No if this bill passes so will  so many of our freedoms.
Our wonderful congress has denied seniors a raise for the next two years,  but passed a raise for themselves running about 4,500 for the house and 5500 for the senate.  Our medicare co-pay has doubled this year and is going up next year along with everything else.  Being on blood pressure med since i was 46 yrs old, i have been going to the dr. every three months. Well the last time i was there, guess what?  My next check up is six months away.  The care is already decreasing and cost going up, i can only imagine what it is going to be when congress gets thru with it since  alot of this health care bill is going to be  on the backs of seniors.  Any young person who doesn't buy into it will pay a  penalty in the form of a  tax.  This is something that is to be forced down our throats whether we want it or not.   I agree with the   statement  there should be a cap on what  drs insurance can pay out  in libel suits.  There are so many hidden laws inside this health  bill.  One being they can come in tell you how to raise your kids.   restricting meat eating.  Overweight people  to pay more.   A persons health should be their own private business not the governments.  They come after the cig. smokers and now they are coming after meat eaters.  Anytime one persons freedom is removed, it won't be long until your freedoms are removed.

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

I finally popped my political respect cherry.

Anyway, Janet pretty much dominated this thread.  Game over.

yea i dont know how it is that other countries have health care for everyone but we america dont

To paraphrase Jefferson, any government that can give you everything you want also has the power to take everything you have. Instead of giving the government more power we need to be limiting the power of insurance companies.

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

Moreover..the US is only Western nation with out a National Health Care program because the US is  the only western nation that makes a profit on their peoples sickness and medicine..Shame!!..some say we will be giving up this freedom or that freedom..what about the freedom from worry about health care because you cant afford treatments for your husband ,your wife.your babies? Insurance companies..Pharmaceutical companies have planted this notion of socialised medicine and lost freedoms because National health care will cut their enormous profits and their company perks and million dollar salaries..30-40%of health care expenses go to these lecherous bottom feeding companies..this would more than defray any additional cost to you or your employer..England nationalised their medicine and health care right after World War ll when they were in ruins and billions in debt from yrs of war but they perservered because affordable health care was that important to them..why isnt it for us..why cant we as one of the richest  and most advanced countries in the world have affordable health care for everyone? This is  a moral issue rather than economic or political..when thousands of people die everyday because they cant afford to be treated is not only shameful but  selectively cruel!

Then wouldn't limiting the power of insurance companies be meddling with capitalism too much and taking away the rights of these private corporations?  That would be like our government having the "power to take everything you have", wouldn't it?

Moreover..the US is only Western nation with out a National Health Care program because the US is  the only western nation that makes a profit on their peoples sickness and medicine..Shame!!..some say we will be giving up this freedom or that freedom..what about the freedom from worry about health care because you cant afford treatments for your husband ,your wife.your babies? Insurance companies..Pharmaceutical companies have planted this notion of socialised medicine and lost freedoms because National health care will cut their enormous profits and their company perks and million dollar salaries..30-40%of health care expenses go to these lecherous bottom feeding companies..this would more than defray any additional cost to you or your employer..England nationalised their medicine and health care right after World War ll when they were in ruins and billions in debt from yrs of war but they perservered because affordable health care was that important to them..why isnt it for us..why cant we as one of the richest  and most advanced countries in the world have affordable health care for everyone? This is  a moral issue rather than economic or political..when thousands of people die everyday because they cant afford to be treated is not only shameful but  selectively cruel!

I'm so glad that more people are seeing through the propoganda and where it's really rooted (in groups that have a vested interest in derailing these programs because it would affect themselves, and their profit-margins, negatively, NOT the American people). 

Corporations like the the insurance companies are legal fictions, not people, and as such should not have the rights of a person. They are given legal protections for their officers to protect them from criminal prosecutions, and tax breaks to allow them to amass huge amounts of wealth, and can in effect exist forever. In return they are supposed to provide some benefit to their community.

"Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become" (from The Uncooling of America, by William Kalle Lasn)


We tried capitalism unchecked, and it lead to a small number of ultra rich while everyone else had 16hr work days 6 days a week at starvation wages, working next to their children, in unsafe working conditions, and a great depression.

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

Well, Mike ... you ALWAYS remember your first.   


(And thanks, by the way.  lol)

I agree with you that everyone deserves health care coverage. I just don't believe that any legislation passed by our government will benefit the people. My fear is that instead of having 15% of the population uninsured we will have 100% of the population under insured. Because our form of government has turned into an oligarchy where money equals free speech only the corporations are heard, and any health care legislation that is passed will benefit them at our expense.

I believe a better way is to remove everything that isn't a person from participating in the political process, corporations, unions, pacs, etc... Then corporations can once again be forced to provide that service to their communities I spoke of earlier, like providing health care to their employees, and keeping jobs here instead of where ever it is cheapest to operate. This would also make our government a democracy again and then they could then legislate to expand medicare/ medicaid to cover those people that still fall through the cracks. This way we raise everybody up to the same level of adequate, affordable health care instead of driving everyone down to the cheapest available coverage.

I realize my way will take a very long time, so in the meantime many studies have been done that show billions can be saved by the health care industry with simple inexpensive things like a verbal checklist before and after surgeries, and sharing best practices and procedures between hospitals, etc. and we should convince people we live in a society not an economy so health care should be non profit and expand peoples coverage by creating more, and giving to  charitable organizations like the Shriner's.

Maybe I'm being naive but that's my version of Utopia.

This was logical well thought out load of Horse Manure.  How do you know he quit you should know better than to believe him he is a democrat.

  Out of that WHOLE post, the only thing you're going to debate me on is whether President Obama still smokes?  lol 

OK, if you give in to the rest of my post, I'll cave on whether he smokes ... deal? 

Is that a yes? 

If you don't know what that is you are beyond help.

Oh I know what it is...
"I'll take Things Tom is Full Of" for $800 Alex." 

Watch it I'll tell mom.

Could someone please tell me where in the Constitution it states that the Federal Government must take responsibility of the health of the citizens?

How about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all ..except those that are sick and dying because they can't afford medicine and dont have Health insurance .

Good discussion by all!  Personally, I would hate to see this thing pass.  I was amazed to find out that "IF" someone decides not to participate in the plan (except for hardship and religious preferences) they will be assessed a "penalty" from the government.  Really?  Awesome.  The government is going to penalize you for not having health insurance.  Wow.

Also, why should the wealthy have to burden the cost of this?  If they made their money the old fashioned way......hard work and integrity, why should they have to foot the bill for others?  Don't penalize wealthy taxpapers for participating in Capitalism.

Wrong.  None of those have anything to do with health care.  You have a right to a life.  What you do with it is your business...  Until it infringes on the rights of others.

I suppose you could make the claim "the pursuit of happiness" could apply to government sponsored health care.  Since it's implementation would make some happy.  But it would also make many UN-happy.  So we have a contradiction on that thought.

I guess a compromise would be to make health care available to all...  With limited government involvement.  Hey...  Guess what?  We have that already!

Just answer me one thing then..why do almost all of the western democractic countries have free health care and medicine and a better infant mortality rate and longer life than we do?..Must be that damn government interference!

Just answer me one thing then..why do almost all of the western democractic countries have free health care and medicine and a better infant mortality rate and longer life than we do?..Must be that damn government interference!

Just answer me one thing then..why do almost all of the western democractic countries have free health care and medicine and a better infant mortality rate and longer life than we do?..Must be that damn government interference!

and our shorter lifespan can be attributed to other countries only giving death certificates on leap years?

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

and our shorter lifespan can be attributed to other countries only giving death certificates on leap years?

Just naming one reason shows a lack of understanding.  There are a multitude of reasons.  From lifestyle to diet to culture and many others.  None of which have anything to do with public health care.

Tell me, do you honestly believe that statistic will change with the USA dishing out free coverage to everyone?  Especially when that coverage will undoubtedly be worse than what most Americans have already?

While you are at it, how about answering this...  If the free care the government provides is so great, why is it that most of those who can afford it in those countries don't use the free care?  Why do they come to the USA for certain procedures and treatments that are readily available in their home countries for free?

40 million people have no health care here..maybe that is a reason for some of the things mentioned.. our infant mortality which you claim as statistical error..and our lower life expectancy which you claim is our culture..no other countries have pizza and cheeseburgs? And as far as people from other countries coming here for treatments when there's is free?Nonsense..they only come here if they cant get that treatment there and they are very wealthy..the opposite is far more true...What do you got against universal health care..?..you must be in the insurance business or a republican or both!!

40 million people have no health care here..maybe that is a reason for some of the things mentioned.. our infant mortality which you claim as statistical error..and our lower life expectancy which you claim is our culture..no other countries have pizza and cheeseburgs? And as far as people from other countries coming here for treatments when there's is free?Nonsense..they only come here if they cant get that treatment there and they are very wealthy..the opposite is far more true...What do you got against universal health care..?..you must be in the insurance business or a republican or both!!

tit for tat...if you think our present system is ok then I repspect that..I just hope that you or some loved one doesnt die in the energency room waiting for medical help or lacks enough insurance to pay for life saving proceedures like heart surgery or organ transplantation or cancer treatment.

tit for tat...if you think our present system is ok then I repspect that..I just hope that you or some loved one doesnt die in the energency room waiting for medical help or lacks enough insurance to pay for life saving proceedures like heart surgery or organ transplantation or cancer treatment.

What is so bad about France or England health programs where everyone is covered..are you saying they get sub-standard care?..Michael Moore has documentary called 'Sicko' that you might like to see..off course Mr Moore has a way of pissing right wingers off with his truths as is evidenced by his Academy Awards. Why should we Americans wish for 'decent' coverage when other countries have total coverage? Lets face it..we are behind the times here and the longer we are the more people who dont have 'decent' coverage are going to suffer. We need to break the yoke of insurance companies who dont care about our health as they routinely deny claims or treatments that hurt their profits.

To be honest, I have not lived in those countries nor have I experienced how they run things.  I have only read reviews of the systems which seem to be mostly negative.  From what I've read, the care seems to be minimal and difficult to get.  People are routinely denied needed surgeries and even the simplest care gets delayed for months.  I don't see an American socialized system being any better.  In fact, it will undoubtedly be worse.  Most Americans get very good coverage and care.  I do not understand why you wish to change that.  If you want to change our health system, how about changing the things that are bad with it rather than the things that are good?

Michael Moore is hardly an unbiased source.  He also has a documentary out explaining why capitalism doesn't work when in reality it does.  Since he became more known, his documentary skills have eroded (from the well made and decently reasoned "Roger and Me" and even "Bowling for Collumbine") to the point where his films are propagandist distortions.  (Like his last handful).

One can say we are behind the times when it comes to something like transportation.  But we are hardly behind the times when it comes to health care.  The health care in the USA is the finest on the planet.  Americans DO have "decent" coverage.  Many even have exceptional coverage.  People who can afford to from all over the world come here for care.  

Denying claims and treatments happens in the so-called health care utopias of England and France too.  Why would it be different here?   Please answer why you think it wouldn't be.  Also, please answer if you honestly think those other stats that were referenced earlier would be better if socialized medicine were implemented.  I'm beginning to think the reason those questions are being avoided are because you don't want to admit that you honestly think they won't change.

I think what's getting lost in the mix here is that only about 5% of Americans would actually NEED the government-sponsored health coverage.  Americans that already have their own healthcare can keep what they have if they think it's so great.  That's the beauty of our (semi)capitalist society.  Competition and choice.  You'll still have both with universal healthcare ... actually, you'll have MORE of it.
But for those Americans that have NO health insurance ... I think they're going to be ok with having to wait a little while for medical care rather than having to wait a lifetime for care that will never come.

And in regard to your comment earlier about the stats being rigged about the number of Americans with healthcare ... you're completely correct and I agree.  Statistics can be swayed any way the statistician would like to sway them.  But remember, YOU also quoted stats about infant mortality rates across the globe.  Keep in mind that the swayed stats hold true across the board, not just when it benefits your argument.  Many countries in un/under-developed nations have VERY poor record-keeping and thousands, if not millions of deaths may be missed every year in some nations. 

If it is only 5% then why create another huge government program. Why not just tweak the rules for medicaid to cover those "uninsurable" due to preexisting conditions and those that can't afford to buy their own policy or are not covered by their employer. And remove the anti trust exemption the insurance companies now have so they actually compete with one another to bring down costs so more people can afford coverage.

I posted a link to an article about the infant mortality rates. The other countries are Canada, Japan, and most of western Europe.

And just so you know, tho ML31 and I agree on this issue we are not the same person.

So you say......(sideways, suspicious glance)    No, I actually had a feeling it was you that mentioned the statistics after I posted, but was hoping it would slide by undetected (damn you!).  But still, he did agree with your statistics, so I wasn't completely off-base (just slightly ... you said it, he said it ... whatever, details!  lol)

As for the actual bulk of your post  lol...
Even if it's only 5%, it's still good to have the option there.  Most people change their health insurance, and many others lose it altogether (especially with the rates of unemployment now ... COBRA only lasts so long, has specific conditions  you have to meet to get it, and only covers a percentage of your premiums for a short time - I think it's about 9 months or so).  Also, while only 5% of the population NEED it, maybe a larger percentage would WANT it in order to save money.  If the government-sponsored healthcare is less expensive, more may opt to use it since private companies don't want to compete.  For someone like me (single, no kids), the government plan might be optimal.  I have way more coverage than I need and pay a lot of money for it.  But that's because I have no other options (I either take the plan my employer offers, purchase my own insurance for insanely high rates, or have no coverage whatsoever).  Many people beyond that 5% might choose to go with the government plan because it will save them money.  If this happens, it will force the private companies to compete to stay in business.

I would agree that "tweaking" Medicaid would be a solution, but they've had YEARS to do so and, quite frankly, I think Medicaid is at the point where it's pretty much broken beyond repair.  I feel it's better to start fresh with a new program, with feedback from everyone (which is the only reasons why this bill hasn't already passed ... the president wanted all members of Congress to have time to contribute, regardless of their views or party affiliation, and give feedback to make it the best it can be). 
And as for making any changes to big business ... ha, good luck with that!  You and I both know that the health insurance companies (and most other big businesses) have politicians in their back pockets and lawyers in their front pockets all ready to go to war if there's even a thought of messing with their money-making machine.  Why do you think there's SUCH an uproar about this bill to begin with?  Most of the opposition is coming from the health insurance companies and the politicians that are on the take support them. 

Your last paragraph is one reason why I don't think this legislation is a good idea. Anything that passes will basically be written by the insurance companies lawyers or at least needs their approval. And once it passes we're stuck with it forever, once a government program is started it never goes away.
Another reason is it gives corporations incentives to drop coverage for employees. Corporations exist only to make money for their investors. So if a corporation can pay a $2800.00 fine per employee or pay $6000.00 or more a year per employee to provide health coverage, I think most will opt for the fine and stop covering their employees.
I guess what it comes down to is you trust our elected representatives more than I do.

I think what's getting lost in the mix here is that only about 5% of Americans would actually NEED the government-sponsored health coverage.  Americans that already have their own healthcare can keep what they have if they think it's so great.  That's the beauty of our (semi)capitalist society.  Competition and choice.  You'll still have both with universal healthcare ... actually, you'll have MORE of it.
But for those Americans that have NO health insurance ... I think they're going to be ok with having to wait a little while for medical care rather than having to wait a lifetime for care that will never come.

And in regard to your comment earlier about the stats being rigged about the number of Americans with healthcare ... you're completely correct and I agree.  Statistics can be swayed any way the statistician would like to sway them.  But remember, YOU also quoted stats about infant mortality rates across the globe.  Keep in mind that the swayed stats hold true across the board, not just when it benefits your argument.  Many countries in un/under-developed nations have VERY poor record-keeping and thousands, if not millions of deaths may be missed every year in some nations. 

Americans that already have their own healthcare can keep what they have if they think it's so great.

But you see, that is the mistake.  It's a myth.  Why should a business who provides employee coverage continue to pay into that plan when there is a government one that all Americans are paying into?  That is not competition and certainly not choice.  This will happen more than you think.  Perhaps giant corporations may keep their plans (or perhaps not), but the small businesses (who employ the most people) will more than likely drop their plans since a "free" plan is available.  This is not good.

Those few who legitimately lack insurance still can get covered by heading down to their local ER when they need care.  But we need to find a way to get them covered beyond just going to the ER.  And yes, it is an issue.  I do not understand why that can't be addressed without screwing over those who DO have coverage?

You are also mistaken in that I was not the one who brought up the stats.  suzanneclark12 first brought up stats about the infant mortality rate and life expectancy in post #42.  My response was that the answer was more complex than citing socialized medicine as the reason.  

In post #59 I covered the statistics flub on my part ... it's actually less about who cited it and more about who agreed with it.  Either way, it stands to reason that ALL statistics can be biased and incorrect.  So if we're discounting one set, we have to discount all of them and leave them out of the debate.

And why would companies (large or small) decide to pull their health coverage plans NOW when there will be a penalty and not before when there was no penalty for doing so?  It wouldn't make financial sense.

And I think that offering up the ER as a solution to the problem is "fixing" the problem by creating another problem.  People without insurance that visit ERs have to get the services paid for somehow.  They pay for it by upping the cost of medical services to the other folks who DO have insurance.  These costs make insurance companies raise their rates and cut back on service, which just compounds the problem.  If everyone had free healthcare coverage, this wouldn't happen.

Yep.  Agreed.  Any statistic has the potential to be manipulated.

No company would drop their coverage now.  They would if socialized medicine became available.  In most cases, it would make financial sense to do so.  And in the end, the insured get screwed.

I was not offering the ER as a solution.  I was only claiming that it was available now.  But it is the public that gets billed for those uninsured visits.  Not the insurance companies.  The reason?  The law requires they treat everyone.

I know the current US health care format is not perfect and has flaws.  But those flaws need to get repaired without ruining what is good about the system in the process.  Socialized medicine is like wanting a new garage and not caring that you have to tear down the entire house to do it.

I would recommend not referring to the socialized coverage as "free".  It's not.  We are all paying for it.  Anything the government does is not free.  We pay for it all.  It's kind of like the myth that a tax refund is "free" money.  It's not either.  It was your money to begin with.  You just overpaid your taxes that year is all.  You are getting your own money back.  Sans interest, of course.

Well that's why they call it a tax "refund". 

As for the ER visits by uninsured ... yes, the costs are burdened onto the public by way of increased prices on all hospital services (I mean, does a 2 mile ambulance ride REALLY cost the hospital $4000?).  But since the uninsured aren't paying for them, the insured folks do.  And when a person with insurance visits the hospital, most of that bill is picked up by their insurance company (after their co-pay/deductible, which is generally a small fraction of the total bill).  When insurance companies have to foot the bill, they raise their rates (it IS a business for them ... making money is their business, NOT helping people out).  This is part of the reason healthcare has gotten so out of hand.  If the currently-uninsured people had insurance, that trickle down (or up, depending on how you're looking at it) of unaccounted-for costs would not happen.

The unaccounted for costs would continue under socialized medicine.  In fact, it would skyrocket.  Not as unaccounted for costs, but in accounted for costs.  But the key word here is "cost".  Which brings up another flaw with socialized medicine in addition to the ease and quality of care going down....  The cost of operating such a thing.  One wonders where the money will come from since there are so many government agencies fighting for our tax dollars to begin with.  It seems many will have to go without or the Government will have to find new ways to shake the money tree.  What am I saying?  The Government never thinks that way.  Their one and only one solution when it comes to this sort of thing is to take more money from the citizens!

The public pays because the government pays for the uninsured.  When hospitals treat the uninsured who come in, someone foots the bill.  No insurance company does.  Not one cent.  The public sector gets billed.  So in a way, we already have a small version of socialized medicine without the feds running it.  This is about as far was the feds ought to be involved.  Any fixing needs to address what is wrong with the system.  Not ruin what is right.

People who choose not to participate in the government-sponsored health care program will not pay any penalties.  Employers that refuse to offer health insurance to their employees are the ones that will have to pay penalties.

Also, the latest polls show that only about 5% of Americans will utilize this program, and most of the restrictions you're referring to (dietary recommendations, parenting guidelines, etc. - which, by the way, are good ideas, in my opinion) are only applicable if you actually choose to use the government health care.  95% of Americans won't NEED to use this coverage, so none of those will even apply to them.  But even so, that's the business of insurance companies.  If a person is a riskier investment, their rates are higher.  People who smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on are higher risks.  Just like younger people and those with a lot of accidents and tickets are higher risk on the road, therefore their car insurance rates are higher.  It is what it is.

The rising cost of health care coverage is exactly why this bill is so important.  Health insurance companies are making record profits and providing less and less coverage each year.  A government-sponsored health care program will provide competition for these private companies and will foster a more competitive environment where insurance providers will have to either compete (lower costs, up coverage, etc.) or not (go out of business). 

In reply to other posts ... the "End of Life Guidance Counselor" (AKA "death panels") are propoganda and nothing more.  There is an option built into the plan that allows for those with terminal illnesses access to an advisor to help them plan the end of their lives (setting up wills, making arrangements for funerals/burials, pain management, figuring out finanaces, etc.).  Once again, it is an optional thing and is absolutely NOT a panel that decides who lives and dies. 

Oh, and President Barack Obama no longer smokes. 

no janet is not right at all !  and i understand where you coming from with no health care i had none when i got first sick took me 6 yrears from 99 to get my SSD 8 turn downs and 2 judges later i got what was mine what i paid in all the years i worked but in june of 09 almost 1/2 my insurances got cut out just like alot of people thats on low or set income we have to choose everyday sometimes do get meds or pay the gas bill or food bill or do i pay this bill so when janet is not right at all .  and now with no jobs for people theirs alot more people with out and having to do the same

boy thats alot of bull being shoveled out .  CUDDLES  HAS HER FACTS STRAIGHT  and if you are not on SSI or SSD you do not have any idea what going on with this so call health bill . or the death panels  are 100% real lady  hell the drug company's are already going up on their prices cause they done said they will loose to much profit if the goverment bill goes thru that came from ei lilly out of IND. ONE of the leaders in drug making . Heck all you have to do is asked the drug reps. in the doctor offices they will tell you their costs has gone up and having to pass the raising cost down to everyone else!
I am following this bill very close cause i am 100% disable DID I ASKED TO GET SICK  AT 34 HELL NO  but i did and my health problems came from hauling hazzard chemicals to make products that we use every day . if you want  info. about the bill start at your congressman offices in each state and their web sites has a link that will take you to a site that you can read the bill they passed  if i saw right over 2000 pages now . could be more  

Seriously, I read this for about 30 min straight, and my eyes are like this ->

And what I've gotten out of it? Horse manure and the possibility there could be two ML31's out there..F me.

Well James, just agree with me and it'll all be so much easier for you.  Just chime in every now and then with "I agree with J", sit back, have some chips, and worry no more.   

That's it? Damn, even I can do that.

I just got a bag of sweet potato chips too.



I agree with J.

That's where I think you're mistaken.  Hospitals are not currently run by the government.  They are private entities so the public does not pay into running them (at least not in any government-sanctioned way, such as taxes).  It's like any other business ... if there are costs rising for any reason (in this case, uninsured people getting medical treatment free of charge), they have to compensate for it.  They do so by raising the price of services for those who ARE insured and are paying for treatment.  Since they are charging more, the insurance companies are shelling out more money for the same services.  In order to get back their money, they raise premiums and reduce benefits in their insurance plans.  They also tend to pay doctors less in hospitals to regroup some of the revenue lost when treating uninsured patients (which is why most doctors want to go into private practice and do not want to work for hospitals ... lower pay and worse hours at hospitals), which leads to worse care, overall. 

I don't think it's fair to say that we'd be paying out any less one way or another.  Either you pay it out in taxes or you pay it out privately to insurance companies that are constantly cutting back on care and raising rates.  No one can definitively say which will be worse.  But at least I can rest easy knowing that at least we're doing SOMETHING about it (instead of sitting by idly thinking it'll fix itself) and in the meanwhile, everyone will have the ability to get health insurance and not just "most Americans".

Wouldn't it have been great to have healthcare available to you, instead of waiting 8 years to get "approved"?  And if the number of unemployed people is so high, and continues to rise, all the more reason we will NEED this healthcare plan.  They won't have jobs to provide insurance and buying your own health insurance privately is nearly impossible for most people to afford (especially if they're out of work).

And I have read the healthcare bill in its entirety (y'all know I'm a loser with nothing better to do).  I know it's long ... not quite 2000 pages, but over a thousand, yes ... but if you read it, you'll learn that the "death panels" are not true.  They were made up by conservative commentators and health insurance executives.  There's a reason the health insurance execs don't want this bill to pass.  They'd have to actually start "competing" and might not make their record profits while cutting back benefits and raising the cost to the public. 

Wouldn't it have been great to have healthcare available to you, instead of waiting 8 years to get "approved"?  And if the number of unemployed people is so high, and continues to rise, all the more reason we will NEED this healthcare plan.  They won't have jobs to provide insurance and buying your own health insurance privately is nearly impossible for most people to afford (especially if they're out of work).

And I have read the healthcare bill in its entirety (y'all know I'm a loser with nothing better to do).  I know it's long ... not quite 2000 pages, but over a thousand, yes ... but if you read it, you'll learn that the "death panels" are not true.  They were made up by conservative commentators and health insurance executives.  There's a reason the health insurance execs don't want this bill to pass.  They'd have to actually start "competing" and might not make their record profits while cutting back benefits and raising the cost to the public. 

Wouldn't it have been great to have healthcare available to you, instead of waiting 8 years to get "approved"?  And if the number of unemployed people is so high, and continues to rise, all the more reason we will NEED this healthcare plan.  They won't have jobs to provide insurance and buying your own health insurance privately is nearly impossible for most people to afford (especially if they're out of work).

And I have read the healthcare bill in its entirety (y'all know I'm a loser with nothing better to do).  I know it's long ... not quite 2000 pages, but over a thousand, yes ... but if you read it, you'll learn that the "death panels" are not true.  They were made up by conservative commentators and health insurance executives.  There's a reason the health insurance execs don't want this bill to pass.  They'd have to actually start "competing" and might not make their record profits while cutting back benefits and raising the cost to the public. 

boy thats alot of bull being shoveled out .  CUDDLES  HAS HER FACTS STRAIGHT  and if you are not on SSI or SSD you do not have any idea what going on with this so call health bill . or the death panels  are 100% real lady  hell the drug company's are already going up on their prices cause they done said they will loose to much profit if the goverment bill goes thru that came from ei lilly out of IND. ONE of the leaders in drug making . Heck all you have to do is asked the drug reps. in the doctor offices they will tell you their costs has gone up and having to pass the raising cost down to everyone else!
I am following this bill very close cause i am 100% disable DID I ASKED TO GET SICK  AT 34 HELL NO  but i did and my health problems came from hauling hazzard chemicals to make products that we use every day . if you want  info. about the bill start at your congressman offices in each state and their web sites has a link that will take you to a site that you can read the bill they passed  if i saw right over 2000 pages now . could be more  

Wouldn't it have been great to have healthcare available to you, instead of waiting 8 years to get "approved"?  And if the number of unemployed people is so high, and continues to rise, all the more reason we will NEED this healthcare plan.  They won't have jobs to provide insurance and buying your own health insurance privately is nearly impossible for most people to afford (especially if they're out of work).

And I have read the healthcare bill in its entirety (y'all know I'm a loser with nothing better to do).  I know it's long ... not quite 2000 pages, but over a thousand, yes ... but if you read it, you'll learn that the "death panels" are not true.  They were made up by conservative commentators and health insurance executives.  There's a reason the health insurance execs don't want this bill to pass.  They'd have to actually start "competing" and might not make their record profits while cutting back benefits and raising the cost to the public. 

No, I am not mistaken.  When the ER treats someone, it is not free.  Someone has to pay for it.  The hospital sure doesn't.  They charge for it.  the insurance companies don't get billed because the uninsured person who was cared for is UN-insured.  The government tells the caregivers they MUST give care to the uninsured, so the government is the entity that gets charged and pays the bill.  This does not affect premiums in any way shape or form.  Many premiums are high not because of the cost of health care, but for the legal costs.  Medical people especially have to make sure their ass is covered in the event of lawsuits.  Frivolous or earned.  You need to take a closer look into the whys and hows the current system operates.  

Actually, it's very fair to say we'd be paying less with no socialized medicine.  Big time.  And the for the lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) few who keep their coverage over the government's version, they will be paying twice.  Not only for the the good one they use but for the federal one they aren't as well.  No one can for 100% certainty say which will be worse, but one can make an educated guess based on existing systems and looking at how other federal programs are run. 
You know, saying that "something must be done" to fix a problem is counter productive.  That kind of thinking is destructive.  Something should not ever be done for the sake of doing something.  Especially when that something will create a bigger and more tangled mess than the existing one.  And no one is saying what is wrong with the system will fix itself if left alone.   Only that the socialized solution will make things much worse in terms of cost, ease of treatment and quality of care.  We need solutions that will attack what is wrong with the system.  Not make the system worse than it is.

This may come as a shock, but I agree with you on the "death panel" issue. I've not read the entire bill but I have read this section and what I took from it is every 5 years you sit down with your doctor and discuss living wills and such.
Discussions/arguments like this thread are good if for nothing else to hash out the exagerations and outright lies being told by both sides, cause I don't think we are going to change each others minds.

Actually, we're BOTH mistaken (and also both right).  Tax payers do pick up SOME of the burden from uninsured visiting ERs.  But billions of dollars also hit hospitals every year from uncompensated treatments (in California, it's about a 1:1 ratio for how much taxpayers pick up and how much the hospitals pick up).  It is illegal for a hospital to not treat patients without insurance (although it's obvious that they do not give them priority since the latest studies show that uninsured ER patients die at twice the rate of insured ER patients ... I've thought it through and regardless of how you slice it, the lact of insurance is to blame for it), but the government does NOT pay the full bill.  Hospitals eat the cost in the billions each year and have to make up for that lost revenue somehow (hence, as Jason mentioned, the $8 Tylenol, etc.).  And those that can't compensate for it are left to close their doors, leading to fewer hospitals, longer lines in the ERs, worse treatment, and more patient deaths. 

Even the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development has stated that over 80% of all visits to the ER by uninsured people could have been treated by non-emergency care practices IF those people had insurance.  Over 80%.  That's HUGE.  Imagine the amount of money the hospitals AND the taxpayers would be saving on the strength of that alone!  In 2006, 4.6 million ER visits were classified as "non-emergency" in California.  Just think what that number would be nationwide.  Also in 2006, the average cost of an ER visit was $1881.  Take that number, multiplied by the 4.6 million ER visits that were not actual emergencies and should have been handled by primary care physicians (had the patients had insurance), and that's almost 8.7 BILLION dollars worth of treatment that was done for no charge in California alone in 2006.  Now think of what that number was nationwide.    Oh yeah, and add inflation for the 3 year difference we're looking at until today in 2009.  I think the question isn't whether we can afford this healthcare bill, but instead can we afford NOT to have it?

By the way, I'm citing the California Medical Association for these facts and figures.

I'm in the mood for a steak. I can go to a nice chain steakhouse and get my steak and a cold beverage or two to wash it down, but it's going to cost me-- probably at least $30 just for this one meal.

Or, I could go down to the corner McDonald's. Hey, it's still beef, and you gotta love that Dollar Menu.

If I really want the steak and I have the money to pay for the steak, where am I going to go?

But I'm sure ML will explain how my analogy is flawed.

I'm in the mood for a steak. I can go to a nice chain steakhouse and get my steak and a cold beverage or two to wash it down, but it's going to cost me-- probably at least $30 just for this one meal.

Or, I could go down to the corner McDonald's. Hey, it's still beef, and you gotta love that Dollar Menu.

If I really want the steak and I have the money to pay for the steak, where am I going to go?

But I'm sure ML will explain how my analogy is flawed.