Equality for All!!!

[Navy1960]

I can think of several that come to mind at least for those of us that have insurance. Home, Life, Auto Heath, I would in my mind call that a much needed service, should I be required to pay for any one of those things for any reason. On my car. if it breaks down, it's through my insruance company that I have services that offer tow service. Its though my insurance company that offer hotlines for me to call should I have any questions on medical services. You see Care , I don't see Insurance companies as the big bad demons that some people see them as. I see them as companies that need to be regulated yes. I also feel that Congress both Republican and Democrat and done a pretty poor job of it.

 

[dilloduck]

Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective. Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in? Or just the few people who can't afford housing?

It justifies them offering public housing...which oh hey, they already do.

So why can't they offer public healthcare?

Maybe because they have seen what happens to areas with public housing ?

 

[Care4all]

The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

so, they truly have a model where they don't have nearly the costs of taking care of us as is implied....they only cover the, for the most part, healthy...the elderly costs have been put on the tax payer with medicare.... adding more healthy for the most part, people to the insurance rolls will reduce the cost of health care, if done right... i can see the business model where this actually is feasible....

I could sell a shoe for less money, if I bought a lot more of it to sell in the same period of time and still come out, equally profitable....

selling 100 prs with $4 bucks profit

or

Selling 200 prs with $2 bucks profit

6 or one half dozen...I made my profit goal.

NOT that I am all set on Obama's plan....I honestly don't know enough details and would need to spend a day or two or three really analyzing it.....

All I am saying is that it is feasible, that health care insurance costs, would reduce if we added 40 million to the insurance rolls...

care

 

[dilloduck]

The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

so, they truly have a model where they don't have nearly the costs of taking care of us as is implied....they only cover the, for the most part, healthy...the elderly costs have been put on the tax payer with medicare.... adding more healthy for the most part, people to the insurance rolls will reduce the cost of health care, if done right... i can see the business model where this actually is feasible....

I could sell a shoe for less money, if I bought a lot more of it to sell in the same period of time and still come out, equally profitable....

selling 100 prs with $4 bucks profit

or

Selling 200 prs with $2 bucks profit

6 or one half dozen...I made my profit goal.

NOT that I am all set on Obama's plan....I honestly don't know enough details and would need to spend a day or two or three really analyzing it.....

All I am saying is that it is feasible, that health care insurance costs, would reduce if we added 40 million to the insurance rolls...

care

And you will get what you pay for.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

Not to mention begat us taxpayers and our children this wonderful monstrosity too boot

Source: The Real National Debt

 

[Navy1960]

First things first Care thank you for the welcome back , I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs is not a new one and is actually a good idea. However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies. As for other post on caps on liability awards thats kind of a sticky area.

A divided Texas Supreme Court found March 6 that an exception to the state’s malpractice damages cap that allows further recovery when a liability insurer negligently fails to settle claims, applies only to insurers and does not apply to physicians.

The high court explained that, under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of 1977 (Act), one provision caps the liability of physicians above a fixed amount, and a second provision creates an exception to this cap when the physician’s insurer has negligently failed to settle a claim within the limits of the physician’s liability policy.
Texas high court says liability cap applies to physicians, not insurers - - Medical Economics | Practice Management

The Ohio Supreme Court this week upheld the constitutionality of a state law that limits the amount of damages that may be awarded to injured persons who win product-liability lawsuits.
In a 5-2 opinion, a majority of the Court ruled that caps on non-economic and punitive damages do not violate a right to jury, due process, equal protection, or the single subject rule of the Ohio Constitution.

The law in question was enacted by the Ohio legislature in 2004 to address concerns of the business community about excessive product liability and general business lawsuits. The business groups argued that Ohio's liability climate was detrimental to Ohio's economic vitality.

The Supreme Court's decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson affects cases involving allegedly defective products and medications, as well as wrongful-death, injury and employment-discrimination claims. It does not apply to medical-malpractice lawsuits, although the General Assembly also has capped damages in those cases.

"While this opinion does not relate directly to the OSMA-championed medical liability reform, it is notable that the Ohio Supreme Court deferred to the General Assembly in upholding the business product liability tort reform package," said Tim Maglione, Senior Director of Government Relations for the Ohio State Medical Association.

"The Court's reasoning in this case should bolster the argument that medical liability caps are also constitutional," Maglione added

Cap On Product Liability Lawsuits Upheld By The Ohio Supreme Court - 12/28/07 - Ohio State Medical Association

What I'm sure will happen in a case like this is you will have a sure fire constitutional fight on your hands with the trial lawyers on one side and the Doctors on the other. It appears though with the exception if Oregon from what I can see that these caps state by state seem to found constitutional. It does appear that exceptions have been made in some cases. From my reading this is a state issue, but my suggestion was that under the commerce clause where an insurance provider who provides services state to state congress does have the authority to regulate them as they see fit.

 

[Care4all]

I can think of several that come to mind at least for those of us that have insurance. Home, Life, Auto Heath, I would in my mind call that a much needed service, should I be required to pay for any one of those things for any reason. On my car. if it breaks down, it's through my insruance company that I have services that offer tow service. Its though my insurance company that offer hotlines for me to call should I have any questions on medical services. You see Care , I don't see Insurance companies as the big bad demons that some people see them as. I see them as companies that need to be regulated yes. I also feel that Congress both Republican and Democrat and done a pretty poor job of it.

for your car, call a towing service or two to get the best price to tow it....?

for your medical questions or services, call the hospital or your doctor... if on Medicare, you call them, I suppose....the elderly love their medicare and for the most part, don't seem to object to it, what so ever....

The insurance company is the middle man, taking his take for nothing other than processing paper....

Hey, i am sitting here, with my one and only visit to the doctor in the last 5 years, while paying around $10 grand a year for mine and matt's insurance coverage including his employer's share, and my Insurance company is refusing to pay the bill...it has been a year and a half and they now have gone to a collection agency, which will force me and matt to pay the $1800 dollars that the insurance company should have paid, (so that we don't ruin our credit rating), according to how we read the policy....

I don't adore the health insurance companies as you do....

Care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But what exactly do you suggest Navy? What is your sollution to the Health care problems we have in this country? Care

Golly... let's see, what could POSSIBLY be the solution to the problem which comes from government intervention, massive regulatory and liability expense?

Hmm...

MAN! Now that is a REAL TOUGHY...

MAYBE the solution would be to QUADRUPAL DOWN on the amount of government intervention, regulatory and liability expenses?

HEY! What if we completely SCRAP ANY System except one the government provides...

Gee... I dunno, something about that just doesn't seem to serve reason... what did I miss I wonder?

Do you see anything that I might have missed Care?

 

[Navy1960]

I just don't understand the logic there, by adding 40 million people to health insurance you reduce costs? Reduce costs to whom? When you mandate these 40 million people to medical insurance what you will have is an increased tax burden because over 90% of them will be on tax payer funded healthcare so how does that reduce costs when it adds to the deficit a tremendeous amount of money that it is cannot bare. Still further, by mandating an additional 40 miilion people Care in what way does that effect the costs of service delivery? Of course the Hospitals and Doctors who provide the services will be paid and thats a good thing, however, that doesn't reduce the fee's in which they charge for services. The fact is the only thing that will bring down costs are competetion and reducing the number of unpaid claims together without forcing the taxpayers to share the burden of paying for it. Make no mistake, if this plan goes through, you and I will share a responsibility for these unpaid claims that in California alone just for illegal immigrants last year was 1.5 billion dollars. You see Care if we don't solve the whole issue and thats costs, and do so in a manner that is within the framework of our form of Govt. we will never solve this problem and will remain a burden on the taxpayers and this nation for yers to come.

 

[Care4all]

First things first Care thank you for the welcome back , I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs is not a new one and is actually a good idea. However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies. As for other post on caps on liability awards thats kind of a sticky area.

A divided Texas Supreme Court found March 6 that an exception to the state’s malpractice damages cap that allows further recovery when a liability insurer negligently fails to settle claims, applies only to insurers and does not apply to physicians.

The high court explained that, under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of 1977 (Act), one provision caps the liability of physicians above a fixed amount, and a second provision creates an exception to this cap when the physician’s insurer has negligently failed to settle a claim within the limits of the physician’s liability policy.
Texas high court says liability cap applies to physicians, not insurers - - Medical Economics | Practice Management

The Ohio Supreme Court this week upheld the constitutionality of a state law that limits the amount of damages that may be awarded to injured persons who win product-liability lawsuits.
In a 5-2 opinion, a majority of the Court ruled that caps on non-economic and punitive damages do not violate a right to jury, due process, equal protection, or the single subject rule of the Ohio Constitution.

The law in question was enacted by the Ohio legislature in 2004 to address concerns of the business community about excessive product liability and general business lawsuits. The business groups argued that Ohio's liability climate was detrimental to Ohio's economic vitality.

The Supreme Court's decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson affects cases involving allegedly defective products and medications, as well as wrongful-death, injury and employment-discrimination claims. It does not apply to medical-malpractice lawsuits, although the General Assembly also has capped damages in those cases.

"While this opinion does not relate directly to the OSMA-championed medical liability reform, it is notable that the Ohio Supreme Court deferred to the General Assembly in upholding the business product liability tort reform package," said Tim Maglione, Senior Director of Government Relations for the Ohio State Medical Association.

"The Court's reasoning in this case should bolster the argument that medical liability caps are also constitutional," Maglione added

Cap On Product Liability Lawsuits Upheld By The Ohio Supreme Court - 12/28/07 - Ohio State Medical Association

What I'm sure will happen in a case like this is you will have a sure fire constitutional fight on your hands with the trial lawyers on one side and the Doctors on the other. It appears though with the exception if Oregon from what I can see that these caps state by state seem to found constitutional. It does appear that exceptions have been made in some cases. From my reading this is a state issue, but my suggestion was that under the commerce clause where an insurance provider who provides services state to state congress does have the authority to regulate them as they see fit.

But if they can cap insurance liability, then they certainly can cap the prices charged by hospitals and doctors for care....isn't this the slippery slope you and others don't want to see because it stifles advancement and the free market to work on its own?

Also, still without fully reading everything yet as a caveat, haven't I read that the states that put caps because it was suppose to lower their health care costs, have seen absolutely no results in such?

Care

 

[toomuchtime_]

Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD. That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next? Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT? Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people? We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

 

[Navy1960]

I can understand Care where people form their opinions on things I really can. I am sorry that your having to go through the things you are going through. I may suggest though that if your insurance company is not paying what they agreed to pay as part of your converage, then perhaps you need to take this to the State board that regulates them. One other suggestion is that I do understand that from a financial point of view its hard, so perhaps you send whatever you can to the institution you are obligated to even if its a dollar to show you are making a good faith effort to pay. That would take away any ground they have to stand on. The main thing here is keep your chin up and work those phones till you find the right person in your state Govt. to bring your insurance company in line . Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not a big fan of the insurance companies, however , I'm a lot less of a fan of my Govt. being the ultimate decision maker and decider in a private enterprise. The fact is this business needs reforming and the Govt. is the right vehicle to reform it. it is not the right vehicle to own it or be in the same business as it is trying to reform,.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

First things first Care thank you for the welcome back , I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs is not a new one and is actually a good idea. However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies. As for other post on caps on liability awards thats kind of a sticky area.

A divided Texas Supreme Court found March 6 that an exception to the state’s malpractice damages cap that allows further recovery when a liability insurer negligently fails to settle claims, applies only to insurers and does not apply to physicians.

The high court explained that, under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of 1977 (Act), one provision caps the liability of physicians above a fixed amount, and a second provision creates an exception to this cap when the physician’s insurer has negligently failed to settle a claim within the limits of the physician’s liability policy.
Texas high court says liability cap applies to physicians, not insurers - - Medical Economics | Practice Management

The Ohio Supreme Court this week upheld the constitutionality of a state law that limits the amount of damages that may be awarded to injured persons who win product-liability lawsuits.
In a 5-2 opinion, a majority of the Court ruled that caps on non-economic and punitive damages do not violate a right to jury, due process, equal protection, or the single subject rule of the Ohio Constitution.

The law in question was enacted by the Ohio legislature in 2004 to address concerns of the business community about excessive product liability and general business lawsuits. The business groups argued that Ohio's liability climate was detrimental to Ohio's economic vitality.

The Supreme Court's decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson affects cases involving allegedly defective products and medications, as well as wrongful-death, injury and employment-discrimination claims. It does not apply to medical-malpractice lawsuits, although the General Assembly also has capped damages in those cases.

"While this opinion does not relate directly to the OSMA-championed medical liability reform, it is notable that the Ohio Supreme Court deferred to the General Assembly in upholding the business product liability tort reform package," said Tim Maglione, Senior Director of Government Relations for the Ohio State Medical Association.

"The Court's reasoning in this case should bolster the argument that medical liability caps are also constitutional," Maglione added

Cap On Product Liability Lawsuits Upheld By The Ohio Supreme Court - 12/28/07 - Ohio State Medical Association

What I'm sure will happen in a case like this is you will have a sure fire constitutional fight on your hands with the trial lawyers on one side and the Doctors on the other. It appears though with the exception if Oregon from what I can see that these caps state by state seem to found constitutional. It does appear that exceptions have been made in some cases. From my reading this is a state issue, but my suggestion was that under the commerce clause where an insurance provider who provides services state to state congress does have the authority to regulate them as they see fit.

But if they can cap insurance liability, then they certainly can cap the prices charged by hospitals and doctors for care....isn't this the slippery slope you and others don't want to see because it stifles advancement and the free market to work on its own?

Also, still without fully reading everything yet as a caveat, haven't I read that the states that put caps because it was suppose to lower their health care costs, have seen absolutely no results in such?

Care

Ahh... so you're saying that YES! the solution to the problem which is caused by government intervention into the private market is to QUADRUPAL DOWN... and INCREASE THAT INTERVENTION EXPONENTIALLY!

Yessir... the history of price fixing has ALWAYS worked... why there's NO EVIDENCE in history which discredits the idea that government should legislate what someone can charge for a service...

In effect meaning that government can cause the COSTS of a delivering a given product to skyrocket, and turn around and LEGISLATE THAT THE PERSON THEY JUST SCREWED WITH REGILATORY EXPENSES, CANNOT INCREASE THE PRICE THEY CHARGE TO DELIVER THAT SERVICE...

Golly... I wonder what could POSSIBLY BE WRONG WITH THAT CALACULATION?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

I just don't understand the logic there, by adding 40 million people to health insurance you reduce costs?

That's big gub'ment think, you need a lobotomy to understand it, perhaps if we get socialized medicine the taxpayers will fund one for you so you can understand the logic of why you needed the taxpayers to fund one for you.

 

[Care4all]

Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD. That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next? Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT? Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people? We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

ok, i'll buy that...but don't be complaining when the government caps all medical prices that can be charged, even for the private sector, outside of medicare....as some will do, and scream foul....or cap what insurance companies can charge us....

 

[MaggieMae]

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get. All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.

Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not.

 

[Care4all]

What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?

To help the insurance industry?

Or to lower "we the people's" health care insurance costs....?

If it is the latter did prices go down for your health insurance?

Because the profits certainly went up for the Insurers....

 

[dilloduck]

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get. All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.

Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not.

That's wise time management and saves energy at the same time .

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I can understand Care where people form their opinions on things I really can. I am sorry that your having to go through the things you are going through. I may suggest though that if your insurance company is not paying what they agreed to pay as part of your converage, then perhaps you need to take this to the State board that regulates them. One other suggestion is that I do understand that from a financial point of view its hard, so perhaps you send whatever you can to the institution you are obligated to even if its a dollar to show you are making a good faith effort to pay. That would take away any ground they have to stand on. The main thing here is keep your chin up and work those phones till you find the right person in your state Govt. to bring your insurance company in line . Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not a big fan of the insurance companies, however , I'm a lot less of a fan of my Govt. being the ultimate decision maker and decider in a private enterprise. The fact is this business needs reforming and the Govt. is the right vehicle to reform it. it is not the right vehicle to own it or be in the same business as it is trying to reform,.

Where there is a contract, which is the case in a insurance policy; the policy holder is rightfully entitled to expect services set forth by that policy.

Care is here to project that she has a policy which provides for services and is not recieiving those services... the odds are that care has a policy which specifically precludes those services; which provided for a reduced premium which she enjoys; but now finds that she needs those services and comes to demand that such be provided.

IF Care, in fact, IS holding a policy which provides for treatment which is being otherwise denied, then the insurance board is a good place to start; with that being a place to go on the way to court... A country civil suit will get that ball rolling and shouldn't take much time. The judge will read the relevant points in the contract policy and if it provides for the treatment, he'll rule in her favor.

Not a complicated issue...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get. All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.

Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not.

That is a close to delusion as one gets... She's either a liar or a fool and as is often the case, one doesn't stem far from the mutual root of the other.

All one needs to know about what the legislation will bring is WHO IS WRITING IT... where the author is those who have historically advocated for greater government intervention in the markets, it is a certainty that the legislation will provide for greater government intervention in the market...

And where it's a certanty that the problem is rooted in government intervention... what more does one need to know, to opposse such?