Profit shouldn't drive health care

President Obama initially insisted on a public option in his health care plan. Due to pressure from some conservative Democrats and virtually all Republicans, some of whom are in the back pocket of lobbyists, Obama now says the public option might be negotiable.

[Bamafan]

why is it so hard for you to see that the gov't plan will crush the insurance industry? This is not free enterprise you moron. The gov't doesn't have to (nor will it ever) make a profit, so any other non-gov't competitor is at a huge disadvantage. This is why the US files trade grievances against countries that dump gov't money into steel, autos, airplanes and other items that leave US manufacturers at a disadvantage to compete. And your last point is simply astounding in its juvenile nature. Without profit you wouldn't find anyone to go into the health care business to begin with.

[jacksmith]

AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!

It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.

STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.

And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.

Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).

Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.

In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!

If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!

Join the fight.

Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!

God Bless You

Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS

[hsr0601]

The independently-funded healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012.'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.

Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.

The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.

The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.

Thank You !

[We the people]

there is no health care emergency in America! Healthcare should be a proirity for all Americans, however it is not.

The true priorities of the uninsured are:

- big flat screen TVs
- 20" chrome wheels
-$500 mobil devices
-$150 shoes (a pair for every day of the week)
- cloths that don't fit

The healthcare situation is manipulated into a "criss situation". Illegal aliens will be covered by the new healthcare plan, under the code word "families". And guess who gets to pay the bill? Yep, the Average American taxpayer. The middle class. Illegals will no doubt vote for more socialism when Obama pays their way into OUR country. Why wouldnt they? he is breaking our culture and selling out America in order to maintain power for his party for years to come.

I challenge everyone to stop taking our elected officials word at face value, and start doing your own research on these important issues. Ask others for their thoughts. Listen to various programs that are not biased. Look at politicians voting history, let your findings paint a picture of these people. This is the only way to see thru the propaganda and BS. Good luck to you all.

[Say What]

With the colapse of our economy we learned that without government controls and oversight, greed takes over in those industries where huge profits can be made. So it is with the health care industry. There's still profit to be made by doctors, hospitals, medical supply and drug companies, as well as decent wages for everyone working in the health care industry. It all just needs to be controlled so that private corporations don't bleed the system to death.

[Astounded]

[QUOTE who="I challenge everyone to stop taking our elected officials word at face value, and start doing your own research on these important issues. Ask others for their thoughts. Listen to various programs that are not biased. Look at politicians voting history, let your findings paint a picture of these people. This is the only way to see thru the propaganda and BS. Good luck to you all.[/QUOTE]

Holy Chit! I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harriet to be deciding what my health care plan is to be. Obama is the smartest president we have had in a long time and if he can't figure it out then no one can. Ours is not a do-it-yourself government!

[Jack Wilson]

I want everyone involved in healthcare delivery to make a profit. Profit is good.

[We the people]

Astounded wrote:

<quoted text>
Holy Chit! I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harriet to be deciding what my health care plan is to be. Obama is the smartest president we have had in a long time and if he can't figure it out then no one can. Ours is not a do-it-yourself government!

What is Obamas IQ? What are the previous president's IQs? Data that you should have to support your statement regarding how smart he is. That is, if you relate intelligence to being smart. Questionable, but I am waiting on your answer.(mine is 136 btw)

No, you want the government to decide for you dont you? I think it would be better for me to dcecide, rather than being forced into a state run health care system where my doctor has no say as to what is best for me.

do-it-yourself government? please xplain what that means? Im kinda disconnected from your logic. Surely you dont contradict the Bill of Rights with this startement do you? Im just asking!

[We the people]

i didn't spell check, and i know i fat-fingered a few words. sorry.

[We the people]

I think the ROOT CAUSE of healthcare issues can be traced back to the amount of bogus lawsuits that clog the system. Let us not forget that Obama and his wife are both lawyers.

And everytime a bogus lawsuit is decided in favor of a bogus victim, insurance pays the claim and passes the costs to the insured. Doctors malpractice insurance has also been raised, significantly!

[Bamafan]

We the people wrote:

i didn't spell check, and i know i fat-fingered a few words. sorry.

Couple that with your lack of grammatical skills and I'd guess they left out basic English on your IQ exam.

[YouHelpFixIt]

Jack Wilson wrote:

I want everyone involved in healthcare delivery to make a profit. Profit is good.

No profit is evil. We should abolish money altogether and set up a system based on giving everyone what they say they need when they say they need it. Lets start with your money and go from there. Don't worry, we have the most caring people in charge and they will surely know what is best for us. What could possibly go wrong when we start out with such good intentions?

;)

[We the people]

Bamafan wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple that with your lack of grammatical skills and I'd guess they left out basic English on your IQ exam.

Where did I goof the grammer?

[Brian Jones]

Happy Independence Day!

Could be our last!
With the obummer socialist, Marxist liberal dictatorship coming at us full force, next year at this time it could be.

Unhappy Socialist Dictators Day!

Boy have the liberals turned this once great and strong country into a bunch of whiny, wimpy gimme every thing for nothing obummer lemmings.

You fools, obummer is DESTROYING the USA!

Hey lemmings, concept, try earning something, you may just respect it and your self.

[progressive]

Bamafan wrote:

why is it so hard for you to see that the gov't plan will crush the insurance industry? This is not free enterprise you moron. The gov't doesn't have to (nor will it ever) make a profit, so any other non-gov't competitor is at a huge disadvantage. This is why the US files trade grievances against countries that dump gov't money into steel, autos, airplanes and other items that leave US manufacturers at a disadvantage to compete. And your last point is simply astounding in its juvenile nature. Without profit you wouldn't find anyone to go into the health care business to begin with.

Health care is one thing, and health insurance is another. Health insurance can be public, and health care private. The insurance companies are profiteering, at the expense of public health, and using their political clout to oppose the public care option. Plus, Administrative costs cut into the profit of the private insurers.

[progressive]

hsr0601 wrote:

The independently-funded healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012.'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.
Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.
The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.
The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.
Thank You !

What a helpful comment! Thank you!

[Justa Person]

We the people wrote:

I think the ROOT CAUSE of healthcare issues can be traced back to the amount of bogus lawsuits that clog the system. Let us not forget that Obama and his wife are both lawyers.
And everytime a bogus lawsuit is decided in favor of a bogus victim, insurance pays the claim and passes the costs to the insured. Doctors malpractice insurance has also been raised, significantly!

Maybe you should check your doctor's I.Q. Or your bogus lawyer's I.Q. Or the I.Q. of your plumber. Or your mailman. Sheez.

[progressive]

Jack Wilson wrote:

I want everyone involved in healthcare delivery to make a profit. Profit is good.

What about the insurance companies involved in denial of payment for certain types of health care (which they determine), or denial of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions? Would you settle for adequate and fair salaries of everyone providing heaalthcare - more income for nurses, for example, and less for cEO's of insurance companies and big drug companies? or is that anti-capitalist?

[progressive]

We the people wrote:

i didn't spell check, and i know i fat-fingered a few words. sorry.

I don't approve of grammar police. They are more offensive than typos. Only time grammar police are justified is in retaliation for someone who criticizes another person for a typo or error of grammar. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation can be taken into account when it is obvious that they are not typos, or a result of fast fingers (and draggy ones, or ones that don't strike hard enough).[Selectric typewriter keyboard was a geat keyboard, and one company is still making it, because it was so excellent.] I did not even check, to see what your mistake was, before defending you. I just have a single standard against grammar police, except in rare circumstances. If a person acts high-handed, and also has lousy attitudes and opinions, or obscene or insulting phrases, then that person's mistakes in grammar, etc. may be cited as further evidence of lack of credibility. But the attack on grammar may not be used against someone who merely disagrees, without being mean in any way. That is what I try to do, anyway. I do tend to retaliate rather harshly when attacked in a nasty way, but some disagreements are really interesting!

[progressive]

I read your comment at #l7. I disagree with you. Your comment was too simplistic. If you are nasty some other time, I'll be annoyed that you use such a wonderful name, and yet discredit it. That would offend me more than bad grammar. But if you are civil, and merely are too simplistic or right-wing in your views, I see no reason to be nasty to you first!