"but as things stand right now we're closer than we have ever been to being sucked into a disastrous healthcare black hole."

Aren't you overreacting just a little Dave? You forget just how powerful big pharma and insurance companies are. I doubt that the vast majority Congresss, who owe their souls to capitalist lobbies would pass a government run single payer system? Not too mention the fact that despite all of our gripes about the current state of the system, socialism is just not a very big part of the American psyche.

Rather than pushing us all into that black hole Dave, I think the new congress will continue to tinker with Medicare, Medicaid and promise more aid for state programs.

What people fail to realize is that there is no utopian healthcare outside the system the US and that there are some aspects of our system that are superior to other nations.

For example the Canadian system, which has private providers but the government as the lone payer has it's own problems. Over the past 20 years or so the Federal government in canada has been cutting back on the funding that they have been providing to the provinces which have their own healthcare systems. This has led to a decrease in resources which in turn has led to long waiting lists for procedures, shortages of hospital beds and other adverse side affects.

The British system which is owned and run by the government is funded by taxes far higher than our own and consists of outdated infrastructure. British hospitals are much older and more rudimentary than American ones. Many of the newest and most sophisticated treatments are not available in the British system.

it's fair to say that for those who can pay for it, the American healthcare system is by far the best in the world in terms of technology, being on the cutting edge of medicine, having the most resources and in expediency.

Dave

I sense that the doom and gloom is more like wishful thinking on your part.

Dave

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the insurance issue...

I am living the challanges of that nightmare. I have a pre-existing condition which is costing me a fortune. The most recent example.... 3 weeks ago, my situation was life threatning and I HAD to go the the hospital or lights out... One day, just one diagnostic procedure and a transfusion...6K out of pocket. I have to get an important procedure in a couple of weeks 15K out of pocket. I have kids who will be in college soon.....

I wont define my person status on this forum but the way the system is set up is cruel.

Aren't you overreacting just a little Dave? You forget just how powerful big pharma and insurance companies are. I doubt that the vast majority Congresss, who owe their souls to capitalist lobbies would pass a government run single payer system? Not too mention the fact that despite all of our gripes about the current state of the system, socialism is just not a very big part of the American psyche.

Ordinarily I would agree with you that the risk is small and one of the alternative systems I suggest would have a better chance of passing, but with this 'hundred hours' bullshit Pelosi is promoting I see a lot of legislation getting passed with very little thought behind it. It's like the brakes are off and the socialists think they can ram through whatever they want with no accountability.

Rather than pushing us all into that black hole Dave, I think the new congress will continue to tinker with Medicare, Medicaid and promise more aid for state programs.

That's probable, but it sucks almost as much as what I suggest. Tinkering with fundamentally broken systems is not going to fix them.

As for the rest of your comments about problems with systems in Canada and Europe, they're pretty well documented. There's a reason why Canadians come to the US for prompt, competent care if they have the money, and an awful lot of Brits end up in Hungary or India getting care when and how they want it at a reasonable price.

Dave

I sense that the doom and gloom is more like wishful thinking on your part.

Zedd, I'm entirely in favor of healthcare reform. I'm just terrified by the form it will take with the demosocialists in power.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the insurance issue...

Well, someone doesn't.

I am living the challanges of that nightmare. I have a pre-existing condition which is costing me a fortune. The most recent example.... 3 weeks ago, my situation was life threatning and I HAD to go the the hospital or lights out... One day, just one diagnostic procedure and a transfusion...6K out of pocket. I have to get an important procedure in a couple of weeks 15K out of pocket. I have kids who will be in college soon.....

I wont define my person status on this forum but the way the system is set up is cruel.

It's not cruel, it's impersonal, though it may seem cruel from your perspective.

Your example is important, because it's the one aspect of the problem I didn't address in the article.

There are people who are being denied care because they have pre-existing conditions. They're fewer in number than those who are uninsured by choice, but they are more needy and more deserving of some sort of assistance.

If there's going to be reform, it ought to start with finding a way to extend medicare benefits to those who cannot get insurance, even if they have some means. Getting sick should not mean bankrupting yourself when you can't get insurance through no fault of your own.

Dave

Nice report, Dave.

Some observations from direct experience with today's Medicare system:

At present, Medicare is for the elderly (65+) and those on Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). It's not means tested, and it's not for the poor. That program is Medicaid.

Medicare, though administered by the government, which also pays the premiums, uses commercial insurance companies as the carriers, so the commercial insurance industry gets a substantial amount of business from the plan.

I don't think amplifying it to cover everyone in the country actually will result in widespread bankruptcies in the health insurance business; they'll just start receiving the premiums from Uncle. They do have a helluva strong lobby.

Also, as currently structured, Medicare only pays 80%, so there's a considerable market in supplemental insurance.

Because of the government's ineptitude and sloppy business practices, most physicians accepting Medicare patients are doing very well. It's ironic, because when Medicare was first proposed, the physicians (and of course, the AMA) were solidly against it.

On another thread I recently gave an example, which has to do with my wife's wheelchair of how the government is currently operating Medicare:

Medicare paid $4,500 for her wheelchair and waited eight weeks for delivery. Meanwhile, I went on the manufacturer's web site, "built" the identical (same brand) chair for $2100, and the site promised delivery within ten days.

I don't see that changing.

There are people who are being denied care because they have pre-existing conditions.

Only those who leave a group plan and don't go to another group plan. It's against the law for a carrier to use that excuse if you go from one group plan directly to another; for example, when you change employers.

Dave Nalle wrote: "You'd probably like to see everyone insured so that if they get sick or injured they get decent treatment and don't become a burden on society. But what if the cost of this were the destruction of small business, massive unemployment, disaster for working families, gigantic tax increases for everyone, and an overall decline in the quality of healthcare? That's what the Democrats are likely to bring us this Spring."

Just to put your mind at rest, Dave, and coming from a country that has had universal free health insurance for many, many years - none of those things has happened (apart from the usual balls-ups you expect of the hospital system).

The good thing about it is, you can top it up with private insurance so that you can stay in the private hospital system, or if in a public hospital, get the doctors of your choice and a room to yourself.

Rather than leading to unemployment, it has created plenty of jobs. The tax increases? I am in the very top tax bracket. I choose to have private insurance as well as Medicare (which all citizens have), and my Medicare levy in my tax is $1000 year - hardly noticeable, really in the great scheme of things).

That levy goes down on a sliding scale depending on what your earn. People in the lower tax brackets pay a nominal levy or no fee at all.

Universal health insurance is a huge load off your mind. An example: I recently had three lots of kidney surgery. My out of pocket expenses for the whole shebang, including private hospital stays, and a world-renowned professor in the field, was about $250.

The reason: what Medicare doesn't pick up, your top-up health insurance does.

It's nice to know too that I can just take my kids to the doctor if they're sick and it doesn't cost me a cent, even for stuff like X-rays and blood tests. I just take my Medicare card and they run it through like a credit card.

It's all good, and would be revelation to most Americans who have laboured under this nonsense for far too long.

People might also then come to realise that the cost of most medical procedures (and many doctors' fees) and life-saving drugs are way overpriced.

It is really nice not to have live in fear of getting sick, and it's also nice to know that the paltry levy you pay looks after your countrymen and women who aren't quite as fortunate as you.

There are also those people who've never been insured and get sick and decide they need insurance after they're already sick.

Dave

STM, your system sounds great, but somehow the math isn't working out the same way here in the US.

You pay $1000 in taxes for your national health care? Based on the plans mentioned in this article the average American will pay $3000 for their coverage.

That's the heart of the problem. There's not much point in going to a single payer system if it's not going to be cheaper than private insurance. For $3000 a year you can get coverage equivalent to Medicare or actually a bit better right now without going through the government at all.

Dave

As for Arch's ill-informed comments about the US having the world's best and most advanced health system, and yes it IS good in some ways, but as for the rest: sorry, but it's bollocks, mate.

You don't know what you're talking about. My wife works in one of the world's top heart-lung transplant units. It's in a public hospital, and it doesn't cost a cent to go there if you're sick. There is no waiting list here for life-saving surgery, or surgery that will improve quality of life, and most other procedures have a short list. Unless, as I said, you choose private cover as well. Then there's no wait at all.

You can have such a system in the US if you choose, and it's not socialism. It's about community, and that's a different thing altogether.

For $3000 a year you can get coverage equivalent to Medicare or actually a bit better right now without going through the government at all.

For the record. My private insurance (just for me, because my wife has Medicare, but it also pays her 20% mentioned above) costs $9600 a year ($800 a month), and that's with a LARGE employer group (my wife's). Most of the people I know with comparable insurance are paying at least $700+/mo.

It's about comparable to my wife's Medicare, except it pays 100% on hospital stays, has office visit copays of $35-50, (she doesn't) and pays for meds, with a copay of up to $55 for a month's supply. Medicare doesn't do nearly as well with meds, and until recently didn't pay them at all.

"You pay $1000 in taxes for your national health care? Based on the plans mentioned in this article the average American will pay $3000 for their coverage."

It's because I chose to take out private cover as well, which gives you a tax rebate. Had I not done so, I would be paying a surcharge on top of my levy that, yes, would have taken me up to about that amount. Close to it, anyway.

I like the idea of a combination of the two. I pay $25 a week private family hospital and medical cover (covers all of us) on top of my yearly Medicare levy and it gives us the very best in a combination of private/public health care.

I suspect that is the kind of system that will be available in the US, but the fear mongers are making it sound otherwise.

My taxes are probably a bit higher than yours anyhow generally, so a fair bit of the general tax income federally goes back to the states for public health care.

Mate, honestly, it's worth thinking about and perhaps doing: no-one's a loser with this stuff ... least of all, and most importantly, the patient

Sorry Clav, I have just had a look at my pay packet ... my private cover went up a bit recently to a tad over $30 a week. I don't even notice it really as it seems to be indexed, comes stright out of my pay pre-tax, and I only pay attention to what's left after every bastard including the government have dipped their fingers in the pie.

Clav, your insurance seems extremely expensive, but I'll need to go over our packet again. I know esurance.com is giving lower quotes for Medicare comparable packages. We're paying slightly less than you are last time I checked to insure 4 of us. Perhaps the fact that we're slightly younger makes some difference.

If you have the time go on esurance.com and see if you can match your plan. I'd be curious to see how the quotes compare.

Oh, and STM. If you're paying $1000 to the government plus $30 a week for your supplemental, then you're paying a total of over $2500 a year for insurance. Still better than what they're proposing in the bills I discuss in the article, but not as much better.

Dave

Dave wrote: "Oh, and STM. If you're paying $1000 to the government plus $30 a week for your supplemental, then you're paying a total of over $2500 a year for insurance. Still better than what they're proposing in the bills I discuss in the article, but not as much better,"

All true Dave, and I don't have a problem with it - but as I keep pointing out, it's nice to know that my money contributes to a system that ensures anyone who gets sick also gets first-class help, and without being sent to the wall.

Like I say, it's not socialism, it's about community - and a fair go for everyone, which is one of the things I love about Australia.

And it very similar to the system you yourself are proposing ...

As an aside, the Health Insurance funds here have not gone out of business. The opposite: they have expanded their products into such areas as holistic and alternative health care (chiropracters, gym memberships, etc).

Americans are the people with the can-do attitude: You CAN do it, somehow, and without all the dramas you are foreseeing.

This a pretty good breakdown of our Medicare system and explains how it all works, and addesses some of the political issues as well.

I realise we are different countries, but we are also very similar countries (apart from size) and we have been through the mill with this after it was introduced in the early '70s and have just about got it to the point where it is right.

There is no reason why the US shouldn't have a system like this one, or similar, and would benefit from not having to go through all the mistakes we have made.

Nothing is ever perfect, BTW, but I reckon this system is as good as it gets.

This has become like your "third-rail" of tax breaks on mortgage payments - any government here that now tries to dismantle this popular scheme would be committing political suicide.

No Dave, it is cruel. Again you don't live it. "Impersonal" doesn't qualify as a definition for how this system affects real Americans.

My father contracted Diabetes and a heart problem and fell into the pre-existing condition slot. He was in his late 50's. For the next 10 years my parents struggled, spending all of their retirement on medical costs, where an aspirin in the hospital could cost you $7. He had 3 heart attacks, a couple strokes and continued to suffer from the complications of diabetes. He died ten years later leaving my mom penniless with a stack of bills. These were two people who never received public assistance; hard working patriotic Americans. My Dad had a bronze eagle in his office, an American flag with a plaque with the words "these colors don't bleed" below it. He died without a dime. My mom is in her 70s and is still having to work..... she is tired.

Dave this is not a tit-for-tat tennis match where whomever has the best come back wins. You are talking about peoples lives. Real Americans, by the millions who are affected tremendously by this issue. Since it hasn't touched you severely enough, you see it as mere impersonal. I don't think that many people care about how personal a system we have, we need an affective one that serves the people of this "greatest country in the whole world".

Also your partisan obsession does seem to direct you towards a wish for a catastrophic outcome. Since the Republican Revolution when the paranoia that you will deny your infected with, was supplanted in the minds of many like yourself, there has not be a Democratic calamity. The Dems have not overhauled anything and let the country down a disastrous path.

However as you know, the Republicans have been the spenders, giving us an unimaginable deficit while not providing any tangible benefits to the public (not improving the quality of life for most Americans). What we have noticed however are record high salaries and parachute packages for CEOs.

Yes Dave it seems that you would relish a major fiasco even though you profess to love this nation.

The examples that I gave constitute what I am contending with, just within one month, they are certainly not the entire story. I wont go into that........

All true Dave, and I don't have a problem with it - but as I keep pointing out, it's nice to know that my money contributes to a system that ensures anyone who gets sick also gets first-class help, and without being sent to the wall.

All true, but my concern is that you're getting it at such a low price. Why is it that our lawmakers can't seem to figure out a way to do it at a similarly low price? They're coming in at triple what you pay and that's without even counting the supplemental insurance which this system will need just like yours does.

And it's that supplemental insurance which is the key to keeping the economic problems at bay and getting it passed over the objections of the insurance companies, and given their behavior I can see them raising prices on supplemental insurance to cover their losses and the whole thing ballooning out of control.

Like I say, it's not socialism, it's about community - and a fair go for everyone, which is one of the things I love about Australia.

Whatever you call it, it's still socialism. Some socialism isn't so bad when it genuinely does originate in the community. We ought to be developing more healthcare coops. That's grassroots socialism where people provide for their own healthcare and bypass the government alltogether. I'm all for that.

Americans are the people with the can-do attitude: You CAN do it, somehow, and without all the dramas you are foreseeing.

I think we can do something about the problem too, but drama is inevitable.

Dave

Dave wrote: "All true, but my concern is that you're getting it at such a low price."

Federal tax money from general tax revenue (GST mostly) is returned to the states for health care funding.

It can't be run purely on the levies and surchages we pay, and as I explained I get a tax break even on my original levy.

Read the link I have included in one of the above posts and you'll see how it works as a combination of private/public care.

No Dave, it is cruel. Again you don't live it. "Impersonal" doesn't qualify as a definition for how this system affects real Americans.

I don't live it, but color me skeptical. For it to be cruel there would have to be intent to do you harm. Are you saying that the insurance industry designed their system specifically to hurt people rather than just to make money? I'll agree it's heartless, but that's a far cry from deliberate cruelty.

Dave this is not a tit-for-tat tennis match where whomever has the best come back wins. You are talking about peoples lives. Real Americans, by the millions who are affected tremendously by this issue.

I agree, and I've seen the problem first hand. There are clearly flaws in our current system that need to be addressed. I acknowledge that in the article. The question is whether this approach is the answer.

Since it hasn't touched you severely enough, you see it as mere impersonal. I don't think that many people care about how personal a system we have, we need an affective one that serves the people of this "greatest country in the whole world".

The problem is that the system isn't designed to 'serve the people', it's designed to make money and provide a paid service. It's not inherently altruistic. Like I said, it's impersonal and uncaring.

Also your partisan obsession does seem to direct you towards a wish for a catastrophic outcome.

No, it's a FEAR of a catastrophic outcome. Big difference. And there's nothing partisan about it. The numbers just don't add up.

Since the Republican Revolution when the paranoia that you will deny your infected with, was supplanted in the minds of many like yourself, there has not be a Democratic calamity. The Dems have not overhauled anything and let the country down a disastrous path.

They haven't been in power until now, and it only has to happen once for it to be catastrophic.

However as you know, the Republicans have been the spenders, giving us an unimaginable deficit while not providing any tangible benefits to the public (not improving the quality of life for most Americans). What we have noticed however are record high salaries and parachute packages for CEOs.

This is a false analogy. Nothing the Republicans have done is a justification for disastrous mismanagement from the other side. This is like saying that because the Republicans shot you in the arm it's okay for the democrats to shoot you in the leg.

Yes Dave it seems that you would relish a major fiasco even though you profess to love this nation.

Again, I'm not cheering for disaster, I'm concerned about it. The difference should be obvious.

Dave

Dave, love the hat, and generally enjoy your writings - except when you start nattering on the state of health care & economics for the bulk of us working stiffs, in which case you clearly exist in some kind of odd zone having no connection to reality. Perhaps it's a touch of the BushCo Unreality Zone contaminating you from Crawford. In any case, you clearlyhave no conbception of how life is lived by The Rest Of Us, most of whom can not AFFORD (as opposed to 'choose not to buy') medical coverage - not when the alternative is the rent, car, & food. We aren't talking making a choice between health insurance & giving up Outback Steak House once a week here, Dave, we're talking stiff health care payments PLUS considerable & outrageous out-of-pocket payments up front, OR do we pay the mortgage & stay off the streets or out of the shelters sort of choices. You keep denying this is the situation, that YOU pay only a few dollars for some kind of utopian coverage, & if you can do it, so can everybody else. As I've said before, you live in some kind of fairyland. I can guarantee you, your options (and truly, I'm thrilled for you, I really am, that you're that fortunate) are NOT available to most of The Rest Of Us, if they exist at all. When someone is bringing home a paycheck of $300 a week, there is NO ROOM for extras such as health insurance - NOT in most areas in the US where the basic cost of living is so high.

You've provided figures from your own budget & living expense costs for your area before, Dave, and frankly, you live in some sort of Bermuda Triangle. You sure as hell don't live under conditions common to anyone else I know or have ever met, online or off.

Stick to writing about politics or bumper stickers, Dave; when it comes to money, you've got all the credibility of W. recalling his aircraft piloting days.

Excuse all the typos; my carpal tunnel is bad today.

You've got it backwards, Nancy.

Very likely.

Nancy, I didn't provide figures in this article from my own area or from anyone's area. I just provided a link to get a current insurance quote.

And consider this. If this plan is bad for people living in my area where living expenses are relatively low, how much worse will it be for people living where their income doesn't go as far?

Here's the main point - let's see you argue with it. Isn't 12% or more too much of your income to pay for insurance?

Based on Stan's examples from Australia the answer has to be yes.

My ultimate conclusion is that the Conyers proposal is just a tax increase disguised as a healthcare plan.

Dave

I wasn't disagreeing with that; I was taking issue with you perpetual assertion that everyone could have decent health care if they just made the "right" choices. Other than this one subject area you know I like your articles & writing well enough, even if I don't agree with them. I should have been more specific in my critique.

See? This is why I don't become a critic myself. I know my limits.

Actually I do know what I'm talking about STM although you obviously don.t

The United States does in fact have the most advanced medical technology, the most cutting edge and innovative medical R & D, the largest pool of resources and generally the best quality of care for those who can afford it.

Ah ... "...for those who can afford it," i.e. only the rich, or those who are incredibly fortunate to have excellent coverage thru work. It used to be that being a vet ensured excellent care, but apparently Bush has put a stop to that.

Nancy

you have it exactly backwards. I lived in England for a while and got to experience National Health Care first hand. When I compliained to some of the locals that I knew they gave a knowing nod and said, "the rich never use the NHC because they don't have to".

Think about it.

BTW there used to be an English band named 'National Health Care'.


They were anti.

Reality check:

National health care is not part of the "first 100 hours" group of Dem legislation, most of which is easy stuff that will get some Republican support: ethics, minimum wage, stem cells, 9/11 Commission recommendations, etc. So no need for [yet another] cry of alarm about impending socialism.

I think the health care debate will take quite a few months to come to the floor of Congress in a serious way, i.e. a bill that will be put to a vote. It may very well be a central issue in next year's presidential race, since Edwards, Obama, Romney and Clinton all have taken positions.

Any legislation that does get serious consideration is more likely to incorporate parts of the Schwarzenegger plan just introduced in California [surprised you didn't mention this, Dave] and the Massachusetts plan, rather than the Conyers plan as is. Both of those plans involved Republican governors and Democratic legislatures.

And neither are likely to cause the cataclysms that Dave foresees.

Dave

If you don't place my name at the top, I have a hard time knowing that you are responding to me...

You said: Classical liberalism refers to those who still believe in the values of liberalism as originally defined in the 18th and early 19th century

You mean Economic Liberalism. I get the picture. Were I a citizen of the United States, White and male, in the 18th century, I would have espoused those principles. Most people in the developing world currently have that outlook.

However now that we exist in a much more stratified society, more interdependent; we are smarter, technology aware and scientifically astute (we understand more about the environment, etc), that form of liberalism is impractical.

That form of governance leaves too many gaps open. We now understand that in commerce and the pursuit of industrial development people will knowingly implement hazardous practices like dangerous emissions into the environment, selling health hazards to the public (cigarettes, items that are a safety concern, etc.) and practices that affect our environment in ways that we didn't know in the past, like deforestation. We now know just how cruel and selfish humanity can be. We understand that institutions like slavery or sweat shops are bad but if people are not monitored, they will tend to take advantage of their fellow citizens. Because we are smarter, we have also discovered the benefit of an educated populous. Our success has come from a larger educated class.

In the 18th century when the population was sparse and most people were illiterate and lived off of the land, a more involved government was not essential and would have been unnecessarily intrusive. Also the elite hardly ever affected the day to day lives of the general citizens (slaves weren't citizens). After we became wiser and became aware of what humanity is capable of if unmonitored, we had to evolve. The role of government HAD to change. The scope of governance HAD to expand. A single guy burning trash behind his log cabin was not a cause for any alarm, however thousands of chimneys spitting out all manner of carcinogens all over the nation DOES require much concern. In order to compete and excel we have to educate our children. In order to protect the citizen from inhumane employment environments, we have to employ labor laws..... Hence the necessity of Social Liberalism (New Liberalism) which sees liberty as something to be achievable only under favorable, unoppressive social circumstances.

While espousing Classical Liberalism indicates a romantic sensibility, it also demonstrates an extreme naivety or an oblivious reaction to everything that has taken place in the past 200 years of our planets history. It ignores all of the significant social reforms that have come about since the end of the 19th century (those that are a bit more significant than The Contract With America). It ignores the scientific and technological advances which have allowed us to know our universe much better. It is a cocoonist's solution for dealing with a complex reality.

We protect our population from dangerous and predatory business practices, our health care system is predatory and needs an overhaul. We have invested billions into education so that we have the minds to sustain our position of power and greatness. Lets see what our great minds can come up with by attacking this very dysfunctional system

Dave

Sorry the above response goes to another thread. I hope you didn't read it all. He he he he

Dave

The last paragraph does apply.

It used to be that being a vet ensured excellent care, but apparently Bush has put a stop to that.

Nancy the VA healthcare system was nothing exceptional before Bush came along. In fact it sucked for quite some time before he even got near Washington.

Is there anything you don't blame Bush for Nancy?

And what's the Dems bragging about how great they are because they want to raise the minimum wage? They're just going to raise taxes anyway so how are they helping to put more money in anyone's pocket?

Arch, take a look at the funding numbers under Bush for all things VA.

This isn't to blame him for anything before he took office, but it is spot on for what he has done since taking office.

Ask any vet.

D'oh I wasn't saying that Bush hasn't done poorly for the Vets. I was just poiting out that the system sucked before Bush but yet Nancy claims the whole reason the system sucks is because of Bush.

She blames Bush for everythign wether he deserves it or not.

I understand, and could care less about what goes on between you and Nancy. My point is that, shitty as it was before 2000, it has gotten much worse since then.

The facts bear me out.

I think the health care debate will take quite a few months to come to the floor of Congress in a serious way, i.e. a bill that will be put to a vote. It may very well be a central issue in next year's presidential race, since Edwards, Obama, Romney and Clinton all have taken positions.

Let's hope it gets carried over to the national election. It could make a big difference in 2008.

Any legislation that does get serious consideration is more likely to incorporate parts of the Schwarzenegger plan just introduced in California [surprised you didn't mention this, Dave] and the Massachusetts plan, rather than the Conyers plan as is. Both of those plans involved Republican governors and Democratic legislatures.

I haven't had a chance to read up on the Schwarzenegger plan yet, but by all accounts the Massachusetts plan (which I reference in the article) has been a disaster, despite the fact that it's a simple, market-based solution. Apparently it screws the working poor pretty hard and it's proving to be more expensive than anyone anticipated.

Dave

D'oh sez,

Arch, take a look at the funding numbers under Bush for all things VA.

Glad you mentioned that, D'oh.

Regarding the 2007 DVA budget, from the Washington Post:

The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the biggest increases in discretionary spending for any agency: a boost of $2.6 billion to $35.7 billion. Most of the spending goes to health care -- the department expects to treat 5.3 million veterans next year.

Once again the VA budget calls for increasing prescription drug co-payments for non-disabled, higher-income veterans from $8 to $15. It would require them to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. Congress has rejected this in the past.

Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment.


And from the VA website (datelined 2006:

FY '06 Budget Highlights for the Veterans Health Administration

The Veterans Health Administration has received record budget increases over the last four years. With this budget proposal, the President, working in partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by more than 47 percent since FY '01.

D'oh,

Re my #41:

I don't know why the press keeps saying that the VA is suffering cuts. I'm a VA patient, so I keep close tabs on their situation. I've been getting care from them for about 6 years now, and my personal experience at the Miami VAMC is that it keeps getting better and better.

From what I've been able to dig up, spending on the VA has been quite good under Bush. He's increased the total budget something like 40% since he took office, and there has been a lot of positive reorganization and some increase in efficiency.

Dave

Maurice said: "You have it exactly backwards. I lived in England for a while and got to experience National Health Care first hand. When I compliained to some of the locals that I knew they gave a knowing nod and said, "the rich never use the NHC because they don't have to".

The Brits went about it the wrong way, though - rather than keep a private/public system intact, with the government paying part of the fees, they made it like Russia: full care, no fees, all free.

It's a good system if you need to be hospitalised for instance with a life-threatening illness, or you are admitted for emergency treatment, as their doctors and surgeons are among the best in the world - but beyond that it gets really fuzzy, with a huge bureaucracy really straining at the edges.

I have provided a link above to the Aussie system, which has taken from the mid-70s to now to get to where it is: a great combination of universal public and private care funded in part by taxpayers on a sliding scale according to income and by general tax funds to the states.

It works. It's not perfect, but it's so popular, any party trying to dismantle it is almost guarenteed to spend the next 20 years in the political wilderness.

We know a good thing when we see it.

And Arch: if you get your head any further up your own bum, you'll disappear:)

Stan,

You wrote:

...private care funded in part by taxpayers on a sliding scale according to income...

Is net worth taken into account? Or is it just income?

No Clav, just income. I have included a link above in one of my posts to Medicare that explains how it all works. It is such a great scheme, it has become li

Got to admit the Aussie system sounds good. Pity we didn't implement it in the 70s when it would have been easier to sell. It's the kind of thing which Nixon might have been able to make work if he had been able to finish out his second term without screwing the pooch. I'm not sure we have anyone today with the strength of leadership to build the bipartisan support such a measure would need.

Dave

One problem that we seem to have in America that often leads to high healthcare costs is that preventative healthcare/living a health lifestyle is not stressed and practiced enough.

Many of the poor choices we make in our own lives lead to health issues for us suck as smoking, overeating and underexercising, and other lifestyle choices.

If we as a nation started making healthier choices in our daily living, many would see that we would become healthier and incur less healthcare expenses.

The system is not just impersonal, it is cruel, and some of it's controllers do it intentionally. They create cruel requirements but call them 'incentives'. Nevertheless, the intention to punish people that they see as sinners is clear. For example, the mad scheme of 'enrollment periods' in the Medicare Plan D prescriptions program. You, the powerless little worm of a human, must signup once a year in a plan and stick with it. You will be punished if you try to depart from The Plan. But the providers, the Pharmas, are subjected to no such restrictions. They can change their pharmacy anytime they want, thus leaving their customers high and dry with no drugs while awaiting the next "Open Enrollment" period. That's cruel.

Bliffle,

The system is not just impersonal, it is cruel, and some of it's controllers do it intentionally. They create cruel requirements but call them 'incentives'.

Wow. Talk about paranoia.

They are businesses, and, rightly or wrongly, medicine has been a business up until now in this country.

What businessman, with his eye on the bottom line and his shareholders' ROI, deliberately "punishes" his customers for being "sinners?"

We've seen some strange ideas from you before, but this one's really over the top.

Previous comment should also have included this quote from Bliffle as well:

Nevertheless, the intention to punish people that they see as sinners is clear.

Sorry--damn mouse!

It's cruel because we KNOW currently that people are suffering; putting off getting treatment, in pain, declining, dying..... We KNOW that people are going into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. We KNOW right now that people are loosing their retirement. Spending it on medical expenses.

We know that millions of fellow Americans are struggling but we feel content about debating and pontificating our party views casually and yet claim to be PATRIOTIC.

I wonder why conservatives are sentimental about inanimate objects: flags, guns, bibles, money. But don't really care about Americans. The statue of the boys of iwo jima is more important than the soldiers who are dying today in Iraq. They didn't even want them honored by having their names acknowledged publicly. What is that??

Exciting information, but have to disagree with everything that you said, Dave. As a practicing physician, the system that exists now is an unmitigated disaster. People are dying, ERs are overcrowded, access is nearly impossible for some, and the BIGGEST reason is the profits that have nothing to do with providing healthcare. Our largest insurer in Wester PA, a nonprofit, is sitting on $3.1 BILLION in reserves, and made $800 MILLION in "profit" in the past 2. We have all the money we need, we simply need to address the cash flow (don't scare people with 12% taxes when we all know that money would replace everything that we spend today, just in drips and drabs) and spend money FOR HEALTHCARE ON HEALTHCARE. 2 TRILLION is a lot of money to NOT be able to cover everyone. It is Unamerican to believe that America is not able to do what every other nation has done, and do it better.

one thing that I have not seen anyone mention with regard to health care costs in this article or other recent health care posts is the fact that illegal aliens receive billions of dollars of care that is never reimbursed every year. the cost of this care is then passed on to the rest of us, legal citizens.

perhaps a good first step in cutting costs would be for congress to enact legislation allowing hospitals and physicians to refuse all but immediate life saving care for those who cannot prove citizenship.

also illegal women have what's called anchor babies in this country and those children immediately start receiving medicaid benefits. maybe it's time we put a stop to that.

Archie: do you have any stats that show the effect of illegals on healthcare costs, or do you just want to be cruel to illegals? You know, in order to incent them to go away and stay away.

Clavos: for some people it just isn't enough to be rich without seeing that others are poor and miserable.

They sneak into my country, recieve free healthcare and other social services at my expense and I'm the one being cruel? Cry me a river. The fact is that they do cost us billions in free care every year and there are plenty of stats out there that show this.

Cost in California alone link here.

The link is to an article in the Washington Times citing a study done by the Federation for Immigration reform that shows illagels cost California alone 10.5 billion in uncompensated healthcare.

"Clavos: for some people it just isn't enough to be rich without seeing that others are poor and miserable." - Bliffle

If you didn't see miserable poverty stricken types how would you know you were rich? Likewise, the "poor" are only that way by comparison. It's all very relative and exists beyond capitalism and socialism or any objective measure of worth. By neccessity, societies stratify themselves into a pyramid shape with increasing levels of wealth/power consolidated at the top.

Whether it be Kennedys, Clintons, and Bushs or Sauds or Chiracs or Castros, Chavezs, and Stalins at the top the basic form is the same. The question at our ballot box is what rules of engagement we want for those climbing the pyramid.

Those Mexican crossing the border are jumping off their short pyramid onto the American one. Just like the scheme with the same name, the more people below you the better. More poor immigrants means that by relative measures (which is what's important) that most native born citizens in the US are now higher up. The only ones hurt are those at the bottom not trying and losing their position to the hungry immigrants.

Once again, a fascinating dialogue, but could someone please tell me WHY when we spend $2 TRILLION dollars on healthcare, $6700/person in the US we CAN'T cover everyone? Your rhetoric is interesting theory, about illegals, preventative care, blah, blah, blah, but could someone PLEASE tell me why we can't do it? If you say, "because Pharma and the Insurance industry will pay for it not to happen." I will buy that, but then I say, "Lets get the insurance industry out of the mix in healthcare (they can write all the life insurance policies they want) make Pharma transparent, and get the system we deserve-- better than France, Australia, and Canada.

Scott

Because THE PEOPLE don't have a lobby.

Because insurance companies do a lot of research to come up with elaborate reasons as to why a universal plan wont work, they pass that info on to politicians and the spinners. We come to believe it and I end up spending all of my retirement on trying to live.

Amen. We need to change that, and we need to now. Tilting at windmills? Probably. But I have seen a somewhat flawed healthcare system from the 80s become a nightmare for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and patients in 1.5 decades. We CAN change the system, because it happened before. We need to call our legislators, write to our papers, find a group in our area that is working on this and then act on that. We NEED universal healthcare that is affordable, accessible, and quality. Is that really that much to ask in the richest country in the world? Again, if America is as great as we know she is, shouldn't we have the BEST universal healthcare system in the world?

Arch Conservative

Perhaps once our nation healcare system is implemented, one will have to provide citizenship documentation to recieve services.

Right now if you go to any county hospital's emergancy, it will be over flowing with Mexican illegals. Especially children's hospitals. FACT

What you're talking about is pretty much socialism Scott and that's why we don't have it and never will.

Despite all of the griping we don't want our taxes raised to create a universal sociliast health care system.

We DON'T need it and we aren't going to get it.

What we do need is to find a way to make the current system more affordable without going to a single payer system. It can be done.

Scott you scoff at my mentioning of illegals as if it were a minor thing the evidence I offered shows that in one year in California alone illegals are costing the system 10. billion. If you still think it's no biggie maybe I will have to provide the total dollar amount for the entire nation so you can fully realize what an enormous drain on our system illegals are.

I have no answers for this promblem and it is a national promblem. Paying the old doc with one or two chickens when he came to the house are long gone. Of course we have all seen the stereotypal guy buying his daily case of Bud to put in his brand new pickup hauling his brand new fishing boat with 6 kids and his women for a day of fun on the water. No health insurance right, but we gonna get some fish today. His priorities are non existence one would think. Of course the premiuns for health care would cost more then the Bud, pickup and boat. How about the people who are down and out and not of their own doing. Millions of them. I myself was in the emergency room of our local facility recently. Thank God my wife and I have a good health plan, however watching many of the people in the ER I wondered about their plight. Like I said, I have no answers but this country just cant allow our American citizens after they walk out of the ER to drop dead on the street. Im also conservative.

Insurance companies are NOT against a national healthcare system, they stand to make a LOT of money when it's implemented, as they do now handling Medicare payments for the government.

When (not if) national healthcare is implemented, you can bet that the carriers will be the same companies now providing the employer group plans and who are already the carriers for Medicare. The only difference for them will be that the government will be paying their premiums, instead of individuals and/or employers.

Whatever system is ultimately adopted, its day-to-day operations will be contracted out. The government can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the sole; it damn sure won't be able to operate something as complex as a national health plan.

Besides, there's too much money involved; the politicians will want their cut, and the health carriers will make sure they get it. In turn, the pols will make sure the right carriers get the business.

Cynical thoughts, and probably realistic, but maybe we can try to dream for once? Universal single payer healthcare is maybe a socialist idea, but isn't it also a democratic ideal? (note I did not say capitalist ideal.) In fact, insurance companies are dead set against a single payer universal healthcare system, which is why we have Mass. and CA plans. Those are NOT single payer systems, but taking the money we are spending and giving it to the insurers to once again decide who gets what, when, how, where, and why. Aren't you really sick(no pun intended) of the insurance industry telling you and your doctor what you can have, when, etc? Initially, it will be contracted out. But, think about it? What does the health insurance industry do? Insure? Nope, they cherry pick who they want, weed out the potential problems, and go after the healthy. Are they providers of care? Nope, they contract with doctors, hospitals, etc. Well then, do they distribute care? Nope, that is usually employers or the governement. So, what does an insurer do? Takes out money, decides how it is spent, and provides NOTHING. Sound simplistic? Tell me another industry where the people who control all the money have nothing to do with the product that is being distributed.
As far as illegals, ok, let's give them $100 billion in cost. 5% of our total healthcare dollars. So we'll all stand at the ER door, and what an illegal tries to comes in, we send them on their way and hope that they die quickly. You know what? If I can get the 47 million who are uninsured for 6 months of the past 2 years coverage for primary care, avoiding using the ER for colds and sore throats, avoid higher costs on delayed care, I'll bet you we can find the $100 billion from savings in adminstrative overhead, and YOU can pay people to stand in front of the ERs and check their ids.

Scott,

You said upthread that you're a physician. Do you take Medicare assignment in your practice?

If so, have you noticed from whom the checks you receive for services are coming? Most likely, they are from CMS, Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS is the coordinator for Medicare/Medicaid payments. It's a government agency, but the carriers for Medicare/Medicaid are private insurance companies. Among the carriers listed by CMS are:

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Mutual of Omaha
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Empire Healthchoice Assurance
Etc., etc.

Medicare is a single payer system.

You're right; single payer is the best type of system for us to adopt.

Those same insurance companies (and others wanting a slice of what will be an enormous pie), through their lobbyists, will ensure that ultimately, that's what we'll get, and that THEY are the carriers for it.

In other words, the present Medicare/Medicaid system (and its carriers) will form the base of the new system.

You heard it here first.

Archie is totally unreliable. To support his argument he cites an article in the Washington Times (?!), misquotes the source name, then transforms this clause "...10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration..." into one that better suits him: "...Federation for Immigration reform that shows illagels cost California alone 10.5 billion in uncompensated healthcare."

Phooey.

Exciting information, but have to disagree with everything that you said, Dave.

So you disagree with this statement:

"Reform of some sort is needed, especially to address the needs of those who cannot qualify for insurance and can't get Medicaid because their income is too high. They shouldn't be forced into bankruptcy to pay their medical bills."

I'm surprised.

the BIGGEST reason is the profits that have nothing to do with providing healthcare.

So perhaps you should do something about it? Work in a free clinic or organize other doctors into a subscription health service or coop.

Our largest insurer in Wester PA, a nonprofit, is sitting on $3.1 BILLION in reserves, and made $800 MILLION in "profit" in the past 2.

What did it do with that 'profit' if it's a non-profit? That's too much to hide in staff salaries.

We have all the money we need, we simply need to address the cash flow (don't scare people with 12% taxes when we all know that money would replace everything that we spend today, just in drips and drabs)

Actually, that 12% in taxes only provides for 80% coverage. You would still need to spend a couple of thousand more a year for supplemental health coverage.

Dave

Medicare sub-contracting paperwork to the ins. cos. is a good deal because they can exploit the experience of the InsCos and facilities while controlling the ins. co. margins. This is just what happened in the 80s when many major US corporations switched from purchased health insurance for employees to self-insurance, then subcontracting paperwork to the ins. cos. You might ask "why would an InsCo agree to such a low margin deal?" and the answer, as given to me by an InsCo exec is that they can't pass up that big a piece of revenue, even if low margin, because a competitor will get it. That's the advantage of collective bargaining as practiced by a corp to reduce it's own costs. This is one component of a corp process sometimes called 'disintermediation', i.e., get rid of the middleman.

Thanks for the thoughts. No, as a pediatrician, I don't take Medicare, but you are right about the Medicaid part of it. A couple of responses. Work in a free clinic? Would you suggest that if teaching was a mess you open your own school to help solve the crisis? Or a law firm? This is a simplistic solution to a HUGE crisis. We are not talking about "charity" care when 15% nationally, and 25% of people in Texas have no insurance. Where did $800 MILLION go? Come to Western PA and see the billboards, the million dollar sign on top of their prime building downtown, see their 3 multimillion dollar primary care buildings that they are renting out, just go to their website at www.highmarkbcbs.org and see that they don't EVEN hide their profit. And why? Because we allow them to say that they need this large a reserve IN CASE they have to stop getting premiums, and cover expenses. With 67% of the market. And finally, please, please stop doing their job for them. In PA, with a TOTAL payroll tax of 10%, payrollee tax of 3 %, we can cover EVERY person from cradle to grave. Is that a lot? For my business, it is a small savings. For me, it is a bit more than I pay. For a person who has no insurance, it may be more, But, it eliminates the worry for all healthcare costs. What is the value of that? Again, why in America can't we do what EVERY other industrialized nation has done, and just do it better? We complicate the picture for the insurers, and my answer is, "show them the door." The have had decades to fix the problem and have just made it worse.

A couple of responses. Work in a free clinic? Would you suggest that if teaching was a mess you open your own school to help solve the crisis? Or a law firm?

Yes, actually. I know people who have done exactly that, at least with the schools - there's not so much of a crisis in lagal service availability.

And it's true in medicine too. There are physicians who have taken the initiative and moved out of the current structure to start subscription medical services where instead of paying for insurance, patients pay to subscribe to the practice which then provides them with the healthcare they need. This kind of set-up runs into problems when it comes to higher-end care and hospitalization, but why not have the government work to facilitate expanding this sort of practice or making it pratical to combine it with critical care insurance?

The point here is that we don't necessarily need government to solve our problems. There ARE ways we can do it ourselves and likely get a much better result.

Hell, communities can even start hospitals or clinics and then hire doctors to work in the community and provide healthcare to their citizens on a subsidized basis.

This kind of solution is overlooked way too often. It's the kind of bottom-up socialism/collectivism which seems to have been forgotten in favor of government imposed, institutionalized socialism.

This is a simplistic solution to a HUGE crisis. We are not talking about "charity" care when 15% nationally, and 25% of people in Texas have no insurance.

Oddly, no one here in Texas seems nearly as concerned about the 'health care crisis' as people are in the northeast.

Where did $800 MILLION go? Come to Western PA and see the billboards, the million dollar sign on top of their prime building downtown, see their 3 multimillion dollar primary care buildings that they are renting out, just go to their website at www.highmarkbcbs.org and see that they don't EVEN hide their profit. And why? Because we allow them to say that they need this large a reserve IN CASE they have to stop getting premiums, and cover expenses. With 67% of the market.

Then why doesn't your state board of insurance regulate them as they are supposed to? Surely there's some oversight in Pennsylvania? Or are they actually required by law to keep that kind of huge reserve? I know many states do require that of insurors.

And finally, please, please stop doing their job for them. In PA, with a TOTAL payroll tax of 10%, payrollee tax of 3 %, we can cover EVERY person from cradle to grave.

I knew there was a reason I left Pennsylvania after college. Isn't this money already being spent on something? If that's the case, then they'll have to add to those taxes to provide healthcare.

Is that a lot? For my business, it is a small savings. For me, it is a bit more than I pay. For a person who has no insurance, it may be more, But, it eliminates the worry for all healthcare costs. What is the value of that? Again, why in America can't we do what EVERY other industrialized nation has done, and just do it better? We complicate the picture for the insurers, and my answer is, "show them the door." The have had decades to fix the problem and have just made it worse.

I think part of the problem is that we DO want to do it better. And being unable to find a better way to do it which can be agreed on for political reasons, and with negative examples so easy to find in Europe and Canada, we just keep putting it off.

Dave

Bliffle says:

Medicare sub-contracting paperwork to the ins. cos...

Bliffle, you've got it exactly backwards; in Medicare, the gov is sub-contracting the insuring, not the paperwork; the gov (via its agency, CMS) does the paperwork, while the insurance companies continue to get the meaty part of the business.

The insurance companies are making a killing on Medicare; which is why they eagerly await the "national healthcare plan", while they work behind the scenes NOW to ensure the form it ultimately takes includes them as the CARRIERS, not the paper handlers.

That said, you're right about the disintermediation process in the employer insurance market.

But then, private corporations are almost always smarter and better run than the government.

Bliffle the aliens are costing us billions a year in uncompensated health care. I know that flies in the face of your left wing rhetoric but it is the truth.

I'm not ok with getting screwed over by illegals but it's nice to see that you are.

Hey Dave,
Thanks for the comments. A couple of thoughts back at you. 2 of our largest community hospitals were forced to close because of inadequate reimbursement. Again, you are talking about apples and oranges. If an insurer will pay $10 for a vaccine that the hospital or office has to pay $12 for, it doesn't matter--you can't make money. Community hospitals and clinics have been destroyed by the business of medicins. Please, go to some of the clinics and ERs in your area and really see if people are concerned about healthcare. People are ashamed that they don't have healthcare. It is not the kind of thing that people bring up in the corner coffee shop. To imply that since we don't hear about it, it isn't a problem is how racism, sexism, and homophobia continued and do for as long as they have. Yes, our insurance commission felt that 473% reserve was appropriate for our insurer. Now, this is a company that has 67% of the market, takes in $1 billion/month, AND has enough money to plaster the city with ads, billboards, buildings, etc. etc. First, it is not going anywhere, so reserves are a bit of an oxymoron. second, we are not talking about endowment at a college. We are talking about money that WE PAID to get healthcare. To have $3 BILLION sitting around while PA has 1.4 million uninsured should bother all of us. Finally, Dave, you seem like a bright articulate guy. Do you actually believe in your heart that the reason we don't have a single payer universal healthcare system is because we can't, or that the "political" will is not there? It is for one reason and one reason only. There are a handful of people who have the ear of the legislators, and we can't get anything out of committee, let alone passed. Is this paranoia? Look at every bill that has come up for votes in the past couple of decades. When they are nonbinding, they pass with flying colors. However, when there are any teeth, the insurance industry comes out will all guns blaring. William McGuire of USHEALTHGROUP was sitting on options valued at $1.8 BILLION when he was let go, due to options violations. That kind of money buys a lot of favors.

Dave et al

SMT has eliminated the fact that a universal plan is not as catastrophic as we think it is.

Are you going to campaign for it as a patriotic American?

If we want to keep our country the best, WE THE PEOPLE need to fight for its excellence. We are lagging, sort of primitive, and unsophisticated in this area. There are so many other areas that we are falling short in right now, we are relying on the ingenuity of the past generation. We need to put our brains together and come up with a new paradigm for health care. We have a combination of the great minds of the planet. Lets forget ideology and focus on SOLUTIONS.

Right now, our partisanship is preventing us from doing anything CLEVER.

Dave:

Also our stubbornness regarding this issue is actually another form of isolationism. We practice what is called structural isolationism.

As group health insurance gets more and more expensive for the employer, direct policies are becoming more prevelant. Individual policies with higher deductibles and fewer co-pays will become more popular, and allow the free market to lower costs as people have to pay for services out of pocket.

Keep the government out of it, right after they outlaw discrimination, I mean underwriting.

Don

Yes, Zedd. I'm for a rational plan for national healthcare. SMT's description of the Australian system makes it sound very appealing, but I fear that politically the time for that sort of solution without massive upheavals has passed.

I think something transitional and simpler might be the best route to follow now, focusing on taking care of those most in need, while leaving the rest of us in the current private system, perhaps with a bit more oversight and appropriate regulation.

Dave

When did I become SMT??

Dyslexics rule, KO?

On, ton yet, Stan Man The...

ehh.

Dave Nalle

My concern is that with the extreme politicized climate in our country today, a plan that is for a certain sector will not be received.

We have to make it universal with options for private care like Australia.

I feel that this is the perfect time for a major change. People are feeling the weight and the grime of what we have just gone through and are looking for a new start. What we need are legislators who are smart enough and patriotic enough to come up with something that is exceptionally good for everyone that doesn't trigger any of the partisan hot buttons.

Clavos

You and your tiny thrills. You must be in a constant state of giddy.

Who cares SMT STM... only you would chime in making sure to write it out so we all know that you know what it means. WHATEVER.... Look out the communists are coming.

STM its not like its your real name... get over it.

My concern is that with the extreme politicized climate in our country today, a plan that is for a certain sector will not be received.

My concern is the same, but my thinking is that a plan which helps the needy while not harming the well off will be easier to pass than one which hurts some while helping others. What's more, a less radical departure from the current system ought to be easier to sell as well.

We have to make it universal with options for private care like Australia.

As I've said before, I think the cost for this here in the US will be astronomicall and it will hammer the middle class with higher taxes and likely far worse service. They'll be asked to pay more in taxes than they do now for the basic program and then even more for supplemental insurance. It'll break them.

I feel that this is the perfect time for a major change. People are feeling the weight and the grime of what we have just gone through and are looking for a new start. What we need are legislators who are smart enough and patriotic enough to come up with something that is exceptionally good for everyone that doesn't trigger any of the partisan hot buttons.

Well, you can forget national healthcare then.

Dave

Sorry Zedd ... I'll try to be good next time, I promise ... honest.

STM

I'll remember to spell it correctly.

I think that Hillary Clinton is the best and that we need obama to live. I'm a diehard Democrat and I love donkeys and liberal blogs. i also smoke a lotta weed with former democratic candidates.

I'm gay and that's why I want Obama to win :)

Cool Ben!
I support you and your fight for your rights.... You see I recently came outta the closet to my dog and some of my closest friends. I realized that i like women a couple weeks ago while watching oprah.... That's a hell of alot of chocolate lovin! MMMMMMM