under the proposed UHC bill.. Doctors are going to take a 25% cut over 5 years and over the next 6-7 years Government is going to reduce the payments even further.. Right now it is estimated that Doctors will be on the hook for as much as 60% within 6-7 years. The end result.. less Doctors taking new Medicare patients..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

"Certain people" have been hystericaly screaming the sky is gonna fall all day if we have healthcare reform.

Haven't the Democrats told us that Medicare will be broke by 2019. Perhaps we need not model that idea.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

What is so different about Medicare and the rest of the "budget?"

To avoid rampant inflation eventually we will need to cut costs or raise more money with a better economy growth. (as Clinton did).

or raise more money with a better economy growth. (as Clinton did).

I have to agree Bonker$. It's amazing as to how prosperous we were during Clinton's Democrat rule. Just shows you how fiscally responsible this country is when the Democrats rule all three branches of government without interference from those damned Republicans. Good thing the Republicans were out of power so as to not mess all that up.

Hey buddy.... would you please pass some more of that red Kool-Aid?

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Makes one almost wish for just one party doesn't it? Alas, there are crooks in both parties and occasionally we must throw the bums out!

With one party Kool-aid would be brown wouldn't it?

Was Moses Democratic or Republican in philosophy? He didn't have any money, just sheep and goats, I think. But he fed the multitudes many years somehow. I don't think there were any jobs in the desert. I'll bet they robbed and stole!

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor of The New Republic, where he writes a blog called “The Treatment.” He is also the author of “Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price

"Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.

Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

In the course of a dozens lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
The Dutch and the French organize their healthcare differently. In the Netherlands, people buy health insurance from competing private carriers; in France, people get basic insurance from nonprofit sickness funds that effectively operate as extensions of the state, then have the option to purchase supplemental insurance on their own. (It’s as if everybody is enrolled in Medicare.) But in both countries virtually all people have insurance that covers virtually all legitimate medical services. In both countries, the government is heavily involved in regulating prices and setting national budgets. In both countries, people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payments and what are, by American standards, substantial taxes.
In general, both the Dutch and French appear to have easy access to basic medical care - easier access, in fact, than is the American norm.

In both countries, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle.

In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.

After-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation - or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too - without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms

This is particularly true in the Netherlands, thanks to a nationwide network of urgent care centers the government and medical societies have put in place. Not only do these centers provide easily accessible care; they leave hospital emergency rooms free to concentrate on the truly serious cases. A Dutch physician I met complained to me that waiting times in her emergency room had been getting “too long” lately. “Too long,” she went on to tell me, meant two or three hours. When I told her about documented cases of people waiting a day, for treatment in some American emergency rooms, she thought I was joking. (In a 2007 Commonwealth Fund survey, just 9 percent of Dutch patients reported waiting more than two hours for care in an ER, compared to 31 percent of Americans

Dutch and French patients do wait longer than Americans for specialty care; around a quarter of respondents to the Commonwealth Fund survey reported waiting more than two months to see a specialist, compared to virtually no Americans. But Dutch and French patients were far less likely to avoid seeing a specialist altogether - or forgoing other sorts of medical care - because they couldn’t afford it. And there’s precious little evidence that the waits for specialty care led to less effective care.

On the contrary, the data suggests that while American healthcare is particularly good at treating some diseases, it’s not as good at treating others. (In some studies, the US did pretty well on cardiovascular care, not so well on diabetes, for example.) Overall, the US actually fares poorly on measures like “potential years of lives lost” - statistics compiled by specialists in an effort to measure how well healthcare systems perform. In a 2003 ranking of 20 advanced countries, the US finished 16th when it came to “mortality amenable to healthcare,” another statistic that strives to capture the impact of a health system. The Dutch were 11th and the French were fifth. These statistics are necessarily crude; diet, culture, and many other factors inevitably affect the results. But, taken together, they make it awfully hard to argue that care in these countries is somehow inferior. If anything, the opposite would seem to be true.
Critics of health reform frequently point to cancer as proof that American healthcare really is superior. And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something healthcare reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher. Much of the remaining difference reflects differences in treatment patterns that have nothing to do with insurance arrangements and everything to do with idiosyncratic medical cultures. This is particularly true of prostate cancer, where a staggeringly high survival rate in the US seems to be largely a product of aggressive US treatment - treatment that physicians in other countries, and increasingly many specialists here, consider unnecessary and sometimes harmful.

None of this is to say that either the Dutch or French systems are perfect. In both countries, healthcare costs are rising faster than either the public - or the country’s business interests - would like. And each country has undertaken reforms in an effort to address these problems. The French have started to introduce some of the managed care techniques familiar to Americans, like charging patients extra if they see specialists without a referral, while developing more evidence-based treatment guidelines in the hope that it will reduce the use of unnecessary but expensive treatments. The Dutch overhauled their insurance arrangements a few years ago, to introduce more market competition and reward healthcare providers - that is, doctors and hospitals - who get good results.

But cost is the one area in which France and the Netherlands are a lot like Canada and England: They all devote significantly less of their economy to healthcare than we do. The French spend around 11 percent of their gross domestic product on healthcare, the Dutch around 10. In the US, we spend around 16 percent. And, unlike in the US, the burden for paying this is distributed across society - to both individuals and businesses - in an even, predictable way.
Of course, reforming health insurance in the US isn’t going to turn this country into France or the Netherlands overnight, any more than it would turn the US into Britain and Canada. The truth is that the changes now under consideration in Washington are relatively modest, by international standards. But insofar as countries abroad give us an idea of what could happen, eventually, if we change our health insurance arrangements, the experience of people in Amsterdam and Paris surely matters as much as - if not more than - those in Montreal and London. In those countries, government intervention has created a health system in which people seem to have the best of all worlds: convenience, quality, and affordability. There’s no reason to think the same thing couldn’t happen here.

an article or site.. Blasting us with an OPINION piece taking up loads of space for the OPINION piece is really poor etiquette.. Please learn how to use links so other peoples OPINION pieces can be more easily read.

Here let me show how it works....

According to a national poll, four out of five Canadians are unhappy with their socialized health care system. LINK

The Problems with
Socialized Health Care(i.e., trusting politicians and bureaucrats with your health care)LINK

CATO on Healthcare Reform LINK

Now here are some Opinion Pieces based in actual FACTS without spamming everyone.

oh and btw.. The New Republic.. really.. A circulation of 60,000 wow that’s about as many as in my hometown.

and this from your New Republic Magazine which is published every couple of months..

"But not all geo-engineering ideas are necessarily drastic. Earlier this week, a new study [5] from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in Britain laid out some more modest measures to cool the Earth, and most looked a lot less problematic. We could, for instance, paint all our roofs white, reflecting more of the sun's heat off the surface and reducing the temperature of our urban centers. That's a form of geo-engineering, and one that's less likely to have unforeseen side-effects than trying to dim the sky."

A nut job magazine that touts seeding the atmosphere with Sulfur Dioxide..to block Sunlight.. Never mind most Scientist said that this would ruin the Environment and change rain patterns though out the World.. The New Republic also supports "radical actions" against individuals and industry because "the World is dying and we need to act now..." Those "Radical Actions" look at the Weather Underground.. for answers..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

I think we all agree, mostly, that there are needed improvements to our current system. The question is how we go about doing this. The current proposals discard our entire history to begin something new. The unintended consequences, which are always there, are completely unknown. However, we have seen many analysis of what they will likely be. Although everyone on the left discards them as biased it is clear if you take the time that while not perfect they are clearly not fantasy. So, why take the path of the French Revolution and trash, or kill, everything old for something new (in their case a new tyrant - the people- that was every bit as bad as a monarch). Why not tweak and adjust and improve. There is nothing inherently wrong with car or home insurance. We can make health insurance work without giving our freedom away and trashing our constitution. The real issue that conservatives like me worry about is the underlying agenda of centralization and socialism of which I believe the proponents of this are just using the poor and those injured by the current system to further this agenda. We have seen many examples of socialistic countries and we should know that this is bad. It always leads to inequality with an elite dominating even more than in capitalistic countries. If we work together we can improve the current system, which is currently the best in the world - not the most accessible necessarily but the best. Don't trash it to experiment with something this important.

the total malfunction of Healthcare should the Government get their grubby little hands on your health..

All you have to do is ask a Soldier what he thinks of the VA.. Ask any Native American about their Government Run Healthcare...

This is America Gort not France or Canada.. We have something called the Constitution and nowhere does it say the Government has the right to control Healthcare. A majority of citizens do not want Single-Payer.. If you want it so bad head NORTH ehhh.. You to can be a hoosier..

Healthcare 1

Healthcare 2

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

How about we ask the 46.8 million Americans who do not have health care what they think of our system? It you do not think it is the Constitution's business to care about them, then I think we all know about all we want to know about YOU. That's just for starters, how about we look at the fraud, greed, and non-caring business plans of the insurance companies. If you need more? Just ask anyone.

Let's ask the unions why they're fighting the Senate proposal to tax so-called "Cadillac" plans to cover the cost of this scheme.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

We have to do something. What we have is failing a lot of people who pay taxes and deserve better. It wouldn't have come to this if not for the "fraud, greed, and non-caring business plans of the insuance companies."

"A new CNN poll finds that more than 80% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care."

"WaPo Poll: Americans Still Oppose Obamacare
Posted October 20th, 2009 at 1.07pm in Health Care.
The Washington Post published a poll today finding that Americans oppose the Obama administration’s health care plan 48% to 45%."Rasmussen found that only 35% of Americans supported creating a government run insurance company."

Another little factoid..

"The Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday that the U.S. government ended its 2009 fiscal year with a deficit of $1.4 trillion, the biggest since 1945.

Washington will spend $33,932 per household in 2009–$8,000 per household more than last year. Following President Barack Obama’s budget, Washington will be spending $33,000 per household (adjusted for inflation) by 2019, and that does not include the costs of Obamacare. "

1. The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008.
2. Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security.
3. Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
4. Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
5. The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts.

That just the top 5. Here are 45 more...

So who is worse in the Waste, Fraud and abuse Category? LINK

The Insurance Companies don't sound so bad now do they.. and this is the Bureaucracy that you want making decisions for our Healthcare. No Thanks.. I would rather run or ruin my own life thank you very much..

btw.. "What we have is failing a lot of people who pay taxes and deserve better." I actually agree with you there.. 2010 Let's HOPE for CHANGE....

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Potter%20Commerce%20Committee%20written%20testimony%20-%2020090624-%20FINAL.pdf

Testimony of
Wendell Potter
Philadelphia, PA
Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
June 24, 2009
2
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick – all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.
I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even to obtain—information we need. As you hold hearings and discuss legislative proposals over the coming weeks, I encourage you to look very closely at the role for-profit insurance companies play in making our health care system both the most expensive and one of the most dysfunctional in the world. I hope you get a real sense of what life would be like for most of us if the kind of so-called reform the insurers are lobbying for is enacted.
When I left my job as head of corporate communications for one of the country’s largest insurers, I did not intend to go public as a former insider. However, it recently became abundantly clear to me that the industry’s charm offensive—which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns—may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans.
A few months after I joined the health insurer CIGNA Corp. in 1993, just as the last national health care reform debate was underway, the president of CIGNA’s health care division was one of three industry executives who came here to assure members of Congress that they
3
would help lawmakers pass meaningful reform. While they expressed concerns about some of President Clinton’s proposals, they said they enthusiastically supported several specific goals.
Those goals included covering all Americans; eliminating underwriting practices like pre-existing condition exclusions and cherry-picking; the use of community rating; and the creation of a standard benefit plan. Had the industry followed through on its commitment to those goals, I wouldn’t be here today.
Today we are hearing industry executives saying the same things and making the same assurances. This time, though, the industry is bigger, richer and stronger, and it has a much tighter grip on our health care system than ever before. In the 15 years since insurance companies killed the Clinton plan, the industry has consolidated to the point that it is now dominated by a cartel of large for-profit insurers.
The average family doesn’t understand how Wall Street’s dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they’ll be charged for it. But, in fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street looks investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical ―benefit‖ ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going
4
to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they’ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurer’s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the company’s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.
To help meet Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment. Asked directly about this practice just last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers refused to end the practice of cancelling policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health care spending.1 The Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year period, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims.
They also dump small businesses whose employees’ medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected. All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year’s premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether –
1 Samuel Zuvekas and Joel Cohen, “Prescription Drugs And The Changing Concentration Of Health Care Expenditures,” Health Affairs, 26 (1) (January/February 2007): 249-257.
5
leaving workers uninsured. The practice is known in the industry as ―purging.‖ The purging of less profitable accounts through intentionally unrealistic rate increases helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees has fallen from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993, according to the National Small Business Association. Once an insurer purges a business, there are often no other viable choices in the health insurance market because of rampant industry consolidation.
An account purge so eye-popping that it caught the attention of reporters occurred in October 2006 when CIGNA notified the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust that many of the Trust’s members in California and New Jersey would have to pay more than some of them earned in a year if they wanted to continue their coverage. The rate increase CIGNA planned to implement, according to USA Today, would have meant that some family-plan premiums would exceed $44,000 a year. CIGNA gave the enrollees less than three months to pay the new premiums or go elsewhere.
Purging through pricing games is not limited to letting go of an isolated number of unprofitable accounts. It is endemic in the industry. For instance, between 1996 and 1999, Aetna initiated a series of company acquisitions and became the nation’s largest health insurer with 21 million members. The company spent more than $20 million that it received in fees and premiums from customers to revamp its computer systems, enabling the company to ―identify and dump unprofitable corporate accounts,‖ as The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004.2 Armed with a stockpile of new information on policyholders, new management and a shift in
2 “Behind Aetna’s Turnaround: Small Steps to Pare Cost of Care,” Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2004.
6
strategy, in 2000, Aetna sharply raised premiums on less profitable accounts. Within a few years, Aetna lost 8 million covered lives due to strategic and other factors.
While strategically initiating these cost hikes, insurers have professed to be the victims of rising health costs while taking no responsibility for their share of America’s health care affordability crisis. Yet, all the while, health-plan operating margins have increased as sick people are forced to scramble for insurance.
Unless required by state law, insurers often refuse to tell customers how much of their premiums are actually being paid out in claims. A Houston employer could not get that information until the Texas legislature passed a law a few years ago requiring insurers to disclose it. That Houston employer discovered that its insurer was demanding a 22 percent rate increase in 2006 even though it had paid out only 9 percent of the employer’s premium dollars for care the year before.
It’s little wonder that insurers try to hide information like that from its customers. Many people fall victim to these industry tactics, but the Houston employer might have known better – it was the Harris County Medical Society, the county doctors’ association.
A study conducted last year by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed just how successful the insurers’ expense management and purging actions have been over the last decade in meeting Wall Street’s expectations. The accounting firm found that the collective medical-loss ratios of the seven largest for-profit insurers fell from an average of 85.3 percent in 1998 to 81.6 percent in 2008. That translates into a difference of several billion dollars in favor of insurance company shareholders and executives and at the expense of health care providers and their patients.
7
There are many ways insurers keep their customers in the dark and purposely mislead them – especially now that insurers have started to aggressively market health plans that charge relatively low premiums for a new brand of policies that often offer only the illusion of comprehensive coverage.
An estimated 25 million Americans are now underinsured for two principle reasons. First, the high deductible plans many of them have been forced to accept – like I was forced to accept at CIGNA – require them to pay more out of their own pockets for medical care, whether they can afford it or not. The trend toward these high-deductible plans alarms many health care experts and state insurance commissioners. As California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi told the Associated Press in 2005 when he was serving as the state’s insurance commissioner, the movement toward consumer-driven coverage will eventually result in a ―death spiral‖ for managed care plans. This will happen, he said, as consumer-driven plans ―cherry-pick‖ the youngest, healthiest and richest customers while forcing managed care plans to charge more to cover the sickest patients. The result, he predicted, will be more uninsured people.
In selling consumer-driven plans, insurers often try to persuade employers to go ―full replacement,‖ which means forcing all of their employees out of their current plans and into a consumer-driven plan. At least two of the biggest insurers have done just that, to the dismay of many employees who would have preferred to stay in their HMOs and PPOs. Those options were abruptly taken away from them.
Secondly, the number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance. The industry is insistent on being able to retain so-called ―benefit design flexibility‖ so they can continue to
8
market these kinds of often worthless policies. The big insurers have spent millions acquiring companies that specialize in what they call ―limited-benefit‖ plans. An example of such a plan is marketed by one of the big insurers under the name of Starbridge Select. Not only are the benefits extremely limited but the underwriting criteria established by the insurer essentially guarantee big profits. Pre-existing conditions are not covered during the first six months, and the employer must have an annual employee turnover rate of 70 percent or more, so most of the workers don’t even stay on the payroll long enough to use their benefits. The average age of employees must not be higher than 40, and no more than 65 percent of the workforce can be female. Employers don’t pay any of the premiums—the employees pay for everything. As Consumer Reports noted in May, many people who buy limited-benefit policies, which often provide little or no hospitalization, are misled by marketing materials and think they are buying more comprehensive care. In many cases it is not until they actually try to use the policies that they find out they will get little help from the insurer in paying the bills.
The lack of candor and transparency is not limited to sales and marketing. Notices that insurers are required to send to policyholders—those explanation-of-benefit documents that are supposed to explain how the insurance company calculated its payments to providers and how much is left for the policyholder to pay—are notoriously incomprehensible. Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that’s exactly the point. If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for beginning this conversation on transparency and for making this such a priority. S. 1050, your legislation to require insurance companies to be more honest and transparent in how they communicate with consumers, is essential. So, too, is S.
9
1278, the Consumers Choice Health Plan, which would create a strong public health insurance option as a benchmark in transparency and quality. Americans need and overwhelmingly support the option of obtaining coverage from a public plan. The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent, publicly-accountable health care option as a ―government-run system.‖ But what we have today, Mr. Chairman, is a Wall Street-run system that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care, and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.

Here is how you link..

Click here

Between the "" you place the website address..

Example "http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/comment/reply/40002/123527" see address above.. notice it is the same one..

Then between the less than/greater than symbols you place the title..

the whole thing will look like this..

href="http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/comment/reply/40002/123527"(less than sign)Single-Payer Sucks(greater than sign)/a Noticed I left off the (less tahn sign)a at the front and the (greater than sign) behind the /a that was to make sure it shows up.. add that and your link will look like this..

Single-Payer Sucks Sorry could not help myself..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

that reform is not necessary.. We all know and feel the brunt of Insurances rates escalating.. BUT.... I still will go with the philosophy of Personal Responsibility..
We need Health Saving Accounts.. Where we spend $5000-$8000 per year in coverage then have to cover large deductibles that money can go to an tax free HSA.
The HSA will be used for small incidentals.. Doctor visits and meds.. We then can have a Catastrophic policy that would cover MAJOR issues like cancer or injury not otherwise covered..

Insurance Companies are not the villain that the MSM and Dems have painted them to be.. They are FORCED to comply with State rules and regs as well as FERERAL rules and regs.. I have worked with the Insurance Commission.. You want to talk Bureaucracy... WOW

This DRIVES UP COST.. and who pays for it.. the CONSUMERS..

Their profit margins are lower than most businesses but yet they are ostracized because they make a profit.. Profit is not greed.. Profit pays for employees and their insurance and infrastructure.. etc..

We need true competition not the joke of Government run Insurance..

Government = No Competition.. They do not have to make a profit.. and they set the rules for the game..

Why can't we shop our coverage between states? Congress will not allow that WHY?

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

it is that simple

when you post a whole article or whatever very few will read it.. Soundbites my dear soundbites... at least by linking you pull off the salient points and hopefully they will follow the link..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

We all know and feel the brunt of Insurances rates escalating.. BUT.... I still will go with the philosophy of Personal Responsibility..

What happens when the cost of Health Care escalates to the point of the ruination of our small businesses and consequently our entire economic system? Another poster asked - "What are we waiting for?" What about those who followed 'the personal responsibility plan' and find themselves without a job, without healthcare, their home in foreclosure, and an injury or health problem - and they are not 65 yet?

For those in that situation - OBAMA IS NOT THE ISSUE!!

Maybe it’s not me that is confused. I go to a doctor’s office, or hospital, for health care. I get health insurance to mitigate the financial risk. They are two different things and I get them from two different industries.

Consider this, if we had single payer health insurance, many veterans would not have to rely on the VA for their primary care. I’ll admit, I don’t know much about Native American health care but I do know many people on Medicare. The people I talk to think it’s a good service. I served in the military enough years to know you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to “Government Run Health Care.” Mine was damn good.

I know what country I’m living in and I can read the constitution as well as anyone. The congress does have the right to regulate commerce. My opinion is this; the health insurance industry is out of control. Their arrogant behavior reminds me of the Enron energy company before they self destructed. The cost of healthcare is so out of line as a percentage of GNP it is sapping the life out of the rest of our economy. The congress is overdue on fulfilling their responsibilities to the people on this issue.

I tried to follow your links but they took me nowhere, much like your argument. All buzz, and no bee. Who is that riding on your back?

I guess arguing the point is indeed useless.. Suffice it to say.. A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AGREE WITH MY POSITION.. So I guess we are all boobs... That is except you.

Answer this if you can.. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

Read the Constitution... Please elaborate as to which enumerated power entitles the Government to control our healthcare?

The links where to other post on this issue.. (DA) Why don't you try reading them.. You might educate yourself a little.

btw.. who's that on my (sic) back.. the DEMOCRAT PARTY..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-cohen/why-are-health-insurance_b_179317.html

suggarfoot's Story Link

I'm doing this out of respect for your point of view. I still see some very real and difficult issues going down this road.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

at least she did not post the entire article..

If the Huffington Post told me it was Sunny I would still look up. They are a strong Left Leaning group with ties to George Soros and the Apollo group. Not surprised they are pushing single-payer.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

You learned a lot from you daddy working for George Wallace.

Everything that you don't agree with, you right off as left wing, nobody wants etc...

Do you really think that by coming on here posting everyone loves their current health care makes it so? That is why it is pointless to try to talk to you.

I like the Huffington Post and it gets about 22 million users a month. Not bad for somone who has only been around since 05...but I know...the government started it....to take away our rights and brain wash us.

look him up then get back to me..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

House votes to repeal antitrust protections for health insurers

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to strip federal antitrust protections shielding health insurers from investigations into price fixing and other business practices, the first step in a legislative bid to clamp down on the industry.

The legislation would repeal portions of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act that allows states to regulate health insurance providers without federal intervention. But critics of the law say that 64 years after its passage, the result has been regional monopolies that inflate premiums and discriminate against people based on their health status, gender and other factors

Repeal advocates said they would seek to include language similar to what passed Judiciary in the health-care reform bills now moving through the House and Senate, although the legislation also could move separately.
"No one on this committee believes that price fixing or carving up markets is a good thing, and the wide, bipartisan support for this bill's passage reflects this," said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.). "This measure fixes a mistake sitting on the federal statutes for over 60 years."

In a letter sent to Conyers this morning, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, disputed the legislation's necessity. "We believe that health insurers have not been engaging in anticompetitive conduct and that McCarran-Ferguson does not provide a shield for such conduct," Ignagni wrote. "Thus, the bills attempt to remedy a problem that does not exist.

She also warned that "injecting a second regulatory scheme" at the federal level, on top of a vast array of state insurance laws, could create serious confusion for the industry. "We ask you to consider our strong concerns that such legal uncertainty could chill or limit newly developing activities that will benefit consumers and doctors . . . and add to the already substantial cost that litigation imposes on the health care system," Ignagni wrote.

But lawmakers pressing for repeal said the exemption is outdated, "Insurance companies, especially health insurers, are national players," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). "They operate in states across the country. And they don't have a mere presence in these states; they dominate the market."
We all pay the cost for this," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), whose committee has held a hearing on the issue, and said he would seek to add the exemption repeal as an amendment to the Senate health-care bill when in reaches the chamber floor, likely in early November.

"Patients pay the cost. Doctors pay the cost. And this is one of the very few industries that's used its clout and its money and its lobbying to keep this exemption," said Leahy.

We all pay the cost for this," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), whose committee has held a hearing on the issue, and said he would seek to add the exemption repeal as an amendment to the Senate health-care bill when in reaches the chamber floor, likely in early November.

"Patients pay the cost. Doctors pay the cost. And this is one of the very few industries that's used its clout and its money and its lobbying to keep this exemption," said Leahy.

We all pay the cost for this," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), whose committee has held a hearing on the issue, and said he would seek to add the exemption repeal as an amendment to the Senate health-care bill when in reaches the chamber floor, likely in early November.

"

Let's let everyone see 'who' he is.

LINK TO SOROS

ANOTHRT LINK TO SOROS

What is suppose to be wrong with him Lindsey?

anything but.. He is self-described NAZI Colloborator...

Excerpts from an interview Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't–you don't see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

"In a $10 billion 1992 deal whose success was contingent upon the devaluation of the British Pound, Soros earned himself a $1 billion profit and the title, "the man who broke the Bank of England." "

"In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization"

"According to journalist Rondi Adamson, most of the documentaries that that the Fund supports "are highly critical of some aspect of American life, capitalism or Western culture," and generally share Soros' worldview that "America is a troubling if not sinister influence in the world, that the War on Terror is a fraud and terrorists are misunderstood freedom fighters, and that markets are fundamentally unjust."

I could give you a hundred more examples..

Yep.. he is a great guy... and a Great Democrat.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

It all depends on your political persuasion I guess. As the moneyman behind moveon.org, he's definitely the polar opposite of those on the right wing side of things. He's pretty much like a liberal Steve Forbes, only with a bigger mouth. Soros and MoveOn are definitely the front-runner of progressive liberalism these days.

Let me say that I have no problem with Soros or Forbes or anyone else using their fortunes to fund their political causes. To me, that's "freedom of expression."

I don’t mind defending my opinion, even if you think it’s a minority viewpoint. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion either.

How are we going to pay for it? We already pay for it. As a country we spend more on healthcare than any other industrial country in the world. We are spending more and getting less.

As far as the constitution is concerned please read, “Section 8, The Powers of Congress, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

I do read other posts but I don’t see anything convincing enough to change my opinion. If you, and your majority, got all the answers tell me what your plan is for health insurance reform?

You got the “Democrat Party” on your back? You can thank your neoconservative friends in the Republican Party for that. They were so clever they out foxed themselves. Without them the Democratic Party would never got back the House, the Congress, or the Presidency.

with the enumerated power of Congress to regulate Healthcare.. Where are you getting the idea that Commerce between States has anything to do with the control of Healthcare?

The CBO has said this major power grab by congress will cost as much as 4 TRILLION .. Gort don't you get it.. We(US)are broke.. We are printing money to monetize our debt.. The deficit is going over 1.4 TRILLION and growing..

On the horizon the "ASPIRE" program is up next... Another 150-250 BILLION dollar
program..

Universal Education Program-College degrees for all... 450-500 Billion

Elderly Assistances Program- 150 Billion

Cap and Trade (TAX)- 1-4 TRILLION

Our taxes are about to go thru the roof.. Inflation while not Zimbabwe levels are about to skyrocket...

How is it that Germany (Single-Payer) is backing away from UHC and is looking to private Insurance to step in..

Canada is backing away from Single-Payer..

France is going broke on Single-Payer and is cutting services radically..

The UK a very wealthy Nation is cutting services and denying life saving drugs and treatments because of cost..

How is it that you think we can do Socialism better then the Socialist?

FOLLOW this link you might start to understand

The US DEBT IN REAL TIME

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Congress doesn’t have the authority to regulate healthcare? Are you telling me Medicare, SCHIP, the senior prescription drug program are all illegal. They may be reprehensible to you but certainly not illegal.

Our taxes are going through the roof? Most Americans just got a federal tax cut in April. It was in all the papers! As far as rising taxes goes, most of us have more to fear from state, county, and local government than the federal government. I know this from experience. I just got hit with $300 plus property tax increase and I’m pretty sure they didn’t single me out.

So you’re worried about inflation? The next time you go to your bank look for the marquee that has the money market rates on it. They’re usually posted right as you enter the front door. The rates of return in the money markets, no way reflect we are experiencing an inflationary cycle.

Germany, Canada, France, and the UK single payer systems are having problem? They also spend 50% less of their GDP on healthcare than we do in the United States. Your argument would be credible if they were moving toward the American style system like ours but they are not.

I told you in my last post, “I go to a doctor’s office, or hospital, for health care. I get health insurance to mitigate the financial risk.” I don’t have a problem with the people that provide my health care. Most are pleasant, knowledgeable, members of our community, and provide excellent service.

The people I have a beef with are the health insurance industry. If they stayed in the risk management business I wouldn’t have a problem with them either but they insist on sticking their nose into doctor’s offices and hospitals. They are pricing themselves out of the market, deny claims, (even after people have paid in for years,) they deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and raise prices many times the rate of inflation. That is the part that needs to be fixed.

You still didn’t tell me how you would fix the problem. Do you have anything or not?

To try to reason with Lindsey is a waste of time. The majority feel as you, Lindsey is denial. She seems to think if she states her dogma over and over, it will become fact. Somehow it seems if there is change to healthcare, her income will be affected and she is about to wiz down her leg. It is that simple.

The danger of blogs is that it allows crass people to drop their masks and show themselves as they might fear to in person. Try having a civil discussion. There is a lot riding on this issue for my kids and grandkids.

that I was a she.. FYI I am 6' 6" 250 lbs of 100% USDA Prime Beef Fed Male..

So get that fact fixed first..

Can you try arguing your position instead of dismissing anything that does not fit your narrow view.. Try jumping in.. defend your position.. Look at the polls do a little research will ya.. A majority of Americans DO NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.. DO I need to give you the links are can you struggle enough to find them on your own..

Just because I do the hard work , do the research and bring FACTS to the argument.. You think it is "dogma".. You are what in any definition is called an IDEOLOUGE.. A simple "PARTY HACK"...
You disagreeing with me does not make you RIGHT.. BREAK MY ARGUMENT!!

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Didn't you know that health care, housing, transportation and jobs are a right guaranteed by no less the constitution. Please do try to keep up.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

between the "General Welfare" clause and now the "Interstate Commerce" clause being used to try to justify the massive expenditure of our kids future they are working hard to get it done...

We are rushing towards an uncertain future and all I want is to slow down just a bit...

Oh and btw.. According to Van Jones and the "freepress".org crowd McChessney a self proclaimed Marxist who wants to tear our system down "brick by brick" and an Obama special advisor.. The internet is now a right as well..

They want to control information so not only do they think the Internet is a Right but they also want to "censor" certain sites for content.. Guess which ones?

Mark Lloyd FCC Diversity Czar.." they (Government) must control what content you see and how you get it. Their (Talk Radio) plans could have dire consequences for those whose voices are often marginalized by our Nation's Media System".

What the heck is going on in America?

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

The most common variants of.. Ideologue... are conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness.

well go look up wikipedias definition of arguements and facts..

"The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness."

Oh don't we think highly of ones self.. HACK..

well this has been fun...

Oh and btw.. don't think I have not noticed that you are still just disagreeing not breaking the argument..

This provider has to go make some money for the recipient class..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

"Can you try arguing your position instead of dismissing anything that does not fit your narrow view"

Day after day you post such demeaning captioned blogs such as..•"Where has all the “Common Sense” gone?" and "do you get it now?"
You talk down to everyone that doesn't agree with you. You make no bones about everyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong.

YOU need to read a few polls. The ones you have been looking at must have been conducted in your bathroom and only you were allowed to vote.
Yes, Lindsey, the ugly truth is, we want change. There has to be a better way than this. The rates are outrageous and the coverage is lacking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/13/polls-americans-want-healthcare-reform-at-no-cost-to-them/

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/14-8

ps...sorry...you just sound so catty...most men aren't....but 6'6"..and in shape?? As much time as you spend blogging, I would say only your fingers get a workout. Just my thoughts...thank you maam.

Matching wits with the witless is fun..

I see your July 14th Poll and raise you a Oct 18th poll

and another one...

Many in U.S. See Health Insurance as Personal Responsibility

Still more recent then yours..

You need to pull your panties out.. they are all wadded up.. Demeaning titles.. well excuse meeee.

Did you even read the cs monitor poll.. its own headline.. AMERICANS WANT HEALTHCARE AT NO COST TO THEM.. well duh.. That little factoid changes when they are TAXED with added FEES.. WOW Thanks for that update..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

But I do appreciate your research, comments and links on this extremely important issue. As with many other issues that are discussed here, there are afew bloggers that are incapable of using thought and reason in their discussions and so can only attack. Just thought I'd let you know that some of us are glad to read opinions that are backed up so well with facts.

and I am willing to debate that belief.. I try to research my info as much as possible and try to use as many unbiased sites as possible. I dig into both sides..
On the Healthcare debate.. this stinks to high heaven as my Mother used to say...
We are going to spend as Obama said 800 Billion to Harry Reid’s 2 Trillion to the CBO's report 4 Trillion to cover 30 Million people. About half of which opt out intentionally.. Leaving about 15 Million that really need assistance. We are going to spend probably about 3-6 Trillion to cover 15 Million..
Don't you think we can do it differently and better if we focused on the real uninsured? Instead of trying to take over another private industry.
Expand current programs.. is one answer.. Identify those that are truly in need and get them enrolled.
Part of the supposed "Deficit Neutral" plan is cost savings from Waste, Fraud and Abuse.. Why don't they fix that one first.. Prove to us that they have the will and ability to do it.. Why? Because they have no intention of doing it.. that's why?
This is not about Health or Care.. if it was why wait until 2015 for the first stages to kick in and not fully come into effect until 2017 and 2018? Remember this is a crisis.. People are dying.. Why I saw a poster here say 45,000 people DIE every year because they have no Healthcare.. Well then let's get it done.. WHY WAIT? But the Libs won't answer that one.. They just read from Maos book pull out the old tried true talking points. Attack when they have no facts.. All good Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactics..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

I see several things here:
a. Another bill no one will read
b. Increased premiums for all who currently have insurance
c. Addnl taxes for most
d. Serious voter recruiting by offering lifetime free healthcare

http://www.newser.com/story/72057/57-in-poll-back-public-option.html

I rest my case. You can't stand for anyone to question you without throwing out your nasty little remarks.

The article you are refering to says people would rather have their taxes cut. IT DOESN'T SAY THEY DON'T WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM!! People are broke. You twist things to suit your purpose.

There are 2 ways for insurance companies make money. Improve the health of those they insured... or try to exclude the sick from buying coverage.

They make more money denying care so that is what they do. It has nothing to do with the people's best interest. Only the insurance companies botom line.

Suggar you asked no questions.. So how could you question my ascertions.. You made no statement of fact.. You just made some erronious assumptions then proceeded to denigrate my position..

That is a sign of someone who would defend a "PARTY" not fact. I am more then willing to meet you in the arena of ideas and do battle therein.. but you must bring something to the table..

btw..I never said Americans did not want some TYPE of reform.. My point which you obviously missed was they do not want Government to take over their Healthcare sustem and Choices.. They do not want a "PUBLIC OPTION" and they do not want it FORCED on them.. at the cost as is proposed..

This LINKwill help you understand what I mean by Breaking my Argument.. You have not done so as of yet.. Argue the facts show me I am wrong.. Show me where Obama is correct.. Provide documentation, provide FACTS.. Not OPINIONS.

Here are some more credible sources form 5 different News Agencies.. Not a blogosphere...

5 different POLLS from Credible sources

and another one Yesterday.. from someone credible..

Rassmussen Polling Oct 18th

Face it most Americans want REFORM.. Just not in the form as it is being proposed. Polls are like anyones elses OPINION.. it can be taken out of context depending on the question asked, as well as, the polled group.. Did you take the time to dig into the data.. If you had you would have found that particular poll favored Democrats 70% Independents 12 % Republicans 9% of those self Identifying. Of course Democrats want FREE healthcare..DUH

You can rest your case.. You just lost.. America is not resting and neither will I.. Come back anytime, but do try to come suitably armed..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Again I will ask you show me where in the CONSTITUTION does the Government have the power to force me to change, adapt of otherwise convert my Healthcare coverage?
Medicare, SCHIP.. are all programs and are VOLUENTARY assistance programs.. NO WHERE DO THEY STATE YOU ARE FORCED INTO IT.. You keep stating Artical 8 Interstate Commerce clause.. Where in this does it state Healthcare is Governed by the Congress.. How is commerce considered Healthcare?

Government run Healthcare is forced Healthcare.. They are placing FINES on people who refuse to have Healthcare. Where in the Constitution is that an enumerated power? Can't or won't answer?

Have you even looked at the proposed tax increases to pay for this program.. Have you seen the cigarette tax...?

1.In the House versions of the health plan, there's a tax penalty — anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent on payroll taxes — for large companies that do not provide government-approved health care plans. There's also a tax penalty on uninsured people who refuse to buy insurance (that's the incentive to get everyone on some health plan).

2. The Senate Finance Committee is mulling a tax on so-called "Cadillac" or "gold-plated" health plans, plans that cost well above average. Essentially it would tax any amount paid for insurance plans over a certain threshold — perhaps $8,000 for an individual, or $21,000 for a family, said James Galfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

3. Congress is considering a sales tax on medical devices like prosthetics, but also pacemakers and portable defibrillators.

4. President Obama signed a bill expanding Medicaid eligibility that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. Since slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year.

5. Proposed tax hikes in this category include: 1) capping the value of itemized deductions, including gifts to charities; 2) a 3% surtax on households earning more than $250,000; and 3) a millionaires tax.

6. So Congress is also considering a slew of other taxes that will, again, force Obama to break his not tax hike promise. These include: 1) a tax on soda; 2) a tax on beer; 3) an increase in employer and employee payroll taxes; 4) a flat tax on health insurance companies; 5) broadening the Medicare tax on investment income; 6) an employer mandate; and 7) a value-added tax on everything but food, housing, and Medicare.

Need I go on... Additonally the Bush Tax Cuts are due to expire.. Increasing EVERYONE's TAXES..

Now let's discuss Inflation... Do you know what happens when we dramatically increase debt while at the same time printing MONEY at record rates..?

That's right buckwheat.. INFLATION.. EVERY ECONOMIST AGREES WITH ME ON THIS ONE.. Even Obama said this is unsustainable.. But yet he continues on.

On Single-Payer.. WRONG.. "According to a national poll, four out of five Canadians are unhappy with their socialized health care system. Doctors in Manitoba apparently agree: Almost half of them have left the province in the past decade alone"

Canada's Healthcare Link

What Canadians Want You To Know About Their Health Care System LINK

Links here to Germany, UK and others.. You should research it a little before you state it..

Finally.. Insurance Companies... Do you know what their profit margins are on average? Let me clue you in.. It's not the highest.. in fact they are not even in the top 10.. Again a little research would help..

It's always easy to demonize certain groups, but you should steer away from the MSM and Dems talking points.. Do yourself a favor do a little reasrch on your own decide for yourself.. I have.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

I'm side stepping the "where in the Constitution question" for now. What I have always wanted to know is why isn't the prohibition against me buying an insurance policy from a company in Texas or Maine or Alaska a direct and plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face violation of the Commerce Clause? It seems to me an open and shut case of an Unconstitutional prohibition of interstate commerce with no wiggle room at all. I never have understood it.

I want REAL competition... Government cannot and will not be a competitor.. They have the power and will use that power to set the rules to their benefit. Additionally they don't have to make a profit.. They have us to take money from... So many if not all of the private Insurance Companies will fold. Thus forcing more Citizens into the Government arms.. Which I believe is the real goal.. Obama said it himself he wants a “Single-Payer “system.. His advisors the Apollo group said it may take 10-15 years but that is the goal.. SEIU head chairperson in a meeting stated the “purpose of Universal Healthcare change is to force the private Insurance Companies out of the Insurance business and usher in Single-Payer”.

However Congress and all of these bills does not seem to allow for INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS for insurance.. I mean like you if I want to shop my coverage to say Pennsylvania or Texas why am I not allowed to do so...

As for the "Interstate Commerce Clause" Insurance is not considered a "COMMODITY". When this was written the original intent was to guarantee the free flow of goods without boundaries. In other words Durable Goods meaning Cotton, Food stuffs, Textiles and the like. Insurance is not traded as a Commodity.. thus does not fall under the "Interstate Commerce Clause".. It's a nice argument but falls short like the "General Welfare Clause".

Many are scrambling trying to find something that makes this Constitutional... Just like forcing citizens to have insurance or forcing employers to convert.. It is unconstitutional and every Constitutional Scholar and Constitutional Attorney out there has said it will not pass. As soon as this goes into force and just one individual is fined or employer forced to convert there will be a challenge. Now that will get interesting.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

I have never understood that either, especially since Congress has used the "interstate commerce clause" to get involved in regulating everything from illegal drugs to prostitution, yet insurance is hands-off. One of the biggest reasons for the health care mess is the fact that companies have to create separate policies for almost very state they operate in and follow a different set of regulations from state to state. Insane.

I get health insurance to mitigate the financial risk.

Really? So are you saying the medical care is prohibitively expensive without insurance?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.