to be an account manager doing management work but all the ones I apply to and interview with are sales not management....

Why are so many Americans coming to Canada for medical treatment? http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/20/world/americans-filching-free-health-care-in-canada.html. This article would suggest that there would need to be at least 120,000 Canadians going to America for treatment in the US per year to top the amount of Americans coming to Canada. And that was a long time ago when the economy in the US was good and the unemployment was under 4%. Imagine how much Canada is paying to cover Americans today. I don't personally know any Canadians that have gone to the US but I'm sure that they would at least pay. So what is it? Why are so many Americans trying to get into Canada for medical treatment? If America is so much better and their private insurance creates so much competition to afford them low cost care from better doctors, why are they flooding Canada?

Is It Expensive To Be A Doctor? A friend of mine that is a hospital administrator said once "don't go into medicine to get rich. You'll be dissatisfied with the overall results!" He said that physicians in private practice/salaried doctors are under very stern regulations/restrictions from the government/insurance companies. Many physicians complain in frustration because it limits the doctor to truly practice medicine. Next, he mention that the government/private insurance companies offer low reimbursements to private practices/salaried doctors. Many can barely stay afloat because the payments are well below par and due to extremely high medical debt, malpractice insurance, equipment, and licensing fees its almost impossible to break even. For these reasons, medicine has become too tiring, too expensive, and too regulated to continue on to practice! Is this true? If that's the case, then how much does it cost to be a doctor or to maintain being one?

Separate But Equal Health Insurance Will Not Work? President Obama lists his health care reform plans on the White House website. The major points of this plan follow: Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies. •Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums. •Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees. •Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees. •Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors. •Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care. •Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage. The last item - "Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." Should cause all of us some concern. Although I agree with Obama's overall plan - creating a public plan "based on benefits available to members of congress" is setting up a separate but equal health insurance system. If a person chooses to participate in the public plan - that person should have access to the VERY SAME plan as members of congress and all federal employees have. "Separate but equal" public plans, one for federal employees and one for the rest of America will mean trouble down the road. As congress changes and enhances their own plan - the other public plan (for the rest of us) will be left behind. I strongly feel that any new - optional - public plan should be the exact SAME plan our congress uses. American citizens should be able to buy into the existing Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program website states that federal employees have "“the widest selection of health plans in the country”. If American citizens decide to participate in the new public plan - they should be able to buy from the same pool of plans that federal employees buy from. This would ensure that as the congress changes and negotiates better benefits for itself - the rest of America will benefit as well.

Is this not the saner alternative to the Democrat healthcare reform? -Increase the Medicaid threshold to insure the uninsurable with pre-existing conditions and the lower middle class who are currently not eligible for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance. -Tax credits to lower and middle income households to purchase private health insurance plans. -Regulatory reform to reduce instances of denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. -Creating an independent agency to audit and investigate cases of fraud on the Medicare/Medicaid rolls. -Tort reform, allowing private insurers/HMO's, hospitals, clinics and drug companies to lower operating costs from frivolous lawsuits. -Allowing insurers to sell across state lines with portable insurance policies that allow people to move from state-to-state and keep their policies. It will also allow insurers to relocate to states with lower taxes and lower operating costs. These lowered operating costs would then conceivably be passed on to the insured. -Employer regulations to insure that recently laid-off workers can keep their current policies for a suitable period of time (maybe 6 months) until they can find other means of employment or health insurance. -No Public Option, and thus no multiple-trillions of dollars spent and no attrition of private insurers. If we can achieve those goals, not only will we have near-universal healthcare, but we will also continue to have private insurers operating in a reduced-cost environment. Also, the United States has some of the greatest hospitals (JHH and Mayo) and the best Medical Schools (Harvard and Johns Hopkins) in the world. Just thought that needed to be said. At A.E. Moreira, that's why we allow insurers to sell beyond state lines, so that they can relocate or incorporate in states that already have tort reform.

Should a College Student's School-Sponsored Health Insurance Pay for all Health Care Needs? And should people who testify in public against the wishes of the Republican Party be subjected to brutal, fascistic attacks and outright lies as the right-wing attempts to confuse the issue that person is presenting? -------------- In her testimony, she argued in favor of requiring private insurance companies to cover contraception. She claimed that over the three years as a law student, birth control would cost an estimated $3,000. She continued that the lack of coverage would force many low income women to go without contraception and that women's free health clinics cannot meet the need. She then discussed the consequence of such policies, including a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome being forced to go without birth control pills, resulting in a cyst developing on her ovaries. According to Fluke, her friend was denied coverage, even with a verified condition from her doctor, and this is not a rare event for women with medical conditions. She then stated that she wanted equal treatment for women's health issues and did not see the issue as being against the Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke

With so many relatively simple changes that could reduce costs, why is Obama obsessed with government control? Congress could actually reform health care costs on a dozen pages; tort reform (not even discussed), allowing small businesses to band together (not even discussed), allowing insured to select what they need rather than government insisting on what they must have (I'm a guy. My insurance company is REQUIRED by the government to cover my OB/GYN visits. Not even discussed), allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines (not even discussed), or allowing insurance companies to offer low cost 'catastrophic' policies (not even discussed). These few things would make HUGE reductions in the actual cost of insurance and medical care. But the democrats won't even discuss them. Why is the only option for democrats, the government option? They're not doing anything to actually lower costs. Simply paying less is NOT lowering costs. It reduces quality. What do you think the affect will be of a government insisting that a doctor accept $75 for a procedure that costs him $100 to perform? Does nothing to lower costs and that doctor is not going to perform that procedure if he can help it...that reduces quality of care. All they're doing is shifting costs from an efficient private sector to an inefficient public sector which will be subsidized with our tax money.

American, do you know that Insurance run our healthcare ? That's what makes us become the laughing stock of the world. The insurance companies dictates the high cost of our healthcare. Look at Canada for good example (please see my QAs), if they can provide the free healthcare with similar tax rate with US, why can't US ? (without the mandatory to buy insurance !). Obamacare is about Obama being insurance salesman trying to lure US into signing a lifetime contract to buy health insurance. During campaign he said about going after the health insurance co., but now after become president he wants to mandate us to buy insurance ? He is trying to reach more into our "holed" wallets and pockets. We should get rid of those insurance who block the way between doctor and patient. Why the people who never buy insurance (people on Medicaid) can win millions in medical lawsuit, you can't claim lottery winning sum if you never buy the lottery ticket. Give free healthcare to everybody now without mandatory to buy insurance. Let the people who buy insurance get Private HC. In Canada, everyone get free healthcare without any mandatory to buy insurance. With the similar tax rate to Canada, US should get free healthcare too without the obligation to pay additional amount for insurance. We pay Medicare Tax, we should get the free healthcare NOW instead of waiting until age 65. IF we followed Canada example by giving everyone free public healthcare, then that time there will be two kinds of HC, Private for people who buy Health Insurance, and Public Healthcare for ALL. US Income tax : 15% for income under $34,000.- ; 25% for income over $34,000.- US Medicare tax : 1.45%, BUT we will be eligible for the healthcare LATER after age 65. US Social Security Tax : 6.2% for employee. Canada Income tax : 15% for the first income $40,726.- ; 22% for the next $40,726.- Canada Medicare/Healthcare Tax (which they are eligible for the free healthcare NOW, not wait until age 65) : ...? Health care is managed provincially so it varies by province. In Ontario, health care tax rate is on a range between $300 and $900 (per year) dependent on income. The tax is collected through income tax. Those with income less than $20 000 are exempt. In B.C., health care tax is collected outside of the income tax system, and it is reduced or eliminated for low income people. In Alberta, there is no tax for health care. dudeman6: so the government and insurance co. are hand in hand ? Maybe you are right. bmovie: Canada also has similar welfare/tax deduction. They even don't tax inheritance/gambling/lottery winning. What I meant is the gov. should give us free healthcare now WITHOUT any mandatory to buy insurance/to pay more. We have paid Medicare Tax, we should get the HC now (not waiting until 65). People who buy insurance can get Private HC.

What do you think of my health care proposal? I sent this letter to my congressmen. I would love to see what people think of it. It's long, and I'm sure needs revision and fine tuning, but I ask for you to evaluate the concept. I asked this last week but people firestormed it off of here. I'm trying again. Report me and I will chase you to the ends of the earth. Dear (name) I have a proposal of my own regarding health care reform that I wish to submit for your consideration. I know I likely have a lot of goofups with my numbers, but it's the concept I would like evaluated. I think this could really work. Currently, the federal government covers 83 million people already. 43 million through Medicaid ($440B, 2008 numbers) and 40 million through Medicare ($208B from the Feds, and $157B through the states (2007 numbers). So, total $805 billion for 83 million people, or roughly $9,700 per person! Let's say $10,000 per person to keep the math simple. What's the average household size being covered? Average in the US is 2.65 (2000 Census). So, let's be conservative and say 2. That makes the average household being covered getting $20,000. Average premiums, including both the employer and employee portions, were $4,704 for single coverage and $12,680 for family coverage in 2008. So, we ALREADY spend (i.e. collect through taxes $20,000 per household. But the cost to cover a household through private insurance averages only $12,680. There are 48 million (so they say) currently without medical coverage. 13 milion are illegal immigrants, leaving 35 million. Not all of those uninsured are unable to buy health insurance. Many chose not to. So let's just put the amount of people who need help one way or another at a cool 100 million, or 50 million households. This gives us a working budget using the premiums we already collect of $16,100 per household, without spending a DIME more of taxpayer money. Now that we have that out of the way.... my proposal..... 1. Leave medicare/medicaid premiums as-is. 2. Abolish medicare/medicaid programs altogether. Currently the fraud and waste level in these makes them WAY more expense than private health insurance. 3. Establish a voucher system for low income people to allow them to shop for and buy their own private health insurance, based on their AGI. Make it on a sliding scale. This money would NOT go to the people themselves, but would be directed to a health insurance company of their choosing. Example (would have to be tweaked depending on household size) Up to 75% of the poverty line: up to $15,000 per year pretty much 100% coverage. You can buy a stellar family health plan for that much. 76-100% of the poverty line: up to $7,500 per year. 101-125% of the poverty line: up to $2,500 per year. >125% of the poverty line - nada. If these people have some kind of employer paid coverage available, then that amount of money can be used to offset the employee contribution. This would actually make money be left over, since not all households on medicaid would need the full amount. Then, make all health insurance costs, both premiums and out of pocket, 100% tax deductible and not subject to deduction limits. This would encourage people to buy their own. I KNOW there are almost certainly bugs in this, but roughly speaking, this would accomplish the following: 1. Get rid of wasteful government medical coverage. 2. Get the government out of deciding what kind of health care you can/can't have. 3. Make health insurance affordable to all. If you still have no health insurance with this, it's because you just can't be bothered. 4. Doesn't cost ONE THIN DIME more than what we currently pay. 5. Does absolutely nothing to disrupt the private health insurance programs we already have. If you're a poor family with a $15,000 voucher for health insurance, companies will be tripping over themselves to cover you. Honest. All statistics I quote are gathered from wikipedia, and the references are cited within those articles. Thank you for your time. ------------------ I'd like to know why anyone would oppose this. Please explain why if you do. Nit-picking little flaws is not what I'm looking for. I'm sure there are plenty.

You claim government backed health insurance is not a takeover? Please explain this away: http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009072410 1. the feds can mandate what is in your private insurance package The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer. 2. no more discounts for clean living Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000. Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents. 3.the bill eliminates HSA accounts The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed." 4. you can keep your existing health plan, it's a lie folks. The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months. 5. free to keep your doctors... The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists. CNN is my source, not FOX or FAUX or whatever you like to call it. Let the contortions begin! This is a 1000 page bill, so no, I have not read it. But noone voting on it or desparate to sign it has read it either I dare say. How can you trust a 1000 pages of legalese to be in your best interest?

Expensive To Be A Doctor? A friend who is a hospital administrator said "don't go into medicine to get rich. You'll be dissatisfied with the overall results". He mention that in private practice & salaried physicians have to deal with too much government/insurance companies restrictions/regulations that can be so frustrating to deal with. Next they said many have high medical debt that can cost in the $200,000-$250,000 range in which they need to say back with costly malpractice insurance and medical licence fees each year to continue to practice. What makes matters worse, government/private insurance companies offer low reimbursements in which many say its considered unprofitable to be in any more and that it turn physicians to be paper pushers instead of practicing in their respectable fields! Is this true? If that's the case, how much does it coes to be a doctor, and how much does it cost to continue practicing yearly?

What’s at the heart of the SCHIP debate.? What’s at the heart of the SCHIP debate. Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer. Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors. Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions. Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000. A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program. None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line. In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors. But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness. Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours. SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

What will this new Liberal Democrat Health Plan do for those currently insured by private health companies? I understand President Obama and the other Liberal Democrats telling America that this new Liberal Democrat health plan will provide insurance for nearly 32 million "uninsured Americans." But check out the link at the end of my rant. LOL The bill seems to not only have quite a bit of wasteful spending, which is not surprising since it is a purely one-party bill, but where they are going to get the money to pay for this $938 billion health plan is what is really discouraging for those of us who already have good health insurance plans through our employers. Check out this part of the article. "The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries." Obama has said that insurance funds paid out by employers to health insurance companies providing health coverage to their employees will decrease. Well, I'm no genius, but 2+2 does not equal 5 Mr. President. If you tax health insurance companies, then those companies will roll that extra cost onto the employers. And pharmaceutical companies will apply the extra tax burden on top of the cost of their drugs. It has been reported that after 10 years the cost that employers are paying out to insurance companies will drop. But I am concerned, not afraid, that the cost of my insurance will never again be as low as it is now. I am also concerned about what will happen after the 10 year period is up. Where will the government get the money to continue to pay for this health plan if they are no longer leveling extra taxes against the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries? I think that the ones who will ultimately benefit the most from this plan after this "10 year period of time" is over will be the politicians and the wealthy, which is exactly what these Liberal Democrats want. What do you think? Is this plan another "great idea" from the Liberal Democrat's messiah, Obama, or is it just another political move at the expense of the American people in an attempt for one party to gain power over the other? At any rate, it all seems pretty hasty to me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul But Ugly, there-in lies the great deception. As inflation goes up so do taxes, including taxes on the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. In reality, after the 10 years has elapsed, the gov't will have to continue to tax these industries to pay for the insurance, and thus employer provided health plans will continuosly become further out of reach finacially for the lower and middle class families in America. Actually, Monica Sardonica, doctors won't leave, but may just eventually become corrupt. They might be able to get paid more "under the table" than through the gov't. Plus it will probably cost people less to py "under the table" than to pay the deductable for the gov't run health insurance. People who can still afford the private health insurance, (the wealthy), will get their health care needs met first, because the doctors will get paid more. I say this, because this is EXACTLY what has happened in other countries that have gov't run health care. LOL!!! PopsLove 6, you need to stop being a blind follower and start doing some critical thinking. A little common sense wouldn't hurt either. Yes, Obama and the other Libercrats did say that you can keep your private health insurance if you want. However, they are leaving out A LOT of key information concerning how the Federal health care plan will effect the premiums and co-pays of those private plans. Some people's private plans will become so expensive due to the "trickle down effect" that they will have no choice but to use the Federal Health Care Plan. If you actually read the entire article, you would have seen how they are going to fund this beast. It is through taxing the hospitals, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and health device manufacturers. They will just pass the tax burden down to their consumers through inflated costs on the products and services they provide. You have to think, not just blindly follow.

Anyone who has had a good experience with your personal health insurance company, tell us your experience? Unless medical service providers lower costs so that average people can afford procedures and medication, we're all going to need to depend on our private insurers. I'd like to hear from those who've had good experiences with their companies (provide company names, please!)

Individual Freedom vs. Government Control? Individual Freedom vs. Government Control Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer. Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors. Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions. Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000. A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program. None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line. In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors. But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness. Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours. SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

Please poke holes in this liberals.? In order to lower insurance premiums we should end the subsidies given to employers for providing group medical insurance and if anything give just enough to people buying private insurance to make purchasing insurance outside of work just as appealing. This would promote competition lowering premiums. For the high risk and people with prior conditions they would go into a high risk pool if they can show they were refused affordable private insurance. They would pay what they can afford om there premiums and the gov. Would pick up the tab on the rest at a fraction the cost of obamacare. By removing the high risk from the rest of the market premiums drop further. Everyone has access to affordable coverage. No one is left out and we don't sacrifice our liberties PS fact check if u like. Average Med. Ins. Profit margin last year 4.5 percent

Since health insurance companies do nothing but collect money and process claims, why not require them to be? non-profit corporations like Germany? Insurance companies do not take your temperature, they don't do rectal exams and stick a tongue suppressor in your mouth and tell you to say Ahhhh. They rake 25% off the top of every health care dollar you spend so why would you want to pay them. Germany has multiple private insurance companies, all non-profit. As a result, their costs are lower than ours and this makes health care more access able to all their citizens and thereby delivers a better result. So if you don't like the idea of the government processing you medical claims as they do for Medicare, let's just require them to be non-profit like the Red Cross.

Middle of the road common sense about healthcare? Just think about this for a minute. The extremes on both sides are blurring the healthcare issue to keep everyone confused and fighting in hopes of getting their party agendas through, but are no citizens looking at these topics with an unbiased eye? This is, first off, not about the non-working poor. People who are on welfare have 100% government paid healthcare through Medicaid. It's not insurance as affects the rest of the population. They pay nothing for the policy and there are no copayments, etc. That's fallacy #1. This isn't about people who don't work. The other group who doesn't work are people on Social Security, through either retirement or disability. They are covered under a government sponsored health insurance to which they contribute called Medicare. This is more like traditional insurance in that they pay a premium and have copays for medical services, prescriptions, etc. The government is already involved in health insurance through these 2 programs that focus on the non-working in our society. This is supposed to be aimed at the working poor. It would be insurance of the more traditional type where the government would negotiate a large scale insurance policy (like it did with Medicare) to take advantage of the savings. Individual policies can run to thousands of dollars a month, which most working people can't afford. Many employers no longer offer healthcare as a benefit or negotiate a contract collectively for their employees to lower the costs somewhat, but then pass the entireity of the policy costs onto the employee making it, many times, cost prohibitive. This is, more and more, going to become the case since there are too many people competing for too few jobs so employers are now in the position of not having to woo personnel. The economy is such that it's the employer's market. So we have the working poor who are living paycheck to paycheck, maybe working more than one job, and still not able to afford health care. What happens when someone gets very ill? They go to the doctors or leave it until it's really bad, since they don't have the money, and end up in the hospital with enormous bills. These bills are extra enormous since doctors and hospitals charge out of pocket people substantially higher rates than insured people. Insurance companies negotiate contractual fees with providers in their network and will only pay up to a certain amount for services. In some cases it's astounding the differences. One practice I worked in had a difference of over $4,000 for insured vs. uninsured. So you don't have the money for the doc, no insurance, and now you have a huge medical bill. Bankruptcy has been rewritten so that it's not really an option anymore (not that it helped the providers substantially anyway as there usually isn't much to take and divide) so the providers spend a fortune on collections and writing off debt, which they then pass along to the next person in line, ie. you. Now providers are not uninanimously against this. Many have embraced it because there is a stipulation for mandatory coverage. This means they will be dealing with far less in bad debt and can at least be assured of getting paid the insurance portion. Where the rub for them comes in is those negotiated contractual fees. Looking at Medicare as their example of government negotiated insurance, they are scared. The rates for Medicare are substantially lower than any private insurance. Can they still make a living? Absolutely. They take Medicare because, if they don't, they will have a smaller pool of patients to take. Some opt out, but if this is national, they will be even harder pressed to turn their noses up at it. Medical costs are the highest in the country out of the entire world. Medical inflation is rampant and, unlike most things in a free market, you can't always decide to just not purchase. Medical inflation has consistently outstripped regular inflation every year for the last 20 years. That means that the devices they use and the labor they purchase, the ground and construction of facilities, has not increased enough to justify their increase in price. Pharmaceutical companies stand to make more because most people are opting generics over the name brand prescriptions (some of which are several hundred dollars per treatment or month, for long term meds) and having insurance means that when the new meds come out, before generic are legally allowed (to protect R&D and keep companies encouraged to continue finding new meds) they will be allowed to charge their assinine prices and have people submit because they are paying $60 instead of $20. Much easier than the "it might work" generic at $50 OOP to $400 for the "this is the ticket" name brand. The scariest part of this whole plan for the working poor is what are these "mandatory" rates going to be? Are they going to be equally unaffordable? Now you are violating the law if you don't I understand it's long. I thought that people who actually care might have been willing to read an actual thorough analysis. I don't do talking points like "Osama sounds like Obama" or scream one word slogans like "Nazi" at all republicans.

why shouldn't obama-ites bail out the doctors who pay such high medical malpractice premiums rather than...? rather than asking doctors to go against their hippocrate's oath, causing more harm to their patients by giving a lower degree of care to them (under the "socialized" medical plan that is obama's VISION of the day...which of course, you too, should ENVISION to become great and protected forever from any type of criticism, as well as, very well cared for the rest of your life by PRIVATE doctors NOT in the commie health plan), why didn't obama come into my city today to announce to them, the doctors of the american medical association, that the government will form an alliance with the banks, that run the insurance companies, that charge them astronomical medical malpractice premiums so that they could give a better quality of care to we, their patients? i.e., what with all the bailout money that's been doled out to the banks (who own the insurance companies for the most part), why can't more fiat dollars be printed up by the mint at the bequest of the people that live over at the federal reserve banks to pay medical malpractice insurance premiums FOR the doctors and hospitals? yeah, why not? i mean, doesn't that go along with what obama suggests? did he not infer to the american medical association that the doctors be regulated and paid less money for being so, all to take in the 50,000 uninsured of this country? i can see many other ways of solving this problem, can't you? 1. legalize and license prostitution and tax it to death: more money in their coffers to pay the doctors to give at least monthly exams to the prostitutes so that they are not passing around venereal disease? 2. legalize and subsidize the crops of even "cush" marijuana (because you only need one hit to get stoned--i don't smoke it because i am an old fart now, but i know people that do) all so that the dealers and the purchasers who smoke the stuff: a. do not go to prison, claiming our tax dollars to give them 3 square per day and then become b. even more violent and merciless "citizens" thanks to their close proximity with super criminals and gangs, and then, c. to pay their fair share of the excessive taxes it will cost to provide health care to these 50,000 people living in the usa that don't have health insurance? 3. raise taxes on alcoholic beverages to the point that the tax cost "deters" drinking it, just like they say that higher taxes deter more people from starting to smoke cigarettes? after all, the politicians drink booze all the time--why not tax the stuff at a greater, higher cost? and we all know, don't we, that smoking kills? well, don't drunk drivers? and aren't some of them politicians and lawyers? 4. make it a part of the "stimulus" package that said 50,000 uninsured people must be HIRED by companies all over the united states (that way, keeping out many illegal aliens so that they get exhausted trying to keep a roof over their 20/household heads and decide to return to their own countries) and that bail outs shall be provided to these businesses to cover what they have to put out to give health insurance to ALL of their employees? 5. let it be a part of the "stimulus" package to stimulate entrepreneurs to open their own companies and hire employees WITH health benefits without getting overtaxed for making themselves and their employees able to attain the american dream with increases in wages/salaries/other benefits? 6. penalize all american companies that do not kick up a part of their almighty "bottom line" (in many cases attained by sending our work to the orient because the mexican workers of the malquiadores just south of our border were "too highly paid" according to the companies that sent american jobs down there before sending them to the orient so that china could get real rich on our debt to them) with higher (even if delayed with interest accruing, like your taxes to uncle sam accrue not only a penalty, but interest until paid in full) TAXES? especially, higher TAXES to the members of the company that control it--they, the ones that make the decisions to send the work overseas to people that have no insurance and who live gratefully on their $0.50 per hour? 7. make it law that one hour per week of each health care provider, including all hospital departments, is given by them, to uninsured patients, without being paid? (i had once been on my way to becoming a physician, and if i had gotten there, i would not mind giving health care free, one hour a week--averaged out over 12 months if necessary--so that the uninsured could be treated, and treated WELL). is there no other possible answer to our problem with uninsured americans than to have the government take the health care business away from those that give the health care to the people, and then to centralize it and to control it, just like what is done in commie countries? why should banking or health care be controlled by uncle sam? if it is, the care that you get when you see your physician Adam B: i touch type and i am a writer. the only reason i ask or answer here is to get someone like you to THINK. but carry on with your rudeness. karma will kick your butt in its own unique, Adam B, way.

Do you like my list of important things you should now about the health care reform? 10 THINGS EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM 1. Once reform is fully implemented, over 95% of Americans will PAY to have MANDATED health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured but could possibly have a job in 4 years. Those that don't will go on medicare 2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny INDIVIDUAL people coverage because of preexisting conditions—or to drop INDIVIDUAL coverage when people become sick. However, they may drop the coverage all together for everyone under that one particular group for that one particular condition. 3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums paid for with tax breaks that may not save them more money than the fine they will have to pay if they do not. 4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years based on a theorized decline in the cost of health insurance. 5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses that chose not to offer health insurance, thanks to new tax credits for INDIVIDUALS, subsidies, and other assistance—paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and people making over 200,000 dollars a year. These credits will be available to only the very lowest income families. Those who make less that 133% the poverty level will have to pay 3 to 4% of their yearly income to qualify. Most families will have to spend over 10% of their yearly income on medical expenses to qualify. 6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage by taking them off Medicare and making them pay for private insurance through the above mentioned government aid. 7. By reducing health care costs for employers but at the same time taxing them to create the so called "surplus", in theory, the reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade by mostly establishing a government run and appointed branch of the executive government called the "health commission" that will oversee who, what, when, where and how procedures are covered under medicare and the aforementioned government aid is handed out. 8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people who make less than minimum wage at 40 hours a week. 9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26 causing their parents extra financial burdens that can not be included in their tuition as is currently the case. 10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay assuming they use that money for employees rather than medical supplies. Source: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Why is this bad for America? 1. Once reform is fully implemented, over 95% of Americans will PAY to have MANDATED health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured but could possibly have a job in 4 years. Those that don't will go on medicare 2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny INDIVIDUAL people coverage because of preexisting conditions—or to drop INDIVIDUAL coverage when people become sick. However, they may drop the coverage all together for everyone under that one particular group for that one particular condition. 3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums paid for with tax breaks that may not save them more money than the fine they will have to pay if they do not. 4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years based on a theorized decline in the cost of health insurance. 5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses that chose not to offer health insurance, thanks to new tax credits for INDIVIDUALS, subsidies, and other assistance—paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and people making over 200,000 dollars a year. These credits will be available to only the very lowest income families. Those who make less that 133% the poverty level will have to pay 3 to 4% of their yearly income to qualify. Most families will have to spend over 10% of their yearly income on medical expenses to qualify. 6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage by taking them off Medicare and making them pay for private insurance through the above mentioned government aid. 7. By reducing health care costs for employers but at the same time taxing them to create the so called "surplus", in theory, the reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade by mostly establishing a government run and appointed branch of the executive government called the "health commission" that will oversee who, what, when, where and how procedures are covered under medicare and the aforementioned government aid is handed out. 8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people who make less than minimum wage at 40 hours a week. 9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26 causing their parents extra financial burdens that can not be included in their tuition as is currently the case. 10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay assuming they use that money for employees rather than medical supplies. Obviously it's terrible for people who make over $ 200k a year but considering the fact that there's more people who make under 200k than over it benefits more people than it hurts. And for those who complain about 'being forced' to buy health insurance i think everyone should be forced to buy it yu can't predict if something will happen to you and what happens to the bills for uninsured americans?

What do you think of this US Healthcare alternative? An alternative to the socialized medicine the President wants Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded. Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment. Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism. Pillar #2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines. Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP. Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations. Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services. Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs. Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs . Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages. Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH Hell no I'm suprised how many commies reside on Y!A.

Which Health care plan makes more sense? According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies. The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent. The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CBO-Prepublican-health-plan-would-reduce-premiums--69270747.html Hmmm makes Obama's plan look slightly stupid even for those lunatic liberals that cannot seem to add

Can you lower a blood glucose test result in days just prior to testing? My brother is (in his doctor's words) a borderline diabetic. The last 3 times he's tested after a 12 hour fasting period (with no cheating) he has had a result of 119, 118 and 119. He wants to keep from going over and loosing his medical insurance opportunity when his group policy is no longer going to cover him (that's a complicated story). When he has to get private insurance, a single high reading for glucose can do great harm to his costs and/or his acceptability by the company. Can he do anything by way of diet or exorcise, for the days leading up to the test that would give him more favorable results by lowering the outcome of the test short term? Perhaps he will take the preventative measure and turn it into a routine. Then he won't have to worry about such things.

Health Care Economics? 1.The insight that both parties must be benefiting if they freely agreed to make a trade is known as the fundamental theorem of exchange. True or False? 2.In a two-party transaction, consumers make up the demand side, while sellers make up the supply side. True or False? 3.A recent study showed that 86% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. True or False? 4.Demand is a professional determination of the quantity that should be supplied. True or False? 5.To determine how many times an individual will visit the doctor, we look only at that individual’s behavior. This is an example of derived demand. True or False? 6.Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a set of techniques for assisting in the making of decisions that translates all relevant concerns into market (dollar) terms. True or False? 7.The appropriate measure of economic cost is opportunity cost. True or False? 8.How much has to be paid for treatment, and how much the treatment is worth, depends on whose perspective a cost–benefit analysis of health care is taking. True or False? 9.The chance that you might become injured or sick is a cost, as is the chance that you might have significant expenses when you have no income. True or False? 10.People’s degree of risk aversion depends to some extent on their income and savings. True or False? 11.With insurance, patients gain by pooling risks to eliminate financial uncertainty and make expensive treatments affordable. True or False? 12.People make medical decisions based solely on the type of insurance coverage they have. True or False? 13.The Medicare RBRVS system was designed to rebalance physicians’ incomes across specialties and to provide more payment for thinking and caring. This system was completely successful. True or False? 14.The income of physicians in solo or group private practices mostly comes from fee-for-service payments. True or False? 15.To maximize revenues when providing different types of care, physicians should charge different prices even if their costs are the same for each service, and they should charge a lower price where demand is least price sensitive. True or False? 16.In the United States, physicians not only prescribe drugs; they also sell medications. True or False? 17.Payment systems such as insurance plans have transformed medical care into a: a.business. b.profit. c.public good. d.charity. 18.Demand curves are ___________ sloping, because the quantity demanded will always fall as prices rise. a.downward b.upward c.linearly d.horizontally 19.Economists define derived demand as demand for a good due to its ________, rather than in itself. a.quality b.use c.quantity d.cost 20.____________ is the increase in total costs caused by the production of one more unit. a.Marginal revenue b.Marginal demand c.Price sensitivity d.Marginal cost 21.The _________ and __________ associated with a decision don’t have value in and of themselves; instead, their value depends on the alternatives. a.costs, quality b.costs, benefits c.quantity, quality d.costs, quantity 22.All of the following are types of medical costs except: a.medical care and administration. b.follow-up and treatment. c.provider time and inconvenience. d.health and productivity. 23.The most common method of protection against the risk of large medical costs is: a.insurance. b.pooling. c.adverse selection. d.risk aversion. 24.Health insurance became more of a necessity as medical care became more: a.affordable. b.expensive. c.accessible. d.risky. 25.Insurance breaks the linkage between what the _______ pays and the amount the provider is paid. a.physician b.hospital c.insurance company d.patient 26.HSA stands for: a.health savings account. b.health standard association. c.higher standard account. d.health spending account. 27.Malpractice is physician failure to meet: a.pre-established cure rates. b.payment methods. c.professional standards. d.insurance requirements. 28.____________ is an extension of the agency relationship between doctors and patients to society as a whole. a.Licensure b.Adverse selection c.Assignment d.Coinsurance 29.One of the characteristics of medical markets first noted by economists was that _________ patients pay _____________ prices for the same service. a.different; different b.different; the same c.the same; different d.the same; the same 30.Surreptitious payments in order to obtain business are referred to as: a.price discrimination. b.economies of scale. c.kickbacks. d.copayments.

What do Republicans have to say about this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091028/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_option SUPPORT BROAD IN U.S. FOR PUBLIC HEALTHCARE OPTION PHOENIX (Reuters) – Including a government-run insurance option in a U.S. healthcare bill has split lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress, but support for it remains broad on the streets of U.S. cities, voters and pollsters say. On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid included a "public" option in the Senate's bill as the best way to lower costs and create competition. "When you have no competition, the prices keep going up and up ... the public option is going to force them to change, to bring down their prices -- hopefully," said Phoenix mobile home salesman Bill Zaffer, 61, who backed the measure. Opponents argue that a public option would hurt competition because the government program would have a cost advantage by virtue of a huge member base, but supporters of the public option say there is no real competition without it. Inclusion of a public option has become one of the most contentious issues in the debate on healthcare reform -- President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, which seeks to cut costs, improve care and regulate insurers. Democrats said Reid was still short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles and pass a bill with a public option. Republicans are against the measure, which they say amounts to a government takeover of healthcare which would hurt the private insurance industry. But several polls in recent weeks show support for the option running at between 50 and 61 percent among Americans. Among backers is yoga instructor Suzanne Brownlow, from Atlanta. "It's almost impossible to get insurance. A public option would present me with an opportunity," said Brownlow, 48, who has repeatedly been denied coverage since having a seizure eight years ago, and has been without coverage for year. In Los Angeles, meanwhile, attorney Gary Minevich, 33, who is among some 46 million people in the United States without coverage, said he supported "nationalized" health care. "I haven't had health care in like seven years and I think that if he had passed this a long time ago I'd have been able to see a doctor," he said. But Broc Tooher, 20, was among a minority of Americans who dislike a government-run insurance option, which he felt would impose uniformity. "Insurance should be provided on what you want, and not just all be the same," said Tooher, an operating room assistant in Scottsdale, Ariz. "I think it's a bad idea." GUT RESPONSE A USA Today/Gallup poll released last week found 50 percent backed a public option and 46 percent opposed it, while a CNN poll found 61 percent supported an insurance option administered by the government and 38 percent opposed. While the numbers vary, researchers said they are representative of backing for a government insurance option among Americans. Underlying the support are such factors as difficulty obtaining coverage and the cost of medical care. "You're essentially getting a gut level response to what is a very complex issue, but I think it represents the public view," said Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "You see it across a lot of polls with different wording, that there is support for this approach." Nevertheless, one Pew poll last month found that 67 percent of respondents found the healthcare debate difficult to understand -- a complaint common among Americans struggling to make sense of the four lengthy, jargon-ridden versions of healthcare legislation currently in Congress. "I definitely need more information and I need to have it in a form we can understand," said Theresa Frombes, a 51-year-old occupational therapist from Illinois, who was "for some (of the bill) but not all of it." In Phoenix, part-time potter Tim Denne, meanwhile, said he had difficulty reaching an informed view on the healthcare legislation, the Senate version of which alone runs to more than 1,500 pages. "You could get a doctorate in just studying that bill ... it's that thick," he said indicating the breadth of a phone book with his thumb and index finger as he stood at a filling station. "People can say whether they support it or not, but they can't really be in a firm or valid opinion," he added. (Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles, Carey Gillam in Kansas City; editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Is Obama Health care Plan really that socialistic? Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums. Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees. Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees. Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors. Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care. Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage. Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums. Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in: Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees. Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care. The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ It seems that he has some socialistic views with the plan but not to the extreme. I do like the fact that he wants to go directly after the insurance company's to make the change. They need to be regulated more so they do not take advantage of American's. this is better than what McCain has to offer John R: I believe that maybe you misunderstood my question. I was not painting Obama a a socialist...your reading comprehension is a very off

Will my prescription meds show up in a pre-employment drug screening?? Need Legit answers, not speculation.? Now before anyone goes and thinks im a pill popper or addict here's what im trying to figure out... I am having a job interview with a company that is extremely nosy when it comes to the medical history of its interviewees. I know this because i interviewed with them a few years ago for a position only to find out that my bmi was too high to work for them at the time and that they wont hire smokers. The nurses who assessed my medical history had all sorts of questions concerning my health and prescription drug consumption. Basically because this company doesn't want to hire anyone who is sick or on a lot of meds because they strive to keep their operational costs (health insurance premiums included) Low. So here's what i take... I started to take Wellbutrin or generic Budrepion as an aid for smoking cessation a few years back. Once i started taking it i realized what other positive effects it had on my persona and my doctor advised that i stay on it. I also on occasion take xanax, not every day, but maybe 1 every few days when my anxiety gets really high. I need to know if either of these meds will show up in a urine test or a hair follicle test. If not, then i shouldn't have to disclose my private medical information to this greedy company. Its amazing that they will pass over the best quailfied candidate for a job for the smallest health concern BTW, I dont feel comfortable disclosing what company it is that i am interviewing for, but i will say it is a union job, for a fortune 100 company that has some strange pre-employment polcies. And the strangest thing of all is that once you work there you can have as many issues and be as morbidly overweight as you want and they will put you on leave and pay you to get better and/or loose weight.

Obama's Health care reform as I understand it is this...? In a nutshell: He wants the rising cost of healthcare (growing more than 3X the rate of income) to come down so all can afford it. He wants to provide a gov't option plan so that private insurance would have to lower cost to stay competitive. He wants medical decisions to be based on the best interest of the patience health, not what would make dr.s or insurance co. more money. He wants to utilize technology and better communication among dr's to lessen wasteful spending on unneeded test and procedures. He wants to emphasize on preventative care versus after care (it cost a lot less money to treat an ailment before it happens than after). He wants to mandate that every citizen is required to get health coverage (same concept of making sure all drivers get auto insurance) the uninsured raises cost for others. The Republicans opposition seems to be politically motivated. They want health care reform to fail because they know it is important for Obama's Presidency (the waterloo remark). The propose reform does have some question marks about how much it is going to end up costing and how it will be funded (like the economy, it is a very complicated issue with many different variables that will effect the outcome), but if you listen to the Republicans it's going to be catastrophic and bankrupt the country - of course they don't mentioned that under our current system it will economically effect everyone a lot worse (cost are going up and up, people are one illness away from going bankrupt). And course they don't offer an alternate plan. And of course their major financial contributers are from the insurance companies. Their main objective is politically motivated and cleverly hidden under the veil that health care reform is socialism and other propaganda like ploys to mess with the gullible minds of fearful Americans. Remember it's easy to keep things the same, it takes courage to change, but the Republicans want the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor, otherwise they lose their political strangle hold. What have I said is untrue? Please comment.

Editing help......??? If you have a few minutes to spare, could anyone please, please help me edit my paper. For many years, people have been debating how medical insurance should be paid: Whether private payment or government payment or some combination. Private payment means one would pay for ones own insurance. Government payment would mean the government pays for ones insurance. If the government were to pay for ones insurance, it would limit ones abilities. Also, Government already has to cover Medicare, Social Security, Government housing, the Federal Housing Committee, and the collapse of the Financial Institutions. To a lot of thoughtful people, the only way to fix the health insurance crisis in the United States is to get the federal government to cover everyone. In most states, individuals can be denied coverage for any number of reasons, so it is wise to request and compare more than one individual health insurance quote. The extra short-term effort that's required to apply for individual medical insurance plans is easily worth the long-term savings. If one is insuring ones family, as opposed to just oneself, there are some additional considerations to take into account. Even if one does receive coverage through an employer-sponsored health plan, one should consider the cost-saving benefits of switching to a family medical insurance policy or moving some of your family members off of your group policy into a family policy. Most Americans receive their health coverage through some type of group health insurance. Although large corporations with hundreds or even thousands of employees have the bargaining power to negotiate with medical insurance companies for custom health plans for their workers, the small business owner must still research options and compare prices from multiple providers. Since small business health insurance offers guaranteed coverage to all employees in a given company, it can be difficult and time consuming for a small business owner to find the best policy. Most major colleges and universities require their full-time students to have medical insurance. While many of these same schools also offer their own student health plan, it is wise to explore his or her options. Typically the school will provide the minimum requirements that a health policy must meet in order to waive coverage under the school's policy. As a senior over 65, one is likely covered under some combination of Medicare plans. Changes in recent years to the federal government's medical insurance program for seniors has created a complex system with rigid enrollment timelines. Currently, we have a mixed system, where the government heavily intervenes in health care. In Canada and Great Britain, they have fully governmental health care systems, but a black market of private medicine exists. The government regulates which drugs are available on the market, through the FDA and through the agencies that fight its War on Drugs. Currently, drug companies are granted monopoly privileges called "patents" that give them the exclusive right to sell their drug for 17 years. A few years ago, Congress passed legislation which actually outlawed the importation of cheaper drugs from other countries and prohibited the federal government's health insurance programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid) from negotiating for lower prices. This provision was repealed by the Democrats after they won control of Congress. Britain, Canada, Japan and a number of other rich countries do so, and they each spend less money on health care than the United States does. They also do not have major companies, like General Motors, flirting with bankruptcy in large part because of the cost of health benefits Health insurers made $100 billion in profits last year, and industries of that size are just not legislated out of business, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist. The party that controls the White House and Congress also opposes the idea. Republicans have their own utopian notions, which generally involve letting loose the free market for Americans to demand better care on their own. The discussion has basically been paralyzed for years. In the meantime, the problem has grown worse. In the United States, forty-six million people lack health insurance, according to the most recent estimate, up from thirty-one million in 1987. Massachusetts changed the terms of the debate. Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the State Legislature, controlled by the Democrats, reached a deal to cover almost everyone in the state. The plan will cut the cost of health insurance for families that do not have it and make it free for many poor families. The state will also require every resident to have insurance or face a stiff fine. The plan breaks free of the usual ideological shackles by dealing with both of the big reasons that nearly one- sixth of the U.S. population lacks insurance. One, many people cannot afford it. Two, some who can afford it imagin

Why does my HMO get to tell me which Doctor I get to see? Trolls say how bad health care is in europe. Have any of you Trolls ever been there and seen the services. now I understand there are some situations and some issues in every system but over all it is a better system than what we Americans have. Do not assume we Americans get better coverage just because we pay more. We actually loose our freedom by letting a HMO decide what doctor to see than having a public option like so many other countries. So many haters are not truelly knowledgeable on the issues and will say..."we want freedom to choose in america unlike europeans, or European health care is rationed, or there is waiting." I call BS on all that! I am in Europe and none of it is true to the extent those anti everything neo cons want it to be. Go read up people or better yet, visit one of these countries I suggest the french or german systems. Oh and for those who say it is failing LOL LOL LOL 32 million uninsured, some choose this way most do not. This legislation will provide a means for them to pay for insurance. Meaning that If your unemployed, or your employer does not provide a health option you will be mandated to get it Via government sponsorship in which is paid for by taxes. for the immediate future it will encourage Capitalism since those Insurance companies will be able to have an excuse to raise our premiums even more. They will also have a huge influx of new buisness. But since the the words Socialized, Universal, carry a stigma we are not able to get the Government to provide a full public option with a option to buy a Private insurance like most of the healther countries in the world. I am meaning Those countries who spend less on healthcare per person than what we do currently in the USA. I would like to add that at first this Bill is a seemed bit Scary to me, I agree something needs to change but leaving the best interest of the insurance companies in mind just didn't seem right. If you ask me we need to make it a public option for all, and a private option for those who want it like the europeans. This would bring down the over all cost since the Governmant would put a cap on the price of service. In Germany you spend less than 3 times whats it costs to have a child in the states, This is not because it is "subsidised" by their taxes it is due to the fact that there is some one regulating prices for everything. I have lived in a couple european countries and I know the system works. They laugh at us Americans about this. I have a private insurance here since I am an American contractor, They sent me the bill for our child and I just about dropped my Jaw at how cheap it was compaired to our first child stateside. The service was just as good. the facility was even better. Honestly I like the idea since what will happen is that this will ensure that Socialized universal care will be comming Even if it is not currently in the bill. Here is what happens Ok So we go over budget with how the plan turns out, but once the uninsured jobless have healthcare they cannot be dropped.( damn morals) anyways. Given this we will have to find ways to further regulate and control prices for these services. So the Government enacts laws on how much certian drugs, or medical procedures cost the Government then the government pays less for the services lets say 10 or 15 years down the line. In the mean time many small buisness owners or large ones for that matter won't be able to pay for the initial increase in premiums and opt not to provide health insurance or go out of buisness. The government will then react to this by either forcing insurance companies to lower premiums or for health care facilities to lower costs. It is Possible that at this point the Government will go ahead and offer a full on public option to save the buisness'. If not at least they GoV will be forced to regulate the Health care industry with some serious changes. People on the right currently are upset about paying more taxes especially if those taxes are helping those who are not paying taxes. I do not know if it is because they are upset about giving more of their hard earned money away or if it is the moral about helping those who can't or choose not to help them selves. but this is a win win situation since the price of healthcare will eventually go down per service our money currently will just be shifted from going to a way over priced HMO to a lower priced HMO and a increased Tax. Now if it is a moral thing about paying for others than I have to ask them to look into their hearts and think about whats right and wrong. And they know as well as anyone, more deserving people will recieve help than non deserving ( there are allways un deserving people getting by, can't change that.) I am fearful of the fact that just out of spite people will fight this grand plan and make it so those premiums remain high by limiting what the Government can do to regulate our Over priced health care. Do you all t See what I mean uninformed people!!! Look at them "see a doctor in a month,,,, wtf it is not like that!!! why do people LIE!?

Health Care Reform Help....Questions? I'm trying to better understand the massive bill that was just passed from both points of view. This is what I know about the bill thus far ( if my facts are incorrect plz provide proof for me to read on the subject.) And for all those who strongly opposed this bill plz explain why this bill should have been killed leave the # in your answer with your details so i know what part you feel was wrong for the citizens of this country. 1. Once reform is fully implemented, over 95% of Americans will PAY to have MANDATED health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured but could possibly have a job in 4 years. Those that don't will go on medicare 2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny INDIVIDUAL people coverage because of preexisting conditions—or to drop INDIVIDUAL coverage when people become sick. However, they may drop the coverage all together for everyone under that one particular group for that one particular condition. 3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums paid for with tax breaks that may not save them more money than the fine they will have to pay if they do not. 4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years based on a theorized decline in the cost of health insurance. 5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses that chose not to offer health insurance, thanks to new tax credits for INDIVIDUALS, subsidies, and other assistance—paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and people making over 200,000 dollars a year. These credits will be available to only the very lowest income families. Those who make less that 133% the poverty level will have to pay 3 to 4% of their yearly income to qualify. Most families will have to spend over 10% of their yearly income on medical expenses to qualify. 6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage by taking them off Medicare and making them pay for private insurance through the above mentioned government aid. 7. By reducing health care costs for employers but at the same time taxing them to create the so called "surplus", in theory, the reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade by mostly establishing a government run and appointed branch of the executive government called the "health commission" that will oversee who, what, when, where and how procedures are covered under medicare and the aforementioned government aid is handed out. 8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people who make less than minimum wage at 40 hours a week. 9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26 causing their parents extra financial burdens that can not be included in their tuition as is currently the case. 10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay assuming they use that money for employees rather than medical supplies. If you don't have anything of value to add why do you bother commenting?

Since the radical liberals may lose Public Option as a Single-Payer Trojan horse, will they use a new strategy? Since the radical liberals may lose Public Option as a Single-Payer Trojan horse, will they use a new strategy of simply DESTROYING ALL THE PRIVATE INSURANCE OPTIONS as the Baucus Bill appears to do? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/02/destroying_private_health_insurance_98556.html# ~~~~~~~~~~~ The Baucus bill includes an "individual mandate" that requires everyone to buy health insurance-but not inexpensive, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. Instead, it imposes a requirement for pricier comprehensive coverage that pays for routine costs like annual checkups. The bill then requires that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and that they charge customers at high risk of medical problems the same rates as those with lower risks-which means that these extra expenses will have to be paid for by raising everyone else's premiums. And then the Baucus bill delivers the knock-out punch: after forcing us into expensive comprehensive insurance plans and driving up the cost of those plans, the bill would impose a massive 40% tax on "gold-plated" plans-which turn out to include the health-insurance plans of many in the middle class. So that drives up the cost of insurance even higher. You can see why it doesn't much matter whether or not we have a "public option" in the original bill. Everything else in the bill is designed to make private health insurance unaffordable-so that in a few years, people will clamor for a government-subsidized "public option," and the same politicians who destroyed private health insurance can make a big show of coming to the rescue of their victims. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Will the Middle Class ever have autonomy on any important decisions in their lives after the next four years?

Most of us agree that something needs to be done with healthcare. Why are we going to spend so much on it? If we just saved the insurance for the major medical expenses. Save it for in and out patient surgery, hospitalization, chemotherapy ect. For routine office visits pay for it yourself. That would cut cost, competition would bring down the price for general practitioners. For the low income give vouchers for routine care and have some type of copay to discourage abuse. Use medicare and medicaid for the major stuff or buy private insurance for the elderly and low income. Wouldn't this be much cheaper than universal healthcare and it would be able to help more people because it wouldn't ration care or cost a trillion dollars. The only thing the government would need to do is make the law and it wouldn't cost that much. Where am I wrong?

Having a problem finding the unique angle in this article. Plz Help!? Newsweek Homepage Newsweek's Education SiteInside Legacy AdmissionsCute, Cuddly, and Contagious MSNBC Homepage Newsweek Logo Stories Topics Authors Search Close Search Cost of Long-Term Care Rises ■6 Alternative Investments ■Your Credit Card is Making You Fat ■Do You Need This Insurance? ■15 Highest-Paid Charity CEOs ■8 Tales of Corporate Comebacks The costs of nursing homes and other assisted-living facilities continue to rise significantly, according to the Market Survey of Long-Term Care Costs conducted by insurance provider MetLife. Private-room nursing-home rates rose 4.6% in 2010, increasing to an average of $229 per day or $83,585 per year, while assisted living rose 5.2% on average to $3,293 per month, or $39,516 per year. These come on the back of a 3.3% increase in price for both nursing home and assisted-living facilities from 2008 to 2009. "The cost of care in nursing homes and assisted living has been and continues to be high, and in the past year, the increases have even outpaced medical-care inflation of about 3 percent," Sandra Timmermann, director of the MetLife Mature Market Institute, said in a press release. "As the population ages, there are more and more people among us who will need long-term care." One piece of good news is that costs for home health aides and adult day services were unchanged in the past year. Home health aide costs remain at an average price of $21 per hour, while adult day services costs are still $67 per day. The need for a cost-effective alternative to full-time care has helped the adult day services industry grow during the past few years, too. According to the survey, there are more than 4,600 adult day service centers nationwide, a 35 percent increase since 2002. During that same period, those served by these centers have increased by more than 100,000. By comparison, nearly 1 million people live in approximately 39,500 full-time assisted-living residences in the U.S., according to current estimates from the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. The average age of an assisted- living resident is 86.9 years old, and the median length of stay in assisted living is 29.3 months. "While families continue to provide the lion’s share of care, paid care is commonly part of the equation and the costs can derail even the best financial plan," Timmermann said. "There is very good reason for individuals and families to look into savings plans, annuities, and long-term care insurance to hedge the possibilities." MetLife’s Mature Market Institute has conducted surveys since 2002 with annual updates. This year's survey was conducted by telephone between May and August 2010, by LifePlans, Inc., for the MetLife Mature Market Institute. Costs were calculated for each service provider in an area and aggregated across all providers to compute statewide averages. The survey found that Alaska was the state with the highest average daily rates for nursing homes, where prices per day were $687 for a private room and $610 for a semi-private room. Costs were lowest in Louisiana with an average of $138 per day for a private room. The Washington, D.C., area had the highest average monthly base rate for assisted-living facilities with prices per month of $5,231. Arkansas had the lowest average monthly rate of $2,073. You can find a full breakdown of costs by state in the report.

Has the liberal media reported how the Democrats mislead you? DEMS' POSTER KIDS: BOGUS BEGGARS By MICHELLE MALKIN October 10, 2007 -- A FEW weeks ago, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lured two young children to the spotlight to help him pass a huge expansion of government health insurance. Gemma and Graeme Frost, 9 and 12 years old, were severely injured in a car accident three years ago. Their parents obtained government health care through the non-means-tested Children's Health Insurance Program in Maryland. President Bush's veto doesn't change that - and there's the rub. Because liberal lawmakers cannot honestly defend their expansion plans as bona fide aid to the needy, they've surrounded themselves with the Frosts and other kiddie human shields to deflect any tough scrutiny. As they push for an override of the president's veto, scheduled for Oct. 18, the desperate Dems will shamelessly invoke the kiddie card to attack their critics for "attacking the children." After 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democratic radio address, which was penned for him by Senate staffers, conservatives across the Internet asked the questions the mainstream media wouldn't ask about the family's financial situation. The couple claims an annual income of about $45,000. Neither the Democrats nor the Baltimore Sun indicates how they verified that assertion before circulating it. What is verifiable: The Frosts own a home in Baltimore purchased for $55,000 16 years ago - and now worth an estimated $300,000. That's a lot of equity. In addition, the children's father, Halsey Frost, owns commercial real estate and his own small business, but chose not to buy health insurance for himself and his wife, whom he hired as an employee. She now apparently works freelance at a medical-publishing firm, which also reportedly doesn't offer insurance. Gemma and Graeme both attend costly private schools; the Frosts have two other school-age children. Reid's staff says Gemma and Graeme get tuition breaks. But it's not clear when those scholarships were instituted and/or whether the other two receive tuition aid. Moreover, Frost's family comes from considerable means. The children's maternal grandfather was an engineering executive. Their paternal grandparents hail from affluent Bronxville, N.Y., where the grandfather is a prominent consultant. In other words: The public trough is not Halsey Frost's last and only resort. The accident was horrible. The children deserve sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them. The Frosts claim it would cost them more per month than their mortgage, reportedly $1,200 a month, to buy private insurance. But insurance bloggers quickly found available plans for a family of six with premiums as low as $452/month. Graeme and Gemma Frost are not the first political symbols to be exploited by socialized health-care pushers. In 1996, Hillary Clinton trotted out young Jennifer Bush, a 7-year-old with mystery ailments whose mother coached her to lobby for universal health care. Jennifer's mom was later convicted of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms. In 2000, Al Gore propped up elderly widow Winifred Skinner to lambaste high drug prices. Gore repeated her claim that she had to pick up cans on roadsides to pay for medicine. Dan Rather bemoaned: "She's no child, but she belongs on a poster about high drug costs." One problem: Winifred's own well-to-do son, businessman Earl King, debunked those claims. In 2004, John Kerry propped up Mary Ann Knowles, a breast-cancer patient whom he claimed "had to keep working day after day right through her chemo- therapy . . . because she was terrified of losing her family's health insurance." The Manchester Union Leader editorial page reported: "Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her chemo- therapy because her husband was out of a job. . . . She and husband John did not want to take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary Ann kept working." The Democrats sorely resent that they can no longer peddle their Big Nanny propaganda unchallenged. Reid is throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers who expose their health-care poster-child abuse. Here's a free prescription for our stunted politicians: Grow up.

can someone pls rephrase this for me? thanx p3? There are thirty-four states currently enforcing parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have an alternative, such as the ability to seek a court order authorizing the procedure. When president Bush spoke at a major antiabortion rally, he endorsed the activists' cause but admitted that their primary goal--making abortion illegal--is not likely to be achieved anytime soon. He added, "A true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.” Bush was speaking perhaps more accurately than he knew. Around the globe, the presence or absence of legal restrictions has relatively little to do with whether women decide to have an abortion. The countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world are Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance. Those countries each year report seven abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. By contrast, in countries such as Peru, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, where law restricts abortion, the abortion rate is about 50 per 1,000 women. Those figures are more than twice that of the U.S (abortionfacts.com). In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 56% occur in the first eight weeks. The availability of medical abortion the “abortion pill,” or mifepristone and new techniques that allow surgical abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy are likely to reinforce the trend toward earlier abortions. The introduction of a new medical abortifacient, such as RU-486, added some new features in the debate. Unlike vacuum aspiration or curettage, RU-486 does not involve insertion of instruments into the uterus and thus poses no risk of accidental perforation and infection from unclean instruments. Furthermore, it does not require the same degree of technical skills as the surgical techniques used to terminate pregnancy. So, in this respect, a prescriptive method of abortion poses less risk to women than previous alternatives. With the development of mifepristone, known as RU-486 or the "abortion pill," abortion has become innocuous and reliable (abortionfacts.com). This product works 95.5% of the time when taken within the first seven weeks of pregnancy. According to abortion statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 33% of gynecologists who do not perform surgical abortions say they would prescribe RU-486. In addition to the reduction of risk for pregnant women, it is easier for women to use. Women who have religious reasons for avoiding or restricting termination of pregnancy may use RU-486 after fertilization has occurred but before implantation of the embryo. Clearly, abortion is not detrimental to the health of the mother. The 56% of U.S. women having abortions are in there 20s(Jones RK). The overall abortion rate is 21 per 1,000 U.S. women. Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than non-Hispanic white women do. The rates are 49/1,000 and 33/1,000 among black and Hispanic women, respectively, vs. 13/1,000 among non-Hispanic white women (Finer). Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates primarily because they have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. One may ask what is the cost of surgical abortion. In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure. Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; Medicaid covers 13% of abortions, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. There are total of 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibits public funding of abortions, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. South Dakota only provides public funding of abortions when necessary to protect the woman’s life, which is not in compliance with the federal Medicaid statute (abortionfacts.com), Another question one may ask is how safe is it? The risk of abortion complications is minimal when a trained professional in a hygienic setting performs the procedure: less than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with abortion in the U.S. is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, which is less than one-tenth as large as the risk associated with childbirth. (Henshaw) However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures. Between 1990 and 2000, there were between four and 11 deaths related to legal abortion in the United States each year. In 2002, a total of 357 women in the United States were reported to have died of maternal causes. The number of maternal deaths does not include all deaths among pregnant women—only those in which the cause reported on the death certificate is related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management (cdc.gov). In developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal, abortion mortality is low 0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions. But in developing regions excluding China, where abortion is often illegal, abortion mortality rate is hundreds times higher, 330 deaths per 100,000 abortions (cdc.gov). In conclusion, I feel that a women’s right to an abortion depends on her situation. I feel that if a woman should be able to have an abortion if her health is seriously endangered. I feel that a woman should not have an abortion just because she cannot afford the baby. There are other alternatives, such as adoption. School programs teaching adolescents about safe sex is not enough? Parents must be able to speak freely with their teen about sex at any given time. Abortion does not only affect the teen, but it affects everyone. Everyone has a right to believe in what they feel is right. We must respect a woman’s decision whether you consider it to be wrong or right. America is a country where everyone has the same rights. And one right, regarding bearing children, affect women. But for the anti-abortionists, who will hopefully be a little less narrow-minded and a little more considerate, Every woman deserves a right to choose . This is my research paper. And its due Thursday. I was not sure if it makes sense. So that’s y I asked to rephrase it. You don’t have to do it if u don’t want to. but does it make sence, you can atleast tell me that thanx

Why do people ask for money when they need a kidney transplant? Before you think I rude or insensitive hear me out. I HAVE HAD A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT!! Here is my side: Medicare is made available to all patients in kidney failure. Also, Medicare will repay up to 6 months of previous medical cost from acceptance date so even if the patient wasn't covered during the surgery they can apply and have the cost covered. Plus there is Medicaid/State insurance that will cover just about all cost that Medicare doesn't pay for and co-pay plus it is also available to any person with kidney failure. If you think that's not enough free/cheap insurance to cover all your transplant needs then may I suggest a specific insurance for those in kidney failure. Currently 38 states offer specialty insurance for patients from the start of kidney failure to 5 years post transplant. Not usually free but very low cost. I had all 3 types of insurance stated above and did not pay a dime in medical cost before, during and after transplant. Now what about social security. It is automatically given to patients with kidney failure/transplants. The only requirement is that you have previously paid into the system. The amount of the monthly check is much lower then what most people are used it is not impossible to live off of. Most retired people are able to do it and it is only temporarily for transplant patient. There is also social services to help with cost of rent/mortgage, food, clothing, etc. So, I ask my question, why do people ask for money when they need a kidney transplant? I never did and went from making $40,000 to living a life below poverty. I was a single mom, I cut coupons, stood in line at the health department and shopped at good will, cut off the cable and home phone, pulled child out of private school… all to get a second chance at life and keep my PRIDE! Please someone tell me a good reason why people ask for money in this situation. I always feel that people just want to take advantage of their situation or try to take the easy way out by keeping a lifestyle they know they will never be able to afford again.

How will the HC reform bill make insurance cheaper for people? It seems that nothing got reformed. All we did was mandate that people buy health insurance, and if you can't pay for it, then somebody else will. We added extra costs to the private sector by making them get health care for their employees, of which the average citizen will pay through buying everyday items at a higher price. We stopped the pre-existing exemption for health companies which will increase the risk they are exposed to when insuring somebody, and will therefore make them increase the cost of the policy to compensate for it. I don't think this is health care reform. I think that more people will become covered, but we will pay for it. We have added more people to the system that can't pay the insurance premiums themselves. No attention was given to actually try and make the cost of medical procedures less, or bring down the costs to the private insurance companies. We have added more high risk, low income people to the system we currently have. I think it was intentional, so that the private insurance companies will quit, Obama will blame capitalism, declare that the private sector is too risky, and we all need the government's help as the only safe place to be. What do you think?

Disagree with your political party? Lets us know what political party you belong to or relate to the closest, and then list some things you actually DON'T agree with the general view of your party on. My example: Liberal/Centrist. (non radical liberal) Things I don't agree with most liberal on: Even though I think there should be qualifications and certain limits to gun ownership, I still believe that Americans should have the right to bear arms. The few restrictions i believe in are very loose, only limiting guns to people who aren't violent ex-cons, people under the age of 18, and the severely mentally retarded. I'm not a big advocate of the welfare system. I feel far too many people take advantage of it and use it merely as a reimbursment for their laziness -- which is curable. Not a big fan of Affirmative action. Most liberals see it as a counter to social racism, whereas I see it AS racism. Nobody should be hired or turned down according to their skin color... only according to whether or not they are qualified for the job. Socialism (not what right-wingers think it is, but what it actually is). I believe in a mixed economy. Socialization only works for very few programs. I think as far as medical coverage, it should be an option for the individual to decide. Mixed. This way people who oppose can pay for premium private insurance, and those who opt in, get socialized goverment coverage at a low cost. This opinion of mine is very unpopular because conservatives disagree with it as well, despite it splitting the issue right down the middle. lol

Trancredo on immigration..........? How many of you support this loco? Let's see how many issues facing our country Tancredo lays at the feet of immigrants and claims would be solved if only the country would follow his simple [minded] prescription: vaccine-resistant diseases [somehow these diseases know the immigration status of every person and jump aboard people without proper documents people--oops, accidentally landed on a Georgia lawyer]; the environment; education, and worst case of misleading scaremongering---the broken health care system. There are so many myths about the immigrants' impact on the US health care system--all demonstrably false. A close examination of immigrants’ actual experience with the U.S. health care system sheds light on the many obstacles immigrants encounter when they seek health insurance and health care. Low-income documented immigrants must wait five years before being eligible for public health insurance. And less than half of the states provide coverage to select documented immigrant populations, such as children and pregnant women. Furthermore, cumbersome administrative regulations regarding proof of citizenship status dissuade potentially eligible documented immigrants from applying to Medicaid and SCHIP. And although undocumented immigrants contribute to the economy through their labor and taxes, they are barred from federally-matched Medicaid services. But that is not all. Documented and undocumented immigrants are almost always unable to access employer-based or private health insurance. The reason: the average health insurance premium for a family of four was roughly $11,500, nearly half of the average annual income of an immigrant worker. Because of these limitations and restrictions, documented and undocumented immigrants are more likely to go without needed medical services and preventive health care, jeopardize health and welfare, and create some cost-shifting.. The increase of documented and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. is not the cause of the failing health care system. The health care system is broken in large part because 45 million individuals lack health insurance and health care premiums have nearly doubled over the past six years. [Any effort to reform the American health care system should work to reduce barriers to health insurance coverage for immigrants. And any effort at immigration reform should also be informed by these facts.] Why does Tom Tancredo keep pumping out hate-filled propaganda? How else would he get newspaper headlines? a podium at a debate? It's all for the glory of himself. John, So you're one of those people who blame EVERYTHING on illegal immigration? I would say that you need to look beyond what you see on television.

Do you think socialized medicine is a forgone conclusion? Unemployment increases size of available labor force. --> Unionization is at a all time low.--> Employers shed cost of health care benefits to its employees because of little concern over employee retention. --> Increase of the number of citizens on some form of public assistance, welfare and medicaid.....combined with aging population (Medicare). --> Increasing number of uninsured, under insured, and bankrupt--> Medicaid now funds most medical attention in hospital ERs.--> Hospitals cannot turn away citizens that cannot pay or underpay. --> Hospitals become insolvent and go bankrupt or the level of care is significantly reduced to 3rd world standards for most hospitals --> Government creates socialized medicine for the bottom 2/3rds of the population while the upper 1/3 remains on private insurance with better care. I am not a fan of Socialized medicine, but I see this trend. Just wanted to see if others see this coming. I have better ideas to fix healthcare, but biomed stocks would take a big hit. Innovation might be hindered slightly. Civil Tort reform. (John Edwards would hate this.) ect...

Why does Obama think he knows more than the AMA (American Medical Association) when it comes to healthcare? In the presidential campaign last year and in a letter to Congress last week, Mr. Obama called for a new “public health insurance option,” which he said would compete with private insurers and keep them honest. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Wednesday that she supported that goal. “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said Wednesday on MSNBC. But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.” If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html ** Hey Now** You think doctors have "special interests" MORESO than politicians? You must be very young. ** Bash** Did you pull that out of some liberal blog? Nice try though.

Will Republicans now support the public option since poll show the marority of Americans support it? Or will they go back to their stance that polls do not matter? CNN Poll: 61% Favor Public Option Democrats are promoting a national survey released this afternoon by CNN/Opinion Research (Oct. 16-18, 1038 A, MoE +/- 3%), which finds 61% of Americans in favor of a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies. The poll comes as the House and Senate are each merging separate health care reform bills for an eventual vote on the chamber floors. ------ Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe it is extremely or quite important to give Americans the choice between a government-run health care plan and a private plan in any final health care bill, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out later today. Some 73% said it was important to do so — 45% called it “extremely” important while 27% said it was “quite important.” ------ The survey of 2,999 households by Thomson Reuters Corp (TRI.TO)(TRI.N) shows a public skeptical about the cost, quality and accessibility of medical care. Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose. Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey: * Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no. ------ A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. ------ The new numbers will certainly encourage Democrats pushing hard to have the president side with them over Olympia Snowe and centrist Dems opposed to a full-blown public health insurance plan: 57% of Americans support the public option. That number climbs to 76% if the public plan is limited to those who can't afford private insurance on their own. And a bare majority -- 51-37 -- supports having Democrats go-it-alone if that's what it takes to get a public option. ------- Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans 50 APPROVE 42 OPPOSE (That should be enough to prove I did not make it up.) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/10/cnn_poll_61_favor_public_option.html ---- http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/27/wsjnbc-news-poll-public-attitudes-on-the-public-option/ ---- http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0210977220091203?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c1.000000:b29175212:z0 --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html ---- http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html ----- http://www.newsweek.com/id/233890 @ Andy your link is to polls on the health care bill. That is not the same as the public option. News week poll Feb 19, 2010

Are these some of the hidden 'costs' of Obamacare (per the Wall Street Journal?)? Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law: • Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. • Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay. • Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own. These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Ray Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview. • Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled. The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it. That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.” The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami. There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform. They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues. Ellender was right, and Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html What do you think?

Should Pelsoi provide us proof? http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-lashes-out-at-private-health-insurance-villians-2009-07-30.html She is claiming that the changes to healthcare reform to omit a public insurance option are because of health insurance companies. Even though these companies are not running ads opposing a public option and have already agreed with Obama on making changes that provides healthcare regardless of current or previous medical conditions, no cancellation on policies and other Obama requests including reducing insurance costs for lower and middle income earners. Sounds like Pelosi is just blowing smoke and trying to salvage the liberal socialist public insurance, which is all they really want. Robert F In this day of internet bloggers, sprcial interest groups, not one works behind the scenes who can't be exposed. So where's the proof.

47 Million people uninsured in America...why does the US? stand alone among industrialized nations in refusing to guarantee health care for all, preferring instead to squeeze profits from patients? Isn't it past time for a single payer health care system? H.R. 676 was a bill that was introduced to the House in 2005 and has gone nowhere since 2007. It's Expanded and Improved Medicare for All which would provide comprehensive insurance coverage for all US residents: "What Is Single-Payer National Health Insurance? To begin with, it is NOT “Socialized Medicine”, far from it in fact. Also, it does not mean that our medical system will be taken over by the government and run like the post office as many of our opposition friends would mistakenly have you believe. Basically, House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill now in the House of Representatives simply creates a new and far more functional “single payer” method of collecting and distributing payments for medical services while leaving the medical system itself completely alone and intact. This will eliminate the hundreds of complicated and redundant payment plans currently imposed on the system by private “for profit” health insurance companies and save literally BILLIONS of dollars every year by eliminating such wasteful duplication. This will allow your doctors offices and hospitals to function much more efficiently and serve your needs much more effectively as well. Just imagine what a huge benefit this will be! Taxes: We all know that nothing of any real value is ever free, but if you think of the taxes that will be required to support national health insurance as simply a lower cost alternative to the staggering private health insurance premiums that most of us already have to pay but which will be totally eliminated under the new system, then it becomes immediately clear that this could be a really good deal after all!" http://www.hr676.org/ Thoughts? CMDRB whatever your name is: I seriously doubt you're a nurse in a hospital, if you were you wouldn't post such outrageous garbage. If you're a nurse at all, you probably work in an insurance company where you are paid to keep life saving procedures from people who need them ksgirl-*shakes head* what are you, a CNA or housekeeper? Just because a life threatening illness get treated in the ER, what about chronic illnesses? How about stuff that can be prevented? Oh, in your VAST experience, I guess it can ALL be treated in the ER, right? zaza-please, spread your hatred and vitriol somewhere else. Watch out, the necons are after your Medicare.

Follow up: Nurse Practitioner or Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist? Okay, so I've decided not to go to medical school...with high malpractice insurance, insurances insisting on lower costs for private appointments and hospital bills which means lower income it's just not cool... So I'm going to either be a nurse practitioner or a CRNA...I REALLY wanted to be an Anesthesiologist and didn't know a CRNA even existed! I think it's really cool because you kind of do everything an Anesthesiologist does (but there are some differences of course). So do you think that would be a good choice? I've prayed about it, and with my family being heavy into the medical field I think that it's the right thing to do, I just need to know WHAT to do...

Help with business homework!? My teacher let everybody in the class take home their test and redo it since everybody in the class failed, so i really need some help on it! I would grately appreciate any help you give me with these problems. 1. _________ is not a type of term insurance. a. limited pay b. decreasing c. convertible d. renewable e. straight 2. The largest portion of health care costs pay for a. hospital expenses b. prescription drugs c. physicians services d. nursing home costs e. medical equipment 3. Dennis purchased a policy with an initial premium of $3,000 and may elect how much he desires to pay in premiums from now on. He has purchased a face value of $100,000 and can accumulate cash value. What type of life insurance has Dennis purchased? a. universal life b. whole life c. variable life d. term life e. adjustable whole life 4. If you needed a loan to buy furniture, the lowest interest rate would usually be available from a a. savings and loan association b. pawn shop c. captive finance company d. consumer finance company e. credit union 5. The probability of a loss occurring can be reduced by a. rish ovservance b. loss prevention c. rish assumption d. underwriting e. insurance 6. The ________ legally binds the borrower and lender to all items and conditions of an installment contract. a. note b. contract c. security agreement d. sales contract e. bond 7. Major medical plans are characterized by deductibles, internal limits, and a. benefit levels b. participation or coinsurance c. illness or injury frequency limits d. maximum surgical medical benefits e. sliding or decreasing premiums The next ones are complete the sentence. (A for the first one, B for the second one, and C if neither) This is where I got really confused. 1. Health care currently represents about (10.5 - 13.5) percent of US gross domestic product. 2. Medicare would pay (the entire - part of the) hospital bill for a covered person. 3. (Special purpose policies - Deferred premium life insurance) is highly recommended for college students. 4. (The government - Individuals) pay(s) a larger share of personal health care expenses than private health insurance. 5. The number one consumer complaint is now (identity theft - credit care fraud) according to the Federal Trade Commission. sorry for all the work.. it was just too confusing for me to do my own.. you dont have to answer them all or any at all, i just want a little help so i dont end up failing. thanks yeah apparently you dont know this class.. none of this is what we go over in class so we are on our own tryin to answer these...

What do you think of this universal health care idea? I propose a compromise. Let's make available to all citizens basic doctor care. Preventive items like routine doctor visits, prescription drug benefit or cap on out of pocket costs like England and mental health care to all who need it. Then people can choose to purchase catastrophic care for hospital stays, surgery and the like. This would provide basic preventative care which in theory should lower the amount of catastrophic medical costs and lower the cost of that type of insurance. It would also lower emergency room costs and overcrowding due to people going to a doctor, instead of using emergency rooms as their doctor, as many currently do, because they cannot be turned away. All of it would be administered by private insurers and it keeps the govt involvement to a minimum. I understand the need for no govt. I am a Reagan conservative. But, I proposed this idea, because something has to give. I am convinced that costs would go down if everyone had at least some basic preventative care. I have been blessed. I have been without health insurance only 30 days in my entire 38 years on this planet. But, I see people, working in the poorer areas that I do, that if they had at least basic health care would take allot of the burden off the system. They end up in emergency rooms for their primary care. The government on a local, state and national level are already providing money for free clinics and the like. Let's move that money into care for everyone. Allot of people don't like to go to these free clinics and having been in a few of them, I understand why. They are full of crackheads, whinos and the like. I wouldn't want to take my child in there either. I would like to hear more ideas from people on how to fix this mess What about a system that allows people to buy into a government plan, if they so choose? Isn't that what Romney did in Mass? It could be administered through private insurers, but this kind of bulk purchase power would give people the means to have affordable insurance and not feel like their are stuck in a certain job, as not to loose their insurance. They can take the health care they get at work or they can buy into the government system. That allows people to buy at much more reasonable rates and still have choice. I am just trying to generate discussion here.

Who needs a private sector when we have a Clinton make our health-care choices? Who needs a private sector when we have a Clinton make our health-care choices? The new Hillary health-care plan is very different from the old 1993-1994 Hillary plan. It is far slyer, and far cleverer, far more well-packaged. The same arguments that applied to the old Hillary plan do not necessarily apply to the new plan. But the new health plan ends up in the same place as the old health plan — with the government running everything. Here are the primary problems with the new Hillary health plan: What Entitlement Crisis? As everyone should know by now, our nation faces a dramatic entitlements crisis that will play out over the next 30 years. Federal spending has been hovering in a fairly stable manner, around 20-percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), for over 50 years now, since the early 1950s. But the Federal government’s own official projections show that over the next 30 years or so, federal spending will soar to 40-percent of GDP, requiring total federal taxes as a percent of GDP to double. This is due to the exploding costs of the entitlement programs we already have, primarily Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats respond to this overwhelming crisis by proposing that we not reform any of the existing entitlements. Rather, they suggest that we endorse massive new entitlements, including for instance, National Health Insurance. Policy suggestions like this force one to wonder, are the democrats numerically illiterate? The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton’s plan starts out very simply: she will mandate under federal law that everyone in America must buy health insurance, and by this she supposedly achieves universal coverage. The catch, of course, is that once you start down the road with this mandate, you end up with government-run health care. If you are going to require people to buy health insurance, then the next question which follows is, exactly what do they have to buy to fulfill this requirement? Suppose they buy the Fraternity Plan that pays only for unlimited beer and pizza during the weekends? Have they satisfied the requirement? The serious point is if you are going to require people to buy health insurance, then you are going to have to specify exactly what health-plan people will have to buy to satisfy this requirement. So the government has gone from telling you that you need health insurance, to telling you what kind of health-insurance coverage or plan you must have. And with Hillary, we can assume that this will be no basic, minimum plan. But Hillary continues to insist that this is not government-run health care. And this, of course, is only the beginning. Special interests will swarm to get their favored coverage in the required plan. People will merrily get used to billing everything in the plan to the insurance company. And costs will rise. People will start complaining that they can’t afford paying for this costly coverage, and whining that the government must do something. The government itself will already be paying for a lot of this coverage, and budgets will therefore explode. So the government will do something to control costs. It will start rationing. It will start telling people what services and treatments they can have, and when. It will start delaying access to new innovations. It will squeeze payments to health care providers so much that the providers will start rationing what they provide. Government guidelines will start dictating to these providers that they ration care, and how to do it. After a while, people start to realize, “hey, we have government run health care.” Don’t doubt it. This is exactly what happens with every other country that tries to mandate or provide coverage through government. They realize ultimately there must be some way to control costs. There is no market in these plans to control costs. So the government must do it through the only alternative – rationing. Indeed (we will see below), Hillary’s plan already includes the machinery for this rationing. It doesn’t help that a small band of too clever conservatives have been supporting just such an individual mandate since 1993-94, when broad objections from conservatives defeated their plan. Congratulations to these folks today. Hillary Clinton has adopted their plan, just as they were forewarned. The Employer Tax Since workers would now have to buy insurance under the Hillary plan; employers would have to pay for it wherever possible. All large companies would be required to provide health coverage for their workers (a plan, again, specified by the government), or pay a tax to the government. Already paying among the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, this is just what our corporations need — another tax. Once the politicians get used to raiding this corporate cookie jar, the tax will soon be higher than the corporate income tax. When that tax burden leads to unemployment, no problem, we will just raise taxes on the rich again, and pay for more welfare. All of this will just improve the economy, the Clintons promise. The Refundable Tax Credit Where employers don’t pay for health coverage, the government will. Hillary proposes a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance that will leave workers paying no more than a specified percentage of their incomes for the coverage. Hillary’s campaign is already calling this “A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers.” The problem with this is that the bottom 40-percent of income earners do not pay any income taxes, and the middle 20-percent now pay for very little (this is the end result of all those Republican tax cuts for the rich all these years). But the tax credit is refundable, meaning that if you don’t have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government will still send you a check for the entire credit. So the tax credit here is not giving you back your own tax money. It is giving you back other people’s tax money. So this is not, in fact, a tax cut. It is a new spending program, a new entitlement program, in fact. We already have a huge program called Medicaid to pay for health coverage for people who are too poor to pay for it themselves. The federal government is now spending close to $250 billion on this program, in addition to probably another $150 billion from the states. And these costs are just projected to explode and explode again over the next 30 years. In other words, we already can’t afford the Medicaid program as it currently stands. But what Hillary is proposing with these tax credits is a massive expansion of it. And we are back to the democratic chimeras again. Unfortunately, some conservative Republicans have recently toyed around with the idea of refundable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance as well. They have rightly been trying to change tax code incentives to get workers to own their own health insurance rather than relying on employers. Realizing, however, that the tax changes would do nothing for at least half of all workers who now pay little or no income tax, they have been considering various refundable plans to expand the help to lower income workers. The fallacy here is trying to provide assistance to the poor, and to low income workers, through the tax code. This is what Medicaid is for, and lawmakers should focus on helping those with lower incomes through reforming that program. But Hillary is not done with the refundable tax credits. She would provide such credits as well to small businesses who buy health insurance for their workers, paying for as much as 50-percent of premiums for firms with fewer than 25 employees. And she would also bail out big companies, who are now being crushed by foolish past promises to pay for health insurance for their retirees, with still more tax credits. In return, corporate big shots from these companies publicly intone that indeed, it is time for national health insurance. A better solution would be to just have the government take over these already socialized companies and finish running them into the ground. Government-Run Health Care Hillary wisely calls her plan the American Health Choices Plan. Accordingly, everyone will be “free” to choose one of the health insurance options in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. But how is this not government-run health care? No company gets on the list of plans in the FEHBP without first complying with a host of federal requirements and controls. That’s alright when the government is providing insurance for its own employees. But should we be treating all workers in the economy as if they are government workers when it comes to health insurance? Is this not precisely what is meant by excessive government control? While the FEHBP embodies good policy for the federal government dealing with its own employees, excessive rhetoric from the original designers of that system (about how it is a model for all health insurance) has now brought us to the point of believing that all workers in the private economy ought to be treated as government employees when it comes to health care. Hillary will also provide, as another option, the choice of a completely government run, government financed health insurance plan. Why? And, again, how is this not government run health care? Moreover, how benign will this plan really be when she is done subsidizing it up the kazoo, and driving all the private plans out of business with her blizzard of regulatory requirements? Bye, Bye Private Insurance Hillary’s plan will also impose guaranteed issue on all private health-insurance plans. This means that insurers cannot reject anyone for their insurance, even on the grounds that the patient is already woefully sick and costly. Moreover, insurers won’t be able to charge more costly patients higher premiums. Effectively, this would necessarily end any real private insurance in America. Under these requirements, companies are no longer insuring health costs, they are simply financing health costs. Health insurers would be like fire insurers who are required to issue new policies at standard rates to those who show up to buy coverage after their homes have already caught fire. Clearly, this is unworkable. Hillary says the insurers are supposed to be in the business of spreading the risk, not cherry picking the most healthy. But when someone shows up to buy health insurance with cancer and heart disease, we are no longer talking about risks. We are talking about payout. This is not an insurance business. Rest assured, moreover, that the healthy with health insurance do not want to see the “risks” of the irredeemably unhealthy spread to them. Those without health insurance who have become uninsurable can, and should, be served through other means, such as state uninsurable risk pools that do not involve trashing the health-insurance system for everyone else. But trashing the private health-insurance market is exactly what Hillary and her allies advocate. Rationing Finally, there is the Best Practices Institute, which should be called the Ministry of Truth for health care. These folks will study all sorts of medical care, issue protocols, and standards for what is the best way to treat this or that. And don’t expect any insurers anywhere, public or private, to pay for anything other than what these folks say is the best practice. To oppose the Institute, of course, would just be to pay for waste and inefficiency. So this is the ideal mechanism for imposing the inevitably necessary rationing. New, expensive medical breakthroughs will be overlooked, or delayed. If your doctor has a brilliant insight on how to treat you, no problem. All you have to do is go to the Best Practices Institute in Washington, explain why this treatment is the right one for you, and get the regs changed. In this brave new world, life insurance will be a lot more valuable to people than health insurance. Insurers, now all under the control of government, will also impose rationing by squeezing reimbursements to health providers, with the limited funds the new system will allow them, until the providers themselves cut back. This is what the government already does with Medicaid, and increasingly with Medicare. And there is so much more. In Hillary’s three speeches and three papers on her website, she outlines dozens of new health care requirements in her new system, which will not be government run. The government is all wise and all knowing, and just needs to make sure the rickety old health-care system gets it all right, as it is dragged into the 21st century. And when Hillary gets done with those fascist drug companies, you can forget about any new breakthrough drugs coming to market in the future, running up costs. But remember, the system is not government run, and don’t let those nasty Republicans tell you otherwise.

Hybrid health insurance system for the United States? Disclaimer: First, I'm a physician from a third world country so I may not be 100% familiar with some of the problems/controversies that the US healthcare system has, but this is based on what I understand from the news reports On one side of the debate are the people who cant afford private insurance. * No treatment, we die. Simple On the other side are the people who are against universal health insurance. Their reasons are more complex like: * who's going to pay for it? more taxes probably * this will drive private insurance out of business * when government health insurance is a monopoly because private insurers are out of business, then it will not be inclined to improve itself because of lack of competition. what if it decides to enact harsh requirements to cut costs? If its a monopoly you have no alternative. Its too late I propose a hybrid healthcare system based on my own country's healthcare system. * There is some sort of universal or semi universal health insurance but private insurance still exists as a sort of upgrade or total replacement. If you can afford it and you want it you can purchase an "upgrade" * This universal health insurance still has a small annual fee * Visits to the doctor will be partially covered so you have to pay a small fee to the doctor when you visit the clinic. For patients that have to be confined in the hospital, the coverage is also partial so whats left is a small fee to be paid by the patient. This small fee exists so that the human psychological reaction of "its free, lets abuse it" wont happen. * how partial is partial coverage? Make it socialized. By default say only 50%. But you can ask to be re-classified, all dependent on your income. A social worker will investigate you and the amount you eventually pay will be dependent on your income. A rich guy pays a large percentage of his hospital bill but a homeless person only pays a few dollars. * There are 3 kinds of hospitals: "pay" and "charity" to use the terminology of my country. The 3rd category is "pay" hospitals that have a separate wing or building that is run as a "charity" hospital * Pay hospitals only accept people who either pay in cash or who have the "upgraded" private health insurance. As to their organization, infrastructure and the equipment, it would resemble a current run of the mill US hospital. * Charity hospitals pimarily cater to poorer people who do not have private health insurance and only rely on the government universal health insurance but they in theory will accept anyone even those who have private insurance and those who pay in cash because they are rich. * To reduce costs, some services in charity hospitals would be removed (like in no frills budget airlines). - In my country laparoscopic surgery is so expensive compared to the savings regained in productivity and shorter hospital stay so old fashioned open surgery might be standard but you would need to compute the cost/benefit ratio for your own situation. - Frills like airconditioning, TV and private rooms would go. Charity hospitals in my country have large wards with > 50 beds per ward, 2-3 nurses per ward, open to recieve fresh air and mosquito netting and bug zappers for mosquito control. Fresh air and electric fans would cool the patients in summer and if you have snow, then the windows would close and since the building is insulated, minimal heating is required. The ward would look like a US hospital in the 1920's or ww2. - Being ugly is not a health hazard so aesthetic surgery would not be covered. Reconstructive surgery would be covered of course. - Surgeons would use cheap nylon or silk sutures to close the skin. The trade off for lower price is a worse looking scar. But if you want a better looking scar then go to the pay hospital. - No more meals in bed so unless you are too weak to move, you eat in a self service cafeteria or ask a relative to fetch you the meal - since private doctors are expensive, residents (doctors in training) and nurses in training (they both have lower salaries) would primarily be used. Of course, each resident/nurse and each patient eventually has an experienced private doctor/nurse that oversees all the medical treatment. * the ICU should be more or less the same in pay and charity hospitals except maybe for a worse nurse/doctor to patient ratio With all the frills gone, there is a powerful incentive for people to work hard so they can buy private insurance. But no one dies because coverage can be universal. The money saved by removing the frills enables more poorer people to be treated so what do you think???? * oh and to reduce costs, the number of beds and number of staff would be cut, so expect long lines in a charity hospital a british politician (an MP??) on fox news said that his country is stuck with universal health care because of beaurocratic inertia and. the people are now addicted to it and would rather riot in the streets than accept a total overhaul of their health system which would have good long term results but cause short term pain. That is why they cannot change, because the voters are dumb.

why shouldn't obama-ites bail out the doctors who pay such high medical malpractice premiums rather than...? rather than asking doctors to go against their hippocrate's oath, causing more harm to their patients by giving a lower degree of care to them (under the "socialized" medical plan that is obama's VISION of the day...which of course, you too, should ENVISION to become great and protected forever from any type of criticism, as well as, very well cared for the rest of your life by PRIVATE doctors NOT in the commie health plan), why didn't obama come into my city today to announce to them, the doctors of the american medical association, that the government will form an alliance with the banks, that run the insurance companies, that charge them astronomical medical malpractice premiums so that they could give a better quality of care to we, their patients? i.e., what with all the bailout money that's been doled out to the banks (who own the insurance companies for the most part), why can't more fiat dollars be printed up by the mint at the bequest of the people that live over at the federal reserve banks to pay medical malpractice insurance premiums FOR the doctors and hospitals? yeah, why not? i mean, doesn't that go along with what obama suggests? did he not infer to the american medical association that the doctors be regulated and paid less money for being so, all to take in the 50,000 uninsured of this country? i can see many other ways of solving this problem, can't you? 1. legalize and license prostitution and tax it to death: more money in their coffers to pay the doctors to give at least monthly exams to the prostitutes so that they are not passing around venereal disease? 2. legalize and subsidize the crops of even "cush" marijuana (because you only need one hit to get stoned--i don't smoke it because i am an old fart now, but i know people that do) all so that the dealers and the purchasers who smoke the stuff: a. do not go to prison, claiming our tax dollars to give them 3 square per day and then become b. even more violent and merciless "citizens" thanks to their close proximity with super criminals and gangs, and then, c. to pay their fair share of the excessive taxes it will cost to provide health care to these 50,000 people living in the usa that don't have health insurance? 3. raise taxes on alcoholic beverages to the point that the tax cost "deters" drinking it, just like they say that higher taxes deter more people from starting to smoke cigarettes? after all, the politicians drink booze all the time--why not tax the stuff at a greater, higher cost? and we all know, don't we, that smoking kills? well, don't drunk drivers? and aren't some of them politicians and lawyers? 4. make it a part of the "stimulus" package that said 50,000 uninsured people must be HIRED by companies all over the united states (that way, keeping out many illegal aliens so that they get exhausted trying to keep a roof over their 20/household heads and decide to return to their own countries) and that bail outs shall be provided to these businesses to cover what they have to put out to give health insurance to ALL of their employees? 5. let it be a part of the "stimulus" package to stimulate entrepreneurs to open their own companies and hire employees WITH health benefits without getting overtaxed for making themselves and their employees able to attain the american dream with increases in wages/salaries/other benefits? 6. penalize all american companies that do not kick up a part of their almighty "bottom line" (in many cases attained by sending our work to the orient because the mexican workers of the malquiadores just south of our border were "too highly paid" according to the companies that sent american jobs down there before sending them to the orient so that china could get real rich on our debt to them) with higher (even if delayed with interest accruing, like your taxes to uncle sam accrue not only a penalty, but interest until paid in full) TAXES? especially, higher TAXES to the members of the company that control it--they, the ones that make the decisions to send the work overseas to people that have no insurance and who live gratefully on their $0.50 per hour? 7. make it law that one hour per week of each health care provider, including all hospital departments, is given by them, to uninsured patients, without being paid? (i had once been on my way to becoming a physician, and if i had gotten there, i would not mind giving health care free, one hour a week--averaged out over 12 months if necessary--so that the uninsured could be treated, and treated WELL). is there no other possible answer to our problem with uninsured americans than to have the government take the health care business away from those that give the health care to the people, and then to centralize it and to control it, just like what is done in commie countries? why should banking or health care be controlled by uncle sam? if it is, the care that you

Michael Moore’s SiCKO misses facts.? SKiPO Michael Moore’s SiCKO misses facts. Michael Moore’s new movie, SiCKO, should be called “SKiPO,” since it skips over so many vital facts en route to government medicine. An engaging and surprisingly funny Moore explores a grim topic: America’s problematic health-care system. Moore effectively diagnoses one of its key ailments. HMOs and other managed-care companies often earn billions by just saying, “No” to victims of grave illnesses. Moore introduces us to real men, women, and children who this industry has failed. Bankrupted by cancer- and coronary-related medical bills, Donna and Larry Smith move into their grown daughter’s home storage room. An Oregon man accidentally saws off two fingertips and must re-construct either his middle finger for $60,000 or his ring finger for only $12,000. Tracy Pierce waits for his insurer to approve a promising bone-marrow transplant to treat his kidney disease. The company refuses, and he soon dies, widowing his bride, Julie, and leaving Tracy Jr., 13, fatherless. These are the bitter fruits of America’s private, third-party-payer system. Not quite socialist, not quite capitalist, it creates endless distortions as review boards and other gatekeepers essentially hide doctors from patients. Moore and other universal-health advocates would exacerbate this problem by making Uncle Sam the ultimate third-party payer. While promoting this prescription, Moore overlooks many facts that would balance his otherwise well-crafted film. For now, its leftward tilt makes the Leaning Tower of Pisa look like the Washington Monument. Milton Friedman observed, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Sadly, there’s no such thing as free health care, either. Universal health care’s finances must come from somewhere. “Somewhere” turns out to be taxpayers’ pockets. Britons, Canadians, and Frenchmen purchase their “free” coverage through their taxes. In America, 44.7 percent of health expenditures came from tax-funded government spending in 2004, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In Canada, that figure was 69.8 percent; while in France it was 78.4. Fully 86.3 percent of British health spending was taxpayer-funded. These countries also endure high overall tax burdens, largely due to government medicine. In 2005, OECD reports, taxes as a share of GDP stood at 41.2 percent in Canada, 41.9 percent in Britain, and 50.9 percent in France. America has it relatively easy, with just 31.7 percent of GDP devoured by taxes. Of course, for many Americans, the trade off is lower taxes vs. higher payments for health insurance. This cost varies according to employment contracts, health circumstances, and more. Still, “free” medicine is as beautiful and realistic as a unicorn. Moore claims 50 million Americans lack health insurance. The Moving Picture Institute’s Stuart Browning challenges that oft-repeated “fact.” In a case of dueling documentaries, Browning’s nine-minute film, Uninsured in America, deconstructs the more common “45 million uninsured” soundbite and finds that 9 million of these people earn over $75,000 annually and can buy coverage but don’t. Some 18 million are healthy, 18-34-year-old “young invincibles” whose priorities exclude insurance. “If I’m out eating, I want to eat good food,” Faye Chao, 26 and uninsured, told Browning. “There’ve been times I’ve been in New York, and I’m spending at least $800 a month just going out.” These Americans also turn to local clinics for treatment when necessary. For instance, Chandra Nalaani, 27 and uninsured, visited San Francisco’s Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services. “I got an annual exam,” Nalaani said. “They tested me for a bunch of things…In my case, because I wasn’t making much, it was free.” Of the uninsured, 14 million fail to enroll in Medicaid and other low-income health programs for which they are eligible. Even if these numbers somewhat overlap, Browning estimates that just eight million Americans chronically lack coverage. Moore’s 50-million-man standing army of the uninsured thus is a Potemkin force. While Moore glows like a Jack-O-Lantern about the wonders of the British National Health Service, Gordon Brown sees massive room for improvement. Just days before becoming Great Britain’s brand-new Prime Minister, Brown told Labour Party colleagues on June 24: From everything I have seen going around the country, and from everything I’ve heard, we need to do better, and the NHS will be my immediate priority. We need to and will do better at insuring access for patients at the hours that suit them. We’ll be better at getting basics of good hygiene and cleanliness right. Better also at helping people to manage their own health. Better at ensuring patients are treated with dignity at all times in the NHS. Better at providing the wider range of services now needed by a growing elderly population. And while implementing our essential reforms, better at listening to and valuing our staff. Moore’s insinuation aside, HMOs are not solely the brainchild of that oft-flogged bete noir, Richard Milhous Nixon. In fact, the HMO Act of 1973’s sponsor was none other than Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D., Mass.). In 1978, as the Institute for Health Freedom recalled, Kennedy sang HMOs’ praises: As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying…HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOphobes, including today’s Ted Kennedy, somehow fail to mention that HMOs once were the Left’s answer to America’s earlier medical challenges. SiCKO dramatically features a man stitching shut a deep cut on his own leg. Though he lacked insurance, this was unnecessary. “Every American hospital is required to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay,” says Cato Institute healthcare analyst Michael Cannon. The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act makes such services mandatory for anyone arriving within 250 yards of a U.S. emergency room. Thus, a trauma surgeon would have sutured this man’s wound. Yes, the hospital either would have absorbed this procedure’s cost or spread it across the bills of the insured (another cause of medical inflation). These cross-subsidies notwithstanding, he would have received professional treatment. Moore shows Michiganders driving into Canada for “free” medical attention. What he leaves unseen are the Canadians who come to America for treatment. Canada, along with only Cuba and North Korea, forbids its citizens from paying doctors for private medical treatment. In a kind of therapeutic Underground Railroad, Vancouver’s Timely Medical Alternatives, Inc. helps Canadians avoid lengthy medical waiting lists by arranging for their treatment in American hospitals. It says its clients can be operated on within seven days through its U.S. partners rather than six to ten months under Canadian government medicine. “Five or six years ago, seven out of ten Canadian provinces, representing roughly 95 percent of the population, had contracts with American companies for cancer care provided in the United States,” says the Manhattan Institute’s Dr. David Gratzer, a Toronto physician. “Today, some patients from over-subscribed Canadian urban medical centers are sent eight hours away to underused rural medical facilities for cancer care, much like someone going from Manhattan to Buffalo for chemotherapy.” Another drawback of high-tax-funded “free” government medicine is its limited modern technology. Cato’s Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner found that in 2000, there were 13.6 CT Scanners in America per million people. There were 8.2 million such devices per million Canadians and 6.5 per million Britons. Lithotriptors use sound waves to pulverize kidney stones and gall stones. While America had 1.5 of them per-million citizens, Canada and Britain had, respectively, 0.4 and 0.2. The paucity of such equipment creates lines and delays. Vancouver’s Fraser Institute estimated a median wait in 2006 of 4.3 weeks for a CT scan and 10.3 weeks for an MRI. SiCKO’s most revealing footage captures Moore’s pilgrimage to Karl Marx’s grave in London’s Highgate Cemetery. Single-payer countries “live in a world of ‘we,’ not ‘me,’” Moore says. “We’ll never fix anything until we get that one basic thing right.” Moore deserves credit for being so amazingly candid about his ideas’ truly socialist roots. Still, a major conundrum haunts this clamor for the kind of government medicine that would make Marx misty. While workers theoretically would own the means of medication under universal care, in reality, politicians would be in charge. The same liberals who denounce FEMA and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (a single-payer showcase) for their embarrassing incompetence want Uncle Sam to conduct bypass surgeries, deliver babies, and perform vasectomies. How puzzling. America has just one federal government. Sometimes the sensitive, caring, weepy Democrats run things; Sometimes the cold, racist, iron-hearted Republicans rule. Universal health care would mean that American medicine — from the Left’s perspective — now would be in the scheming hands of those who “lied us into war” and gleefully drowned poor blacks in New Orleans’ attics after Katrina. If Hillary Clinton had nationalized health care in 1993, American hospitals and clinics would be controlled today by Dr. Dick “Double-Barrel” Cheney and his boss, Chimpy McHitler, M.D. If that doesn’t shiver the timbers of government-medicine supporters, they should visualize Dr. Rudy Giuliani with a scalpel in one hand and the universal health-care budget in the other. Unless America scraps elections and simply yields power permanently to bleeding-heart Democrats, Michael Moore’s fans should remember that every two to four years, universal health care could fall into the clutches of cruel Republicans. Government-medicine boosters could rue the day their collectivist dream came true.

A recent spell in hospital in the UK got me thinking about the different levels of the social safety net.? A recent short period of hospitalisation in the UK brought home to me some of the key differences beween the UK and the US in terms of their respective systems of medical and social care. I was taken by ambulance to my local Primary Care NHS (National Health Service)hospital (a regional hospital with specialist care for major traumas etc) and provided treatment and advice from 3 different levels of doctor. First in A&E (I was seen within 45 minutes), then after being transferred to a short term care ward (up to 5 days expected stay) was seen a more senior doctor specialiseing in my condition, given approprate treatment and then subsequently seen by a senior consultant. My treatment and progress was monitored throughout by a network of doctors and other specialists including a physiotherapist and I was given advice on what I needed to do to complete my recovery. When I had recovered sufficiently I was discharged with a prescription of a months worth of medication to support my recovery. I was also given advice on the nutrition and excercise requirements to aid my recovery. I would imagine that the level of medical care provided was similar to the US for people with full medical insurance. The main difference is that under the NHS it is free to any person in the country including citizens from other EU countries. I have no medical insurance because I do not need it. People in the UK who can afford it have medical insurance to receive essentially the same medical treatment in more comfortable and private surroundings and to get quicker treatment for some non-urgent procedures for which there is a waiting list in the NHS. Of course they still have access to the NHS for more urgent treatment. After discharge I was passed into the care of my local GP (local community doctor) and local social services who took an active part in ensuring I had the support I needed in my recovery and in any other areas visiting me in my home to discuss these areas with me Many of the staff of the NHS are provided by second generation Afro-Carribian immigrants or more recent immigrants from the accession states of the EU (Poland, Hungry, Czech republic etc) and from countries such as the Philipines showing one of the great benefits of a massive influx of highly educated and trained immigrants from countries with excellent education and training systems but who currently are at a lower level of economic development than the leading economic powers like the US, established EU states, Japan etc. The NHS is not perfect by any means but it is going through a massive process of re-engineering itself with large regional hospitals becoming self governing NHS Trusts and outsourcing non-medical services to outside private sector bidders on a competitive bidding system and the whole system monitiored by performance indicators with mechanisms to correct poor performance Great efforts are being made to cater better to the needs of people who because of poor English language skills (another by product of mass immigration), lack of knowledge of the system or lack of basic life skills, including those with mental disabities, who may therefore have difficulty getting full access to to the facilities and help available. The NHS and other bodies are also actively pursueing ways of improving care and support for people in the community particularly to support them through the recovery phase. There is also an initiartive to give people access to self diagnoses and advice on nutrition, excercise etc and specific areas such as problem drinking or the whole range of medical conditions. This is targeted at low income groups who do not have access to the internet at home and may have poor IT skills.This is being done by using the internet facilities that already exist in public libraries and by training library staff in supporting the people concerned with advice on using the system. Medically trained staff will come into the library regurlarly to provide further support in face to face consultation. This is in addition to the services of the GP network. Again all these services are free to any member of the public including of course all new immigrants and any EU citizen. For key public sector workers including NHS staff and others on low income or suffering financial hardship through, for instance, marriage breakup a system exists for the provision of low cost home ownership. A system to provide shared ownership of houses and apartments is provided by government funded Housing Associations who provide newly built or second hand properties on the basis of an initial capital contribution funded out of capital. This will be either a from a mortgage or cash, often from the proceeds of the sale of a previuos home as a result of divorce with the usual 50/50 split of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, or from savings. This capital contribution can be as low as 30 % of the full market value and can range up to 70% or Question too long & cut off by system. Any suggestions. Question at the end was how people thought the UK system compared with the US. Two countries of similar per capita income. In US you pay for very expensive medical insurance or risk having no access to medical care at all. In the UK good quality medical care is available free for all (inc EU citizens).

Did u c this Wall St Journal article "Obamacare is all about rationing" What do you think? I've been saying that the whole thing forces rationing, with the central committee designing 'cost effective procedures' and enforcing them, whether in public OR private insurance through a mandated compensation system for paying doctors and health providers by how well they do compared to compliance with the recommendations of the government committee. That plus the fact that the CBO says costs will INCREASE under Obamacare means premiums will increase and become unaffordable for most of us (the subsidy amount will generally apply to the same people it does now, except preexisting conditions.) That means even if we had a choice people would be rationing, and even dropping insurance if they were above the subsidy amount but had to make hard decisions about making their mortgage or the govt mandated insurance premiums. Note that the fines don't cost as much as the insurance. This is a NEW loss of access to insurance no one is talking about. However, it would also lead to less being covered, earlier, as premium costs spiraled. Medicare is being cut $500 billion in the House bill or $550 billion in the Senate bill, yet the efficiencies Obama says will cover this are only given credit by the CBO for reducing $1 billion in costs. Medicare's standard for care drops to what is 'cost effective'. It is clear that saying you can keep your plan is disingenuous since almost all plans naturally end, and there are large financial incentives in the bill for employers to drop their current plans. Also, changes to a plan (which occur all the time) will typically render it a new plan having to meet Obamacare standards. All employer plans do within 5 years, in any event. Off the top of my head the only types of plans you could really 'keep' for very long under Obamacare would be union and Congress's plan. Altogether, this read as if we weren't all being put on Medicare, we were all being put on MEDICAID (which many doctors won't even accept), including those on medicare. However, you had to get there from logic, since the details of administration weren't written out. But this article finds, as I understood, that rationing is a primary intent of the central government committee 'recommending' cost effective procedures. And determinations by this committee of what will be reimbursed for doctors and other providers, are shielded from any challenge. At least now if your plan wrongfully denies care, you can sue. What do you think? Why are they only focusing on the 'public/private' administration of the government written policies that will be mandated, when that doesn't go to so many of the issues? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204683204574358233780260914.html "Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama’s health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive. The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers." The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost. In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive." One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government's exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary woul

Did you know the public option can help us all? By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Sat Aug 22, 9:45 am ET WASHINGTON – One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S. Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals. For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system. Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies. "There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant." Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association. Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit. A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people. "Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates." "The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate." Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states. "You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan. "Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said. Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage. Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint — market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002. There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go. The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable. Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health. Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say. Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare. It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies. "The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the America

Isn't this a great example of Government run health care. Hawaii cancels it after 7 months? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_re_us/child_health_hawaii Hawaii ending universal child health care Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer Mark Niesse, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 17, 3:29 am ETHONOLULU – Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched. Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan. "People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program." State officials said Thursday they will stop giving health coverage to the 2,000 children enrolled by Nov. 1, but private partner Hawaii Medical Service Association will pay to extend their coverage through the end of the year without government support. "We're very disappointed in the state's decision, and it came as a complete surprise to us," said Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for HMSA, the state's largest health care provider. "We believe the program is working, and given Hawaii's economic uncertainty, we don't think now is the time to cut all funding for this kind of program." Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn't already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families. It costs the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child — an amount that was more than matched by HMSA. State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it. The Republican governor signed Keiki Care into law in 2007, but it and many other government services are facing cuts as the state deals with a projected $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011. While it's difficult to determine how many children lack health coverage in the islands, estimates range from 3,500 to 16,000 in a state of about 1.3 million people. All were eligible for the program. "Children are a lot more vulnerable in terms of needing care," said Democratic Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland. "It's not very good to try to be a leader and then renege on that commitment." The universal health care system was free except for copays of $7 per office visit. Families with children currently enrolled in the universal system are being encouraged to seek more comprehensive Medicaid coverage, which may be available to children in a family of four earning up to $73,000 annually. These children also could sign up for the HMSA Children's Plan, which costs about $55 a month. "Most of them won't be eligible for Medicaid, and that's why they were enrolled in Keiki Care," Diesman said. "It's the gap group that we're trying to ensure has coverage." ___ On the Net: Hawaii Medical Service Association: http://www.hmsa.com/ Read Full Article

Is this the abortion provision you have been looking for? WASHINGTON – A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers. The 240-194 vote on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was a blow to liberals, who would have allowed the Obama administration and its successors to decide whether abortions would be covered by the government plan. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in favor of the prohibition. Stupak's measure also would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from purchasing private insurance polices that included abortion coverage. "Let us stand together on principle — no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions," Stupak urged fellow lawmakers before the vote. The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should. The amendment also would prohibit people who receive new federal health subsidies from buying insurance plans that include abortion coverage. The Democrats' original bill would have allowed people getting federal subsidies to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. Abortion opponents dismissed that as an accounting gimmick. Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades. Anti-abortion Democrats forced House leaders to bring it up for a vote by threatening to oppose the underlying bill, and efforts to reach a compromise fell apart Friday night. "Like it or not, this is a legal medical procedure and we should respect those who need to make this very personal decision," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. Some Republicans considered voting "present" in hopes that might unravel support for the underlying health care bill among anti-abortion Democrats, but only one did, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. "If I felt that the (health overhaul) bill could be killed by not advancing the Stupak amendment then it seems it would be prudent to vote in such a way that wouldn't advance the bill, but it doesn't appear that that's a possibility," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said before the vote. The National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied lawmakers in both parties on the abortion measure. The bishops said they would oppose the bill if it lacked a strict prohibition on any federal funding for abortions. Stupak's language applies to policies sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange that would be set up in 2013. The overhaul bill envisions both private companies and the government offering policies in the exchange. Under the Stupak amendment, people who do not receive federal insurance subsidies could buy private insurance plans in the exchange that include abortion coverage. People who receive federal subsidies could buy separate policies covering only abortions if they use only their own money to do it. Companies selling insurance policies covering abortions would be required to offer identical policies without the abortion coverage. Abortion-rights supporters say private insurers will not likely offer policies with abortion coverage in the exchange because many potential buyers will be getting federal subsidies and therefore wouldn't be able to purchase them. Around 21 million people are expected to get coverage through the exchange by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The majority of Americans who get their insurance coverage from their employers would not be affected. Abortion-rights supporters say the restrictions in the amendment go further than current law. A law called the Hyde amendment — which must be renewed annually — bars federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. The restrictions apply to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortions for low-income women to pay for them with state revenues. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and the military. Currently abortion coverage is widely available in the private market. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had abortion coverage. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results. Abortions in the first trimester typically cost between $350-$900, according to Planned Parenthood. A health overhaul bill pending in the Senate also bars federal funding for abortion, but the language is less stringent. Discrepancies between the House and Senate measures would have to be What part of no funding don't you understand. Will the Catholics like the Health care bill now?

What do you think about Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to eliminate programs that help families & students? "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state’s welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students." I think his proposal is completely insane. Yes, let's just stop helping those who need the most aid/assistance. It makes perfect sense......not! The last thing we need here is for people to go sick, homeless, and stupid. & I like how every time we need to make some cuts, our Gov. takes it out on the education system. It's just criminal. Look at it this way, he's already eliminating a lot of teachers from our schools, which in turn creates less job openings. Because of this, college students will have to stay in school longer because there aren't enough professors to teach each semester. What does this mean? Well if they can't receive any financial aid (because the Gov. eliminates Cal Grants) this means students will either (1) become even more in debt (inadvertently causing our state to create an even higher deficit) or (2) have to drop out of school & somehow find a better paying job. Everything goes in a damn circle. It's like he wants to punish those who want a good education. Has he ever even thought about just forcing schools to lower their costs (such as tuition)? Making students pay around $27,000-$37,000 (UC & private institutions) each year when this doesn't even include their books, seems quite ridiculous doesn't it? So, what are your thoughts?

Did Ron Paul have by far the freshest and best idea for Health Care? In these United States of America, one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill. But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor. Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits. The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want regain both our health and our freedom. Forced nationalization is the worst possible answer. To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed. Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system? There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes. Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket. As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto“: " In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector." Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens? Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license. Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return. The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds. Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives source: www.ronpaul.com FYI, I did not write this. It's from above source.

Which of these families deserves government mortgage help? Please tell me which of the following families deserves government mortgage help: A. single mother with three kids. working, never married, child support erratic at best. bought a house in 2006 with a 5/1 ARM subprime loan. can't afford payments now that the introductory low interest rate is ending. B. married couple with two kids. both were working in 2005 when they bought a house using an alt-a loan. she lost her job in 2007 and her new one pays less. his self-employment business is slowing as his customers feel pinched and do without his service due to the "recession". two months behind on payments with reset to higher rate in November. C. married couple without children. Lost their house to foreclosure in 2007 after he was disabled in a work accident. Disability wasn't enough to continue making the payments after his medical costs soared. D. 83 year old widow. Owns her house free and clear, but can't afford the property taxes and insurance because houses in her neighborhood tripled in past ten years due to easy money loans and thus many buyers. Now can't sell as the market has crashed. Six months past due on property taxes. E. couple with two college age children who re-fi'd their house in 2006 to pay their childrens' tuition. Closed a 401k to make tuition payments in 2007 and borrowed from relatives to pay again this fall. House is 45 days past due but older child doesn't graduate until December 2010. F. Retired couple whose only regular income is small pension plus social security. Their retirement assets in stock market have taken a beating this year. Borrowed in 2004 against their house when he had a heart attack that caused his early retirement [which crippled his pension]. Rising costs of gas and food have made them 30 days past due and they have no way to catch up without further damaging their retirement assets. G. Manager and stay at home wife with two children in public school. He lost his job two years ago -- it was outsourced to China. Now works at Home Depot, but the money isn't 1/3rd of what he used to make. Still looking for that managerial job, which costs hundreds a month in extra costs. they've gotten their foreclosure notice and are thinking about filing bankruptcy to buy time. H. Market trader and retired wife who lost $125,000 when his short sales were arbitrarily ended by SEC order in this financial crisis. Hasn't made trading profit since last October. Now two months late and getting daily phone calls from mortgage servicing company asking for money he can't pay if he is ever to recover his losses in the markets. I. Retired couple who saved and planned out their retirement for last 25 years. Retired in 2007 owing nothing, but living off 401k payouts and social security. their assets are down 25% so far in this recession and they'll have to cut costs next year, which means short selling the house into increasingly bad market and paying bank off on the loss over next who knows how many years [if ever]. J. Sixty something widow whose assets were wiped out by husband's death via Alzheimer Disease and private nursing home for 4 years. Has only Social Security now as all their retirement assets except the house went to pay the nursing home. Took a mortgage in 2005 to pay off the husband's medical bills and burial. *** please tell me which, if any, of these families deserve government help in staying in their home or recovering their home. This question has no political point to make and is solely to gather information regarding what the Y!A public thinks America's public policy should be. While all of these situations are real to some family, I carefully crafted each of them to show a case where the people involved arguably are losing or lost their home because some other part of our economic system had a breakdown. In theory, none of these deserve government mortgage help, imo. Some of them needed either less or more government in some other part of their lives and because of that issue, were financially savaged to the point of losing their home. Afaic, the mortgage industry should NOT bear the brunt of other failures in America's systems -- doing so only distorts the economy even further. Did the mortgage industry have its own failures? YES. Mostly, they had a failure of spine. They didn't stand up to Congress and HUD in the 1990s when both needed to be told that their rules were requiring the banks to write bad loans that shouldn't have ever been made. Big government needed to be told "NO".

How's this for fixing health care? How to employ market reforms? Here are five simple steps. * Make health insurance more like other types of insurance. Health savings accounts, which passed as part of the Medicare reforms of 2003, were an important first step, separating smaller expenses from high-deductible insurance, for catastrophic events. However, the legislation is overly rigid. Congress must expand and revise the structure of HSAs, and level the tax playing field for those not covered by an employer plan. * Foster competition. American health care is the most regulated sector in the economy. The result? A health insurance policy for a 30-year old man costs four times more in New York than in neighboring Connecticut because of the multitude of regulations in the Empire State. Americans can shop out-of-state for a mortgage; they should be able to do so for health insurance. Likewise, many laws intended to promote fairness end up reducing competition and thus innovation. Congress should reconsider such laws, beginning with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). * Reform Medicaid, using welfare reform as the template. Medicaid spending is spiraling up, now consuming more dollars at the state level than K-12 education. Like the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, part of the problem stems from the fact that the program is shared between both the federal and state government -- and is thus owned by neither. Congress should fund Medicaid with block grants to the states, and let them innovate. * Revisit Medicare. Back in the late 1990s, a bipartisan commission approved a reasonable starting point for Medicare -- junking the price controls, and using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan as a model. Elderly Americans would then have a choice among competing private plans. Given that the unfunded liability of Medicare is four times greater than that of social security, the time is right to experiment with this idea. * Address prescription drug prices by pruning the size and scope of the FDA. It costs nearly a billion dollars for a prescription drug to reach the market, and roughly 40% of that is due to safety requirements. This is effectively a massive tax on pharmaceuticals. With new technology and focus, it would be possible to update the FDA, drawing from President George H. W. Bush's experiments with contracting out certain approval steps to private organizations, which boasted lower costs and faster approval times.

NHS In Scotland and England troubles? Universal Healthcare In the USA? Top doctors warn Scots face NHS disaster EDDIE BARNES POLITICAL EDITOR THE NHS in Scotland faces imminent "disaster" as a result of the government’s failure to recruit enough skilled medics, the country’s leading doctors warned last night. According to a new report, the financial problems being experienced in the National Health Service in the UK are all set to worsen over the next few years and a number of hospitals could fail. •Health care is not a right.[44][45][46] •Providing health care is not the responsibility of government.[47] •Increased waiting times, which can result in unnecessary deaths (though this must apply to non-emergency situations since there are no wait times for emergency cases in industrialized countries with universal healthcare).[44][48] •Poorer quality of care.[44][37] •Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.[44] •Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy.[37][44] Administrative duties, by doctors, are the result of medical centralization and over-regulation, and are not natural to the profession. In fact, before heavy regulation of the health care and insurance industries, doctor visits to the elderly, and free care, or low cost care to impoverished patients was common; governments regulated this form of charity out of existence.[49] Universal health care plans will add more inefficiency to the medical system because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which will lead to less doctor patient visits (though this hasn't been the experience in places such as Canada, where paperwork requirements are much less complicated per patient visit).[50] •Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity lead to greater cost control and effectiveness.[37] •Uninsured citizens can sometimes still receive emergency care from alternative sources such as nonprofits and government-run hospitals.[37] •Government-mandated procedures reduce doctor flexibility.[37] •Healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. [37] •Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay dissuades many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.[37] •Causes loss of insurance industry jobs and other business closures in the private sector.[37] •Eliminates a right to privacy between doctors and patients as governments demand power to oversee health of citizens.[51] •Empirical evidence on single payer insurance programs demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates.[52] •Governments, such as Canada, have outlawed medical care if the service is paid for by private individual funds. This results as governments attempt to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power. Subsequently, those with non-emergent illnesses such as cancer cannot pay out of pocket for time-sensitive surgeries and must wait, sometimes until the cancer has reached a stage of inoperability. [53]

Survive in America DIE in Europe!!! Just how much better is American MEDICINE?? ALOT!!!!!?

US Mock Election Questions, whats YOUR answer? Name (first only- optional) Male or Female? Are you registered to vote? Age (you can give me a aproximation. example im 16 so i put 15-20) Of these issues, which do you feel is most important? A. the economy B. energy crisis C. health care quality and costs D. war in Iraq and Afganistan Which of the above is second most important to you? WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS REFLECTS YOUR OPINION ON THE ECONOMIC POLOCIES? A) international trade agreements like NAFTA have benifited our partner countries at the cost of American jobs and should be terminated or renegotiated to include better terms and protection for US workers and Consumer Goods B) the president should take measures to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit, which is projected to be $410 billion. Doing so would lower our trade imbalances, raise savings while lowering our need for foriegn debt, and improve our long term economic growth. C)the president should make improvements to our aging infrastructure. replacing bridges, investing in modern rail networks, and upgrading our outdated electricity grid would create more jobs and promote efficiencies that would benefit our economy. D) with oil prices high and jobs creation slow, taxes should be lowered to create more income to meet the rising bills. this would put money back into the economy and create jobs. E) uncertain WHICH STATEMENT REFLECTS YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT THE ENERGY CRISIS? A) the goverment should subsidize the reasearch and developement of alternative energy to reduce our demand for oil, as its harmful to the inviorment and increasingly expensive. B) as oil companies collect record profit with the increasing price of gas, the government should impose windfall profit taxes on the companies if they fail to increase investment in greater oil production or new energy alternatives. C) with the price of gas stretching the american pocket book, the goverment should suspend the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon to lessen the burden of drivers at the pump. D) the rise of oil prices is mainly due to an increase of demand, without a corresponding expansion of supply. to increase supply, the goverment should remove the ban on off-shore drilling so that oil companies can remove more oil from the ground. E) uncertain WHICH STATEMENT REFLECTS YOUR BELIEFS ON AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN WARS? A) the US should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until our military and political goals are achieved, no matter how long it takes. Our security and intrests are paramount. as the only world superpower we can do things alone without concern for world public opinion. B) the wars are still to be won and there goals achieved. when the military and political situations improve , our troops should slowly and gradually withdrawal. C) the war has not been successful in achieving the goals of making our nation safer. our in ternational reputation has been harmed. american casualties have been much greater than expected. all american troops should return home when the political status of Iraq and Afghanistan improves. D) the wars have damaged the reputation and power of the US. it is the best intrest of our country that our armed forces imediatly leave Iraq and Afghanistan in an orderly manner. let the people of both countries resolve thier own problems, and we will provide economic help when needed. E) uncertain WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT REFLECTS YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT HEALTH CARE POLICY AND COSTS? A) the federal goverment has no responsibility for health care of private citizens. it should be the responsibility of the individual to gain health care coverage through insurance companies. self reliance and free market system should be used for all services in the US. B) the federal goverment should largly stay out of providing health care to americans. that should be done mainly through private sector. only the most needy citizens should be given basic level of medical assistance. C) the federal goverment should play a major role in assuring that affordable, quality healthcare is available to all americans. fedeal healthcare should be provided to all citizens who cannot get private coverage. D) a national healthcare insurance program is needed. all americans should be provided quality healthcare through a federal program, funded by tax revenues. health care is too important to be left to private enterprise. E) uncertain WHICH LEADERSHIP QUALITY IS MOST IMPORTANT IN A PRESIDENT? A) High Ethical Standards: honest, trusted, knows right from wrong B) Strong Decision Making Skills C) Patriotic: always puts country first D) Organized and a Team Leader E) Exellent public Comunicater: People person, crowd talker WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO LEAD THE COUNTRY IF IT WAS AT ALL POSSIBLE? A) Abraham Lincoln B) Franklin D Roosevelt C) John F Kennedy D) Ronald Reagan E) Bill Clinton WHO WOULD/WILL YOU VOTE FOR IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION?? THE UPCOMING ELECTION??? thank you all and it is okay if you only put the letters to the answers, i understand these views may not be exactly of your own. this a poll i am taking for my school and because there is no correct answer, i will let the votes decide the best answer. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. i dearly appreciate it.

Help With ECONOMICS! PLEASE!!!!!!!? 1. A can of creamed corn represents a ____ a. goods produced b. raw materials c. capital resource d. management skill e. service produced 2. America is called the “land of opportunity” because so many energetic people with ideas have become successful and wealthy. Some of them engaged in free enterprise and gained great wealth. Select below the best example of free enterprise. a. buying stocks and bonds b. volunteering to work for a political party c. starting and running your own business d. working your way up in a corporation 3. all of the following are actions which the government may exercise to influence economic activity, EXCEPT a. forcing private industries to lay off employees b. controlling the amount of money in existence c. increasing government consumption d. decreasing government spending e. increasing taxes 4. If you read about a car in consumer reports then take the car for a test drive, you are employing which information gathering strategy? a. experience b. searching c. independent analysis d. both searching and experience 5. All of the following are examples of raw materials, EXCPET a. soybeans b. land c. iron ore d. timber e. bread 6. in the health care consumer delivery system, which of the following best represents HMO? a. output b. input c. throughput d. all of the above e. none of the above 7. Economics is a science that does not consider the essential needs of human beings a. false b. true 8. Consumer expect certain goods and services to be available on-demand during ___ a. high demand periods b. peak season periods c. both high and low demand periods d. low demand periods e. off season periods 9. a group of bread companies band together to form a huge business that controls the price and distribution of bread, would you call that group a monopoly? a. no b. yes 10. Which of the following goods is produced to meet human needs? a. yacht b. ground meat c. caviar d. fur coat e. comic book 1. You might not have sold the Magnificient Motorbike for what you thought it was worth during WWII. Many companies over charged for their products, and the Federal Government established: a. product restrictions b. price controls c. cost incentives d. cost overruns 2. Which of the following is a reason why information is necessary for a wise consumer? a. to use resources wisely b. to match your preferences c. because of poor advertising d. because of sophisticated technology e. all of the above 3. Specialization is practiced by ______ a. individuals b. geographical regions c. industries d. total nations e. all of the above 4. Over the next 2 decades, which of the following will be the largest? a. service jobs b. white collar jobs c. professional jobs d. the number of entirely new jobs e. the number of job openings from people leaving the workforce 5. To economize is ___________ a. to buy the services of another person b. to spend money to create wants and needs c. to decide which resources are needed to satisfy wants and needs d. to determine relative scarcity e. to look for plentiful human resources 6. all of the following countries practices some form of socialism, EXCEPT _____ a. Sweden b. Switzerland c. Albania d. Denmark e. great Britain 7. an example of producing a good is a __________ a. lawyer defending a client in a trial b. carpenter constructing a building using plans c. draftsman explaining blueprints to a carpenter d. draftsman drawing blueprints e. sergeant drilling troops 8. which of the following statements is NOT correct? a. scarcity influences economic value b. scarcity is basic to economics c. a resources is any material or service used to satisfy a want or need d. people have unlimited wants which influences how scarce resources are used and distributed e. scarce resources have lower value 9. Country X had a G.N.P. of $5billion in 1976, $4.8billion in 1977, and a $4.4billion in 1978. These figures indicate that country X was experiencing a period of ____________ a. depression b. inflation c. decreasing economic activity d. prosperity e. accelerated employment and a rapidly increasing circular flow of income 10. income taxes and Social Security taxes (referred to as FICA, which stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) are withheld from your paycheck. You and your employer each pay half of the FICA tax. The federal government uses these taxes for: a. a retirement insurance program b. orphans and disabled veterans c. medical care d. all of the above 1. which tax is paid by business only? a. income tax b. real estate tax c. sales tax d. unemployment tax e. none of the above 2. the government created the federal reserve system which regulates the amount of money in circulation. This action is a form of government ___________ a. multiplier policy b. monetary policy c. taxation policy d. fiscal policy e. promissory

Why won't many Americans support the Universal Health care system? Any doctor or a health care provider knows that it is a good option, but what is wrong with the public? -Instead of paying crazy premiums, you just pay a little bit higher taxes (tax increase will probably be lower than what you pay for health premiums) -You won't be denied insurance on the basis of your pre-existing conditions. Everyone will be insured if they live in America. -It will bring the nation together -Everyone - rich, poor, employed, unemployed, women, children, bums etc get equal right to treatment without discrimination. -You won't have to worry what your insurance covers and what it doesn't cover. Everything will be covered and all your medical needs will be covered -The receptionist won't ask you "do you have insurance or credit card" the first time she sees you. She will say "OMG let me get a doctor for you quickly" -More satisfaction on the Doctor's part because they don't have to worry about whether the patient can afford it or not -I am originally from India where I was lower middle class and even I had my throat surgery free of charge. My grandma had a hip replacement surgery and it cost her nothing. (However, there are also private hospitals for the rich) -Most developed countries have Universal health care - there must be a reasons why they do. So stop being so ignorant and open your eyes please and come together.

Why do some neo-cons oppose such a good health care plan, despite Obama's call to fix health care ASAP? The plan has proposals to improve affordability and lower prices, at little cost to the taxpayers. One proposal is to give families who purchase their own insurance a tax benefit similar to the one companies get for providing health benefits. Another proposal is to pass medical liability reforms that will reduce costly junk lawsuits. Still another would allow small businesses to team up to buy insurance at a group discount. They also want to allow families to save money tax-free for a wide range of health expenses and permit children to stay on their parents' policies until age 25. Under the proposals, Medicaid beneficiaries would get the flexibility to choose private coverage, rather than being locked into a government-run program. Is also calling for stepping up efforts to detect and punish Medicare and Medicaid fraud, which costs an estimated $60 billion a year.

To the US woman known as SW who asked about living in UK? I typed all this out,and it wouldn't let me post it, so here it is.... If you are made happy by things other than the material, such as your spouse, children and beautiful scenery - the UK can be a haven for you. I am not immune to the depressing news, the taxes, the chavs (lower forms of life that commonly hang around in shopping centres and supermarkets). 1. You would be hard pushed to find a toxic insect in the UK, carpet beetles are annoying, some house spiders can bite, but it's not even mildly toxic, bees and wasps can sting, but, again, it's not a major problem our tragic weather sees they rarely get to huge numbers. 2. If you go private (and in the US medical insurance is required for medical treatment) you will be seen next day by a consultant - operations can be scheduled very shortly after, there are only waiting lists for the NHS - it's annoying, but the NI payments from our wages are far smaller than a private healthcare plan, so unfortunately, this is reflected in the wait. 3, The practise of Douching is not medically recommended, it removes natural bacteria which are essential to the vagina. It is not necessary to see a doctor if you do not require it. You should not assume the worse unless told otherwise, you should assume the best unless told otherwise - I could count on 1 hand the number of elder women who have had a hysterectomy, and I am in the medical profession! 4. People in the UK cannot get up enough momentum to hate anyone, they just have a general misery due to our foul weather and evil government that affects everyone we meet, particularly people who point out every shortcoming we have on YA. 5. I am not quite sure what you mean about the job bit - I have never had to ring anyone to make sure they are doing their job and I am responsible for staff- bear with me I am still going. 6. Housing, if you move to a small island with a significant amount of green belt and a population inclusive of indigenous and immigrants (which I don't mind at all - before anyone accuses me of being racist) you must appreciate that the more modern the house the smaller it will be to cope with increasing housing demand. In the US, you have masses of untouched space, so everything is larger - good for you, but we are not as large - we are just a small country. It is expensive, I will grant you. 7. We don't need air con here, if it's hot, our houses are havens to hide in, if its cold, we put radiators, fires,or if we're feeling poor huge jumpers on. 8. Parking is annoying, but, if you get to know an area, you will get to know the sneaky places you can park for free or cheap. Being married to a man whose motto is "I pay road tax, I should NOT have to pay for parking - I know this". The library is just trying to insure itself for those who abuse it's services and people do this. BBC channels are not supported by advertising - we complain about it here in the UK too, but he licence fees go towards payment of artists, production costs, broadcasting, the list is endless. They produce some superb programmes and though I reserve the right to complain, being British, they are technically worth it. 9. Do not blame the folks of the UK for the US putting ridiculous delivery charges on things, I have seen small items on ebay coming from the US charged at £22.50 delivery - it is preposterous. Unrealistic and just a way for the people in the US to make an easy few dollars out of us - there is no way that is the true postage charge. My husband and I sent a limited edition model bus packaged and wrapped for less than £6.00 to Australia! 10. Yes, we are ripped off for arts and crafts, I fail to see why this is my fault? I don't pay for them, because I can't afford them. Instead, I buy a cheap ream of paper from asda and a box of felt tip pens - hours of amusement. Or we do like Blue Peter and use toilet roll tubes, sticky tape, milk bottles and lashings of sticky back plastic. 11. My husband and I share a bank account, and I can sign cheques over to anyone I like, but you cannot blame the banks for insuring you against ID fraud. All of the annoying red tape security measures are for this purpose. Are they annoying? Of course they are, but what is more annoying is when some 13 year old chav uses your stolen details to extort money from your bank account. I hope that I have made you realise that living in the UK is not all bad and there are reasons for everything. We in the UK are ripped off, and believe me, we know it, but I don't think it's as bad as you suggest. Perhaps the reason you think Uk residents hate you is because you are spouting this to them? Maybe you should realise we are all in this together? For those saying "steady on" they should have read it, I would post a link, but it won't let me for some reason.

please help!!personal finance!!I cannot afford to get any wrong!!!! giving away as many points as possible!!!! 1. Which of the following might not be an option for increasing your present income? (1 point) Quitting your job to find another Requesting a merit increase in pay Requesting a promotion Looking for a better job without quitting your old job 2. Which of the following is true about a merit increase in pay? (1 point) It is based only on how long you have been with the company. You have prove that you deserve it more than your coworkers. You might have to wait for a certain anniversary date to get it. You automatically receive merit raises every year. 3. Corporate structure may be defined as _____. (1 point) the way a corporate building is structured whether a company pays corporate taxes the method a company uses to pay its employees the way a business is organized 4. Your resume should include all of the following information EXCEPT (1 point) contact information. personal history. education background. qualifications. 5. The single best way to increase your income is to get an education. Why? (1 point) You automatically make more money if you are educated. You can obtain jobs that have higher starting salaries. You automatically get promotions if you are educated. You will automatically receive better benefits. 6. Which of the following will probably earn a higher level of income? (1 point) A female file clerk with a high school diploma and a year of college. a male file clerk with a high school diploma and a year of college. A male accountant with a Bachelor's degree. A female accountant with a Master's degree in business administration. 7. The term "educational attainment"means _________________. (1 point) you have earned a degree whatever education you have earned you are attending school to earn a degree you have earned the highest degree possible in your field 8. Which of the following is not a core module of accounting? (1 point) accounts receivable accounts payable debt collection purchase orders 9. What is a general ledger also known as? (1 point) a normal ledger an enumerated ledger a nominal ledger none of the above 10. Which of the following is not one of the three types of business arrangements in the United States? (1 point) sole proprietorship partnership corporation sole partnership 11. With a sole proprietorship, who pays the taxes? (1 point) the shareholders the company the owner both the shareholders and the owner 12. Which one of the following would not be considered an advantage of a sole proprietorship? (1 point) Decisions can be made quickly without having to consult others. A proprietor is also responsible for his or her own health insurance. There are no legal formalities if the business dissolves. All of the profits from the business go right to the owner. 13. What can a proprietor do to minimize personal risk and liability? (1 point) change his/her name form a limited liability proprietorship form a limited liability partnership form a limited liability company 14. Why are partnerships often favored over corporations? (1 point) They have more power. A partnership structure eliminates the dividend tax levied upon profits realized by the owners. They are more successful. none of the above 15. Why are partnerships often favored over corporations? (1 point) A partnership structure eliminates the dividend tax levied upon profits. They are more successful. They have more power. none of the above 16. What are the two types of partnerships? (1 point) limited and general limited and sole general and private private and limited 17. Which of the following would not be considered an advantage of a partnership? (1 point) A partnership usually involves low start-up costs. Each general partner is deemed the agent of the partnership. It's easy to form a partnership. You can share the responsibilities with your partners. 18. As a generic legal term, __________ means any group of persons with a legal entity. (1 point) partnership business corporation proprietorship 19. Who regulates a corporation? (1 point) the bondholders the government of the state, province, or national government with which it is registered the corporation's founders the corporation's union 20. Which of the following is not a legal characteristic of a corporation? (1 point) transferable shares perpetual life legal protection from lawsuits limited liability 21. When claiming dependents, they must meet the following criteria EXCEPT: (1 point) the dependent must be a relative. the dependent must reside with you. the dependent must be under nineteen years of age unless he or she is a full-time student. the dependent was unable to provide over half of his or her support for the year. 22. If you opt to put money in a medical flexible spending account rather than trying to amass enough medical expenses to itemize on your tax return, you are taking advantage of ___________________. (1 point) an exclusion a credit a deduction withholding 23. A form of taxation in which everyone pays an equal rate of taxes is called a _____________. (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax net tax flat tax 24. A form of taxation in which the highest income earner pays the largest percentage of taxes is called a (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax flat tax net tax 25. A form of taxation in which the lowest income earners pay the largest percentage of taxes is called a ___________________. (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax flat tax net tax 26. Which of the following best defines health insurance? (1 point) An annual contract between an insurance company and an individual a type of insurance that protects your personal property if you are unable to pay your bills. a type of insurance whereby the insurer pays the medical costs of the insured a type of insurance that assists your loved ones in the event of your death 27. Which of the following illustrates the main difference between Medicare and Medicaid? (1 point) Medicare helps to insure the elderly, while Medicaid focuses on low-income individuals and families. Medicaid helps to insure the elderly, while Medicaid insures low-income earners. Medicaid helps to replace lost income for the poor. Medicare is available only to those over the age of 65. 28. What is life insurance? (1 point) Health insurance that covers you for the rest of your life Insurance that supplements your income if your life is threatened Insurance that assists your loved ones with income in the event of your death Insurance that protects you in the event of an unexpected illness or accident that prevents you from working 29. Which of the following statements is not true about HMO insurance? (1 point) It is a managed health care system. In an HMO you can choose your own primary care physician (PCP), but specialists must be referred by the PCP. In an HMO , you are assigned a primary care physician. The letters stand for Health Maintenance Organization. 30. Which of the following might be considered positive aspects of HMOs. (1 point) Free choice of primary care physician Care from non-HMO provider not covered Out-of-pocket expenses are usually low Easy to receive specialized care 31. Which of the following might be considered a negative aspect of HMOs? (1 point) Out-of-pocket expenses are usually high. Not easy to receive specialized care HMOs focus on preventative care Free choice of primary care physician 32. On average, compared to a person with good credit a person with poor credit will pay __________ for insurance. (1 point) 5% to 10% more 10% to 15% more 20% to 50% more 55% to 70% more 33. How long does it take to rebuild your credit history? (1 point) 7 years 8 years 9 years 30 years 34. Secured debt means a lender gives you money in exchange for what? (1 point) collateral credit report principal interest 35. When an asset, such as a car, decreases in value over time what is it called? (1 point) depreciation financing equity leasing 36. If you miss one payment on a credit card, what's generally the penalty? (1 point) a late payment fee a higher interest rate a lower available credit line a negative notation on your credit report 37. If you miss two payments on a credit card, what's generally the penalty? (1 point) a late payment fee and a lower available credit line a higher interest rate and a late payment fee a late payment fee a negative notation on your credit report 38. What are expenses that do not change called? (1 point) stable costs fixed costs variable costs known costs 39. What is the margin of safety? (1 point) How much sales can fall before a business starts making less than 5% profit How much sales can fall before a business makes less than 15% profit How much sales can fall before a business starts taking a loss none of the above 40. The two components of ______________ are variable and fixed costs. (1 point) entire cost required cost complete cost total cost 41. What are expenses that change as conditions change? (1 point) changing costs fixed costs moderate costs variable costs 42. What can be the best type of safety net in hard times? (1 point) Gambling Mortgage Rental property None of the above 43. Real estate is considered a(n) _____ investment. (1 point) illiquid liquid sure partially–liquid 44. Individual mortgage interest rates are generally determined by what? (1 point) The economy The individual's credit score The property value The state the property is located in 45. What is PMI? (1 point) Personal mortgage issuance Personal mortgage investment Personal mortgage insurance Personal mortgage interest 46. Why is investing in gold beneficial? (1 point) It is easy to mine. It is considered a stable investment. Gold is more expensive than stocks. The value of hold is subject to inflation. 47. What is an entrepreneur? (1 point) a sole proprietorship a corporation one who opens a new business a bank that loans money 48. Which of the following is the best definition of probable operating costs? (1 point) Amount of money required to start a business Amount of money required to market a business Amount of money required to purchase business equipment Amount of money required to keep a business running 49. Which of the following is a start–up cost associated with opening a business? (1 point) Equipment Legal fees/licensing Insurance All of the above 50. Which of the following is an example of an unsecured bank loan? (1 point) Credit card debt Bank overdrafts Corporate bonds All of the above