California Assembly Passes Universal Health Care Bill

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

But the righty argument is that soc meds will break the bank,that is my point

Socialized meds (or health care rather) will either break the bank or will be at sharply reduced benefit levels compared to what's promised today. And/or result in drastically higher taxes.

It is not really up for debate--the GAO Comptroller General has spoken. Either he's wrong or you're wrong. He's not a rightie or a leftie. He's an accountant and he has the books and the projected population growth.

What proportion of GDP do you think the economy could bear to spend on health care, whether gov't or privately administered?

Politely but firmly, you in are way over your head if you think the contemporary currency market has anything to do with it.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,427]

>but what about some sort of a two tiered system?

An excellent compromise. It provides a basic level of care (i.e. prevents the poor from dying from lack of services) but keeps monetary incentives in place so that capitalism continues to drive efficiency and availability in the system (i.e. you can get that CAT scan _today_ if you want to pay enough for it.)

Such a compromise pretty much guarantees both sides will hate it, though.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

>but what about some sort of a two tiered system?

An excellent compromise. It provides a basic level of care (i.e. prevents the poor from dying from lack of services) but keeps monetary incentives in place so that capitalism continues to drive efficiency and availability in the system (i.e. you can get that CAT scan _today_ if you want to pay enough for it.)

Pretty much the way I was looking at it

Quote

Such a compromise pretty much guarantees both sides will hate it, though.

Sad but true.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Just a thought; it might improve the quality of the debates here if everyone didn't categorize people into one of two camps, those being A: Neo-con, chickenhawk, redneckpublicans and B; Bleeding heart, gay commie liberals. It could be that some people see shades of gray.

that is such a typical tactic for someone with your obviously far winged extremist politics

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

...prevents the poor from dying from lack of services...

Well that's a cute way to put it but it ignores the meat of the issue. Nearly everyone, even the rich, dies from lack of services. There's almost always some additional procedure, new trial drug, or intervention that could give someone near death a shot at additional time alive.

Some services are too expensive to be worthwhile, and for people to die instead of overconsume is better than the alternative on the whole, because overconsumption by the moribund threatens the living.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just a thought; it might improve the quality of the debates here if everyone didn't categorize people into one of two camps, those being A: Neo-con, chickenhawk, redneckpublicans and B; Bleeding heart, gay commie liberals. It could be that some people see shades of gray.

that is such a typical tactic for someone with your obviously far winged extremist politics

Damn tree hugging, vegetarian, terrorist loving, gay commie liberal!

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

***
...prevents the poor from dying from lack of services...

Well that's a cute way to put it but it ignores the meat of the issue. Nearly everyone, even the rich, dies from lack of services. There's almost always some additional procedure, new trial drug, or intervention that could give someone near death a shot at additional time alive.

Some services are too expensive to be worthwhile, and for people to die instead of overconsume is better than the alternative on the whole, because overconsumption by the moribund threatens the living.

But if some basic life saving services can be covered that the poor could not afford then why not? When I look at the stupid spending that goes on and all the abusive wasteful social services I really would not mind if my tax dollars helped prevent a minimum wage earner from dying or being unable to work. I have not seen an in depth study on it but surely some of the dollars spent could be re-earned by rehabilitating those on disability.

As has been pointed out most countries pick a middle ground between pure capitalism or socialism

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

...prevents the poor from dying from lack of services...

Well that's a cute way to put it but it ignores the meat of the issue. Nearly everyone, even the rich, dies from lack of services. There's almost always some additional procedure, new trial drug, or intervention that could give someone near death a shot at additional time alive.

Some services are too expensive to be worthwhile, and for people to die instead of overconsume is better than the alternative on the whole, because overconsumption by the moribund threatens the living.

How about a bullet in the back of the head if the sick are too weak or chickenshit to do it themselves? Bullets are cheap. Reloads are the generics that can keep the cost of pulling a trigger down if the concern is soley the cost! A great saving for the insurance compnies that will write the bullet-head policy. Besides, how dare the ill desire to live! The threat of rising health cost for the healthy is clearly the fault of the sick.
Let the sick die? Better than the alternative? Bet you will not be saying that if it were your mother, spouse, child or even yourself lying in a hospital.
Wishing to live when facing a terminal illness will make you see it in a far different light. Something that those such as Lawrocket cannot understand.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[nathaniel 0]

If you wish to overspend, by all means try to take out a loan to do so. Try a HELOC or a 2nd mortgage, they are popular these days.

It is not moral to screw over the living in vain pursuit of weeks / hours / minutes of additional suffering for the nearly dead. Oddly enough, it's not even an option to voluntarily opt-out, except in Oregon. Washington may pass a law like Oregon's soon.

Really, you should look up QALYs. If you don't like it, try criticizing it instead of flaming about morals.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I really would not mind if my tax dollars helped prevent a minimum wage earner from dying or being unable to work

If there only were some sort of charitable, non-profit institution you could give your money to, in lieu of taxes till the tax code suits your desired level of giving.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If you wish to overspend, by all means try to take out a loan to do so. Try a HELOC or a 2nd mortgage, they are popular these days.

It is not moral to screw over the living in vain pursuit of weeks / hours / minutes of additional suffering for the nearly dead. Oddly enough, it's not even an option to voluntarily opt-out, except in Oregon. Washington may pass a law like Oregon's soon.

Really, you should look up QALYs. If you don't like it, try criticizing it instead of flaming about morals.

Flaming about morals?????? Funny that you would accuse me of flaming the morally apt! I'm not the one suggesting that the healthy push the sick off into a corner to die! I guarantee that if you were in my position, you would think otherwise. But, you are not, as far as I know so, you cannot understand the full scope of the healthcare dilemma from the perspective of those who are in most need of healthcare. Keeping the sick alive for another year brings them closer to the day that they may be cured. Using your anology that the sick or injured only increases your cost then we are wasting your almighty dollar on severely injured soldiers, sick babies, heart patients, cancer patients, AIDS patients and everyone else who is badly injured or severly sick.
You have some nerve to accuse me of flaming the "morals"! Accuse me of screwing over the "living"? When I looked into the mirror this morning, I'm pretty sure that the person looking back was "living". For your records (please print and file it up your ass), I have exhausted thousands of my own money, I lost a home and sold my cars. I still pay out of pocket. I recently paid off over $2000.00 in medical bills that were for but a visit and blood monitoring as well as a few shots. You accuse me of driving up your cost? That is the funny! Clearly you have no idea. Go take a look at the corporate greed of the pharm companies and medical device companies. It is extremely small of you to accuse the sick.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I have exhausted thousands of my own money, I lost a home and sold my cars. I still pay out of pocket. I recently paid off over $2000.00 in medical bills that were for but a visit and blood monitoring as well as a few shots. You accuse me of driving up your cost?

If I could promise you an additional 5 minutes of life at the end of your life, at the cost of $1000 per, would you buy it? Would you ask me to pay for it for you? Would it be right for the federal government to force me to pay for it for you?

There is a limit somewhere, that is all.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Let the sick die? Better than the alternative? Bet you will not be saying that if it were your mother, spouse, child or even yourself lying in a hospital.

Nope. But put the government in charge of it, and you have no say.

A year ago, you wrote this - what I find to be the RULE, not the exception, to how the government has treated, presently treats, and will continue to treat people just like you who have expensive and chronic illnesses:

Quote

I am no longer covered by Medicare. I was to be dropped come Jan 1st so I did the best thing and got out now so the premium I paid could be used to pay down med bills.
Premiums, that is another thing that most who do not use Medicare fail to recognize. In order to be on medicare you have to pay the premium the same as anyother type of insurance. Also, medicare only pays a portion of your bill. One such bill sitting here on my desk from Pathology is for $200.00, medicare paid $65.56 and I am responsible for the remaining 134.44. Somehow, this does not appear to be "free" healthcare. I do not know if anyone reading this has ever had to be on medicare or if you even know a person who is on it but, if you ever need to use it you will quickly learn that it is not free. Ask any ederly person who relies on it or any cancer or AIDS or any other type of patient and they will be quick to tell you it is not. I really do not see the problem being the people who rely on it, I see the administration of the system to be the problem, I see the doctors who abuse the system for profit being the problem. I am positive that there are people who abuse it for whatever reason but, they must be the minority and the majority should not have to suffer for their misdeed. The year (1995) I learned that I was HIV+ I burned through more than $50,000.00 from my savings account and mutal fund as well as a 401k. The latter 2 I was penalized by the IRS for cashing out, I am still paying those penalties down ( I wasn't aware of these penalties untill 2001). Maybe I am in the minority when it comes to taking responsibilty for my health bills but I am also angry that everything I was told so long ago was a lie. The money I put in would had been better put to use paying into private insurance than to a system that paid oncology doctors $130.00 per patient to ask 3 questions that they should be asking anyways (see the link in one of my earlier post in this thread). For the most, I am disillusioned as to what this country is all about. So much false faced talk on how Americans stand up for Americans yet, look around and all you see is fighting amongst us all. I hope a change comes soon but, I am not holding my breath as I may pass out and there will be no one to revive me.

See, to control the costs of healthcare, the government must do some rather draconian things. is simply no way that you can give everyone a Porsche and afford it. The government will make political choices - political choices that will leave no room for private priorities. From a political and economic standpoint, is it worth our while to give effective treatment to those with HIV?

In the November, 2006 issue of "Medical Care" it was estimated that the average cost of HIV care for a person is $618,900.00. This was based on the average of $2,100 per month for treatment and a 24.2 year average lifespan. Ouch. That's a lot. We, the government,cannot afford that.

Now, it can be argued that end-of-life care for others will cost roughly the same. THis is true. However, from a governmental financing perspective, those who typically are receiving this type of end-of-life treatment are much older and have paid in taxes for a longer time. HIV affects a much younger population. And, since end-of-life care is expensive, such costs will likely be capped by the government.

So, the government will look to ways to cut costs where it can. In doing so it will make choices, and these choices will be made in terms of gettign more bang for the buck. If the government does not choose draconian and sickening priorities, the government will go bankrupt.

The ONLY way to make health care affordable is to not offer open-ended healthcare for all. Thus, it means RATIONING. Will the government direct $350 billion per year towards geriatrics and chronic diseases affecting 10 percent of the population, and and direct $200 billion to healthcare for everyone else? I do not see that happening. Do you?

See, THIS is what I understand about government. THIS is what I understand about business. I understand the way government IS.

When the government is in charge of healthcare, YOU will have NO CHOICE. You will get what the government gives you. That is all. And it WILL run out.

In that post you mentioned how you had been lied to. The money you put in to the safety net was not used for that. The government told you and everybody that they would take care of you. They lied.

I did not lie. Of all people to have trust that the government would actually take care of you, YOU should be the one to have the most doubt. They have failed you already. They have failed millions already.

And they are working toward failing another 300 million people. "Free healthcare for all." Tell me, what is your experience with the government's idea of "free healthcare?" Yes, past performance IS a good indicator of future performance.

Quote

Wishing to live when facing a terminal illness will make you see it in a far different light. Something that those such as Lawrocket cannot understand.

I understand it. I have OVERinsured myself because I know that the government will not bail me out. I have relied on myself for this because I know from your experience that I cannot rely on others. And the government is the king, queen and jack of all snake oil salesmen.

And you understand it, too. You may believe that I am heartless. Not so. I cannot simply sit back and let such injustices as what happened to you continue to grow - governments and people making promises they simply cannot keep, and WILL not keep.

If I let myself down, fine. But I won't be looking to put myself or my family in the hands of a government that says that it cares, but does not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

I have exhausted thousands of my own money, I lost a home and sold my cars. I still pay out of pocket. I recently paid off over $2000.00 in medical bills that were for but a visit and blood monitoring as well as a few shots. You accuse me of driving up your cost?

If I could promise you an additional 5 minutes of life at the end of your life, at the cost of $1000 per, would you buy it? Would you ask me to pay for it for you? Would it be right for the federal government to force me to pay for it for you?

There is a limit somewhere, that is all.

Then complain about the soldiers who would otherwise be dead if not for the medical treatment they recieve. Take it another step and bitch about babies that are swinging towards death if not for the treatment they recieve. Kindly consider the limit when your life will someday hang in the balance and then quietly bow out. But, then I am not talking about emmenient death, I am talking about keeping people alive may it be with medications and/or surgery so, your question does not apply. It's selfish of the very healthy to blame the sick and wish to run through the hospitals pulling plugs so that they may pay a dollar less for healthcare. Myself, I want to live and don't really care if you have to pay a dollar more for your coverage. I'm the active end-user and pay far more than you do. My healthcare with Missouri Healthnet ends at the end of this month. No longer eligible so, everything will come from my pocket (Mo. Healthnet paid very little as it was). Kicking me (and others) off of the government plan is not going to save you one single penny. You're living an illusional life if you believe that it will. The cost that I pay is the cost that corporate greed dictates. It is not my illness nor anyone elses that drives cost up. It is the desire of profit that comes from the sick that keeps the cost rising. Just imagine how much an aspirin would cost if you could take the vast majority of the sick people out of the equation. The sick, in truth, actually keep cost down to a point. There is profit in sick people and very little in healthy people.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Richards 0]

Quote

If there only were some sort of charitable, non-profit institution you could give your money to, in lieu of taxes till the tax code suits your desired level of giving.

[Richards 0]

Quote

If I could promise you an additional 5 minutes of life at the end of your life, at the cost of $1000 per, would you buy it? Would you ask me to pay for it for you? Would it be right for the federal government to force me to pay for it for you?

No, but I do not see why people would be put off by the idea of their taxes ensuring that a child gets to live a full life and contribute back to society rather than die at 8 years old.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm not the one suggesting that the healthy push the sick off into a corner to die!

No. The government does a fine job of that, as it has done with you. They took you off of Medicare, remember?

Quote

you cannot understand the full scope of the healthcare dilemma from the perspective of those who are in most need of healthcare.

Yes, I do. The government said they'd provide a safety net. Thus, you walked the tightrope without a harness because you actually BELIEVED the government. Then you fell and you found that the safety net was ripped and shredded and afforded you no protection.

Such is the dilemma. Had you not relied on the government, you would have better protected yourself. Your money would have been better spent buying insurance.

I say that the government should stop making stupid promises.

Quote

Using your anology that the sick or injured only increases your cost then we are wasting your almighty dollar on severely injured soldiers, sick babies, heart patients, cancer patients, AIDS patients and everyone else who is badly injured or severly sick.

No. The government will decide, and has decided, that these are wasteful, which is why you were dropped from Medicare.

Quote

Go take a look at the corporate greed of the pharm companies and medical device companies.

Oh, I do. Which is why I also argue that these companies should have to disclose negative study results. However, I also temper that with the knowledge that these companies are keeping you alive - at the cost of thousands of dollars. And to you, it is worth it.

Now, there is a HUGE difference in bargaining power between you and the drug companies. The choice of "pay the money or die" is the choice that you are faced with. How can this bargaining power be balanced?

Here's how. Get the government involved. The government says, "We won't pay you $800.00 for a month-long treatment schedule of your drugs." Then the drug company says, "Okay, then we'll stop selling it domestically." It stops marketing the drugs. People die. The government blames the drug manufacturer for causing people to die because they want too much money.

The drug company's profit margins go down. A year later, the drug company says, "Okay. We can do it for $600.00 per 30-day supply." The government accepts.

So, once you are taken out of the bargaining picture, then you have no choice. The government won't let you pay $800.00 per month for the treatment (unless you do so on the black market that is sure to form). Thus, you are not in the position of dying or paying the money. You'll just die. The government has saved money and will save more money in the long run.

Sure, a few thousand people died. But it was for the benefit of society and free medical care.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The cost that I pay is the cost that corporate greed dictates.

Actually, governmental greed. They are GOVERNMENTS that have kicked you off of coverage. The GOVERNMENT kicked you off because you are TOO EXPENSIVE! The Government, in its greed, has decided to KICK YOU OFF.

Medicare - Federal Govt. Kicked you off because they didn't want to pay for you.
HealthNet - state MedicAid. Kicked you off because they didn't want to pay for you.

Who is greedy?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Myself, I want to live and don't really care if you have to pay a dollar more for your coverage.

Then it would seem you are in favor of the free market after all. Every man for himself. Quite bold of you to say it outright.

ehh...I wouldn't go that far. There are benefits to others (externalities) for getting certain treatments, eg stopping the spread of communicable diseases with vaccines &c. There's not much controversy that these types of treatments should be subsidized.

Quote

It is not my illness nor anyone elses that drives cost up.

It's nobody's fault. It's everybody's fault. It's a macro problem, individual fault is not much at issue. It's what the overall health care system forces vs allows us to do in aggregate, and how in aggregate we behave under the constraints imposed. The current socialized health care benefit system we have is already projected to be too expensive, in aggregate, per the GAO. There's not enough GDP to expand it or extend benefits to all.

There are efficiencies to be made here and there but none of them really addresses the core demographic and treatment / cost trends.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

For that matter, why am I being forced to pay taxes so poor kids get government subsidized elementary school

Depends on if you want to live in a civilized society...... or a society like that portrayed in "Idiocracy"

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For that matter, why am I being forced to pay taxes so poor kids get government subsidized elementary school

Depends on if you want to live in a civilized society...... or a society like that portrayed in "Idiocracy"

I was being facetious. Of course I support public schools. My point was that we as a society do recognize that some social standard of well being is desireable. Why not extend that to making sure that the poor can get basic health coverage?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

No, but I do not see why people would be put off by the idea of their taxes ensuring that a child gets to live a full life and contribute back to society rather than die at 8 years old.

I don't think that anybody does, or would in their right mind. 70+ years for $5000 is a bargain. There should be dozens of financial facilities, both private and public to make such transactions feasible.

+70 years for $50,000,000, on the other hand, or +15 years in a persistent vegetative state for $300,000 are entirely different questions tho.

Part of the challenge is designing the programs so that those people (and their guardians) who could afford the $5000 themselves don't get needless public assistance. Fairness, graft, market abuse, moral hazards etc.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Richards 0]

It was working up here for some time (before it became a vote buying tool), so a happy medium can be reached. Yes I agree that those who are not going to make it should not be kept alive at all costs indefinitely. I would however want to give the marginals the best chance possible. Furthermore I would like to provide comfort and dignity in the final days for those who won't make it.

The abuse and moral hazard you refer to can be minimised if politicians have the cojones to stand their ground on issues concerning principle and optimal allocation.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 2,427]

>There's almost always some additional procedure, new trial drug, or
>intervention that could give someone near death a shot at additional time
>alive.

Correct. If you cannot afford expensive care, you get emergent care until you're stable, and you get sent home - even if there is an option that might save you.

If you can afford the expensive treatment, then YOU make the decision to get it if you believe it might be worth it.

>Some services are too expensive to be worthwhile, and for people to die
>instead of overconsume is better than the alternative on the whole,
>because overconsumption by the moribund threatens the living.

I think the people who are dying should make that decision, rather than you. If enough people get it - and it turns out to work - then it becomes more popular and cheaper.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

See, to control the costs of healthcare, the government must do some rather draconian things. is simply no way that you can give everyone a Porsche and afford it. The government will make political choices - political choices that will leave no room for private priorities. From a political and economic standpoint, is it worth our while to give effective treatment to those with HIV?

As I am sure you know, the overwhelming cost of any treatment is medications (Link to HIV meds cost http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm
The culprit is not the end user but, the pharm corporation. It's easy to blame those who have very little or no control over their care but, why is it that very little attention is given to profit driven pharm corporation?
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/03/08/gvsc0308.htm

http://www.aidsmeds.com/news/am20060627.html

http://www.thebody.com/content/art2597.html
The last link to The Body website really details the cost and makes it clear to who really controls health cost. Not so easy to blame the sick when one can see who is most to blame in terms of cost.

Quote

In the November, 2006 issue of "Medical Care" it was estimated that the average cost of HIV care for a person is $618,900.00. This was based on the average of $2,100 per month for treatment and a 24.2 year average lifespan. Ouch. That's a lot. We, the government,cannot afford that.

Now, it can be argued that end-of-life care for others will cost roughly the same. THis is true. However, from a governmental financing perspective, those who typically are receiving this type of end-of-life treatment are much older and have paid in taxes for a longer time. HIV affects a much younger population. And, since end-of-life care is expensive, such costs will likely be capped by the government.

Actually HIV is greater in the 35-44 age range. The greater number of deaths are in the same range. The death toll is lesser after age 44 due to the greater number of deaths before. A high number of those infected will die quietly and not much is ever mentioned. So, the cost to the government is extremely small in comparrison to other illnesses. But, also note that Medicaid and Medicare as well as insurance companies are able to work out cost saving deals with the pharm companies that those who are not insured cannot.
http://www.avert.org/usastata.htm
The number of deaths are quickly gaining on the number of cases.
http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm
Better education on healthcare would change not only the cost of HIV but all preventable illnesses. Sadly, there are those who balk from their moral pulpit when it comes to talking about such radical ideas.

Quote

The ONLY way to make health care affordable is to not offer open-ended healthcare for all. Thus, it means RATIONING. Will the government direct $350 billion per year towards geriatrics and chronic diseases affecting 10 percent of the population, and and direct $200 billion to healthcare for everyone else? I do not see that happening. Do you?

I see it, in a sense, happening now as the vast majority of users of the healthcare system is the ederly with chronic illnesses. I am the minority.

Quote

When the government is in charge of healthcare, YOU will have NO CHOICE. You will get what the government gives you. That is all. And it WILL run out.

So far, I have not yet heard anyone promoting a total control by the government on healthcare but have read of proposals that give a range of choices that cast a wide net to provide for near everyone (it would be unrealistic to assume that every person would get coverage, sadly some will fall thruogh a crack).

Quote

In that post you mentioned how you had been lied to. The money you put in to the safety net was not used for that. The government told you and everybody that they would take care of you. They lied.

They all flipped and flopped. It all depends on who has the power. Carter tried to bring about change. Reagan closed his eyes and pulled any plug he could. Georgie #1 contnued to pull. Clinton plugged them back in only to have Georgie #2 yank them back out. What was plugged in wasn't perfect but little was done to fix the holes that allowed it to bleed. Merely pulling the plug doesn't fix anything. Somewhere along the line savings that were hoped to happen is quickly eaten up elsewhere. Taking away any shimmer of hope does greater damage economically than treating the illness and cause.

Quote

I did not lie. Of all people to have trust that the government would actually take care of you, YOU should be the one to have the most doubt. They have failed you already. They have failed millions already.

And, I believe that I agreed with you on a number of points. I do have little doubt that much will be done to ensure the health of the people in this country giving the attitudes of those in power. Of all of the health plans the crop of presidential hopefuls have the dems seems to have the best for a starting point. Maybe Republican Ron Paul has the best. Someone has to have something that can grow. It may not be perfect but, it could be a start and given time to work the kinks out, any one of the plans may work. Sadly the kinks never seem to get straightened out and only bickering occurs.

Quote

And they are working toward failing another 300 million people. "Free healthcare for all." Tell me, what is your experience with the government's idea of "free healthcare?" Yes, past performance IS a good indicator of future performance.

I have never had "free healthcare". My last spend down was $541.00 out of pocket. That was for one month only. On top of that I payed over $2000.00 out of pocket for treatment. A couple of months ago I had a macroaneurysm in my right eye that left me blind in that eye for a couple of weeks (I have never heard of this and really thought that I went blind in one eye). I had to go to the doctor without any type of coverage as I could not afford the spend down. Who do you suppose is going to pay for this. I am. No help from the government. How much do you suppose the 3 visits are going to cost me? A lot, more than what I can afford. I have to make choices that, either way, is going to be detrimental to my health. It would be nice to have something to make life a bit easier. If it is what somewhat worked in the past then, I am for it and for fixing what was wrong with it, If not that, then whatever they come up with that shows promise and recognizing what made the last program bleed and avoiding those cracks.

Quote

I understand it. I have OVERinsured myself because I know that the government will not bail me out. I have relied on myself for this because I know from your experience that I cannot rely on others. And the government is the king, queen and jack of all snake oil salesmen.

And you understand it, too. You may believe that I am heartless. Not so. I cannot simply sit back and let such injustices as what happened to you continue to grow - governments and people making promises they simply cannot keep, and WILL not keep.

If I let myself down, fine. But I won't be looking to put myself or my family in the hands of a government that says that it cares, but does not.

What I believe that you cannot see is my perspective. When everything else is expended you want whatever there is. Insurance policies are not perfect. Insurers have been known to deny coverage and/or drop clients when the cost of care becomes to great.
I do not believe that you are heartless but believe that you cannot see the whole picture as someone who is caught up in the exorbinant cost of maintaining an illness can. It much more than just dollars to me. it's all about staying alive.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young