The Government and Universal Healthcare

[johnrocks]

Could you tell me just how much your universal healthcare is going to cost? Can you tell me if i'm going to be forced to pay through taxes for this socialist venture? If I am going to be forced to pay, could you tell me how much? Also, will you guarantee that these costs are fixed, and won't be going up as we fail in this venture? I just want to know because I will be paying for my own insurance, also. I need to know how much my finacial freedom is going to suffer, because of your so called worthy cause.

If you've have read my posts you would know that I am not advocating any one particular system but the concept in general. First, I would take umberage with characterization as a socialist system, but alas that is just symantics. Second, because there is no system designed or even studied, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, your specific questions as to cost are moot with the exception that would be a given, a national healthcare system would be more cost effective and cheaper than our current "system." As to whether or not costs will be fixed, of course they won't be. No costs in any system are fixed. This question is ridiculous in its very premise. Yes, you would be forced to pay, at least partially, for this system, without universal shared costs it really wouldn't be a universal health system would it?

The question I must ask anyone who is staunchly against a national healthcare plan is this; should we get rid of Medicare? Almost every retiree in America relies on it and it is government run. All of us will rely on Medicare at some point, unless we die before retirement age, so who here wants to get rid of it and pay their own way for healthcare throught their retirement years?

When people object to national healthcare, they almost always use the argument that it will cost more than what they currently have. My question is how could it cost more when we already pay double what anyone else pays throughout the rest of the world? Based on our current system and all of its failures, we know that costs under this system will continue to outpace inflation, which will result in a greater portion of everyone's budget going toward healthcare.

Again, my argument isn't so much for national healthcare for the reason of fairness or that it will provide better service. It is a matter of cost and reducing those costs. If national healthcare will reduce the overall cost, then we can take the extra savings a put those toward private insurance for those who choose to do so. In a combined system of government and private insurance, the private insurance becomes much cheaper because only certain things need be covered under that insurance.

I think it as well as Medicade and the SCHIP should be phased out, it would not be fair to just pull the rug so to speak on millions that were forced upon the reservation.

 

[Chris]

It is incredibly stupid that we don't have a single payer healthcare system. It is killing our competitiveness in the world economy because our businesses have to pay for healthcare. Plus our healthcare is almost TWICE AS EXPENSIVE as everyone else's. When are people going to understand that they are being screwed by the liability lawyers, the drug companies, and the insurance companies?

 

[auditor0007]

Which means some bureaucrat, who certainly does not have medical training, is going to decide what healthcare you get on the government's dime. It happens with insurance companies now, because they have a bunch of bean-counters deciding what they will and won't pay for, and it'll happen in spades with the government, which can out-bureaucracy any private business.

This is just irrational, unsubtantiated fear. You state that in a government run national healthcare system that it would be the bureaucrats dictating what level of care you recieve. This is nonsense. A system can be and has been disigned in other places that prevents that exact kind of interference. You ask me to use my head for something more than to seperate my ears? I ask you to use your head for something other than a repository for every fear mongering, emotional appeal laden crap that is put out as talking points.



I would suggest you reread what I wrote or else find a good book on reading comprehension. This isn't about me, are you really that daft? This is about the labor force. A healthy stable labor force is absolutely vital to the success of capital markets. A national healthcare system provides a healthy labor pool which is more stable and it has the added benefit of saving the cost that the companies would otherwise be forced to foot in order to ensure that healthy stable labor. Good God this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!



And again...yawn...I have explained why I think that the healthcare system is a matter of public use. Neither you nor DiverDave have offered any logical reason, other than unfounded, fear laiden talking points to refute this.



You'd lose...big suprise.

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

Who seeks utopia? How about just a logical functioning system that is both cost effective and well managed. Far from utopia. a few points on your little story board here. First, you can find patients delayed for surgery all over the U.S. sometimes for no other reason than nice junket to good to pass up came up. Second, you can go to any major city newspaper and find multiple stories about how a particular hospital in that city is killing their heart patients due to malpractice, this means absolutely nothing. Third, every time I get into a debate about universal healthcare the same old arguments appear, not the least of which is the just wait 10 years when the system is bankrupt, just wait you'll see. That argument has been made since many of the European countries turned to national healthcare. You can find arguments similar to this from about oh...1948 on. Just wait another 10 years when the system bankrupts...pfft.

You aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

Whether you support it or not, whether you like it or not, we are eventually going to have some form of universal healthcare. Under our private system, costs have skyrocketed to percentages of income that are becoming unbearable. Most people realize when the federal government runs something, it turns out to be a mess. On the other hand, state run programs usually run much better as the oversight is closer to home and the programs are not quite as large. It would make much more sense to have the states run their programs separately rather than having the feds run the entire program.

Eventually, those who oppose national healthcare will find themselves without much say in how these programs are developed, unless they become involved with the process now. If you want to keep some form of private insurance available, then work on solutions that would support a dual system. Otherwise, we might end up with something like the Canadian system which is the last thing I want, and I support nationalized healthcare, but I don't want Canada's system because the choice of private insurance is not available. Everyone has to use the public system as that is the only thing available. That is the main reason some people from Canada choose to come to the US. If they allowed for a private insurance as an add-on for those who wanted it, then they would not have to come to the US.

In the UK, everyone has access to the public system. It has it's flaws. Those who choose can purchase private insurance. By doing so, they are seen by doctors much quicker; they get preferential treatment. The cost for private insurance is nowhere near as high as it is in the US because people with private insurance still use the public system for many of their health needs. Doctors will bill the government for certain things even when the individual has private insurance. Under this system, everyone has coverage, but some have better coverage. Even with the better coverage, it costs much less than what we pay for here in the US.

 

[auditor0007]

yw, free market is by far the best. I pay like $50 office visits to an old fashioned free market doc.

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

High Deductible health insurance. A 50 year old male can get a Blue Cross policy that provides 5 million in lifetime protection with $5000 yearly out of pocket for $71 a month in my zip code. There's not a hospital in America that won't work with you if not waive that $5000 if they get the other $500000 from your stay intheir fine facility from cancer,heart attacks,accidents etc.

What if that 50 year old male needs $15,000 worth of medical care per year, and still needs the longterm protection? Now top that off with the fact he only makes $30,000 per year. Now let's say this man wants to start his own business. Since he has a pre-existing condition, he can't get any insurance even though he had been covered in the past by his former employer. What should he do? Or maybe he has a private health plan, but now he wants to move out of state. The insurance company he is with isn't licensed in the state he is moving to, and since he has a pre-existing condition, he cannot get health insurance. Tough luck for him I guess. Good thing it's not you.

 

[johnrocks]

This is just irrational, unsubtantiated fear. You state that in a government run national healthcare system that it would be the bureaucrats dictating what level of care you recieve. This is nonsense. A system can be and has been disigned in other places that prevents that exact kind of interference. You ask me to use my head for something more than to seperate my ears? I ask you to use your head for something other than a repository for every fear mongering, emotional appeal laden crap that is put out as talking points.



I would suggest you reread what I wrote or else find a good book on reading comprehension. This isn't about me, are you really that daft? This is about the labor force. A healthy stable labor force is absolutely vital to the success of capital markets. A national healthcare system provides a healthy labor pool which is more stable and it has the added benefit of saving the cost that the companies would otherwise be forced to foot in order to ensure that healthy stable labor. Good God this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!



And again...yawn...I have explained why I think that the healthcare system is a matter of public use. Neither you nor DiverDave have offered any logical reason, other than unfounded, fear laiden talking points to refute this.



You'd lose...big suprise.



Who seeks utopia? How about just a logical functioning system that is both cost effective and well managed. Far from utopia. a few points on your little story board here. First, you can find patients delayed for surgery all over the U.S. sometimes for no other reason than nice junket to good to pass up came up. Second, you can go to any major city newspaper and find multiple stories about how a particular hospital in that city is killing their heart patients due to malpractice, this means absolutely nothing. Third, every time I get into a debate about universal healthcare the same old arguments appear, not the least of which is the just wait 10 years when the system is bankrupt, just wait you'll see. That argument has been made since many of the European countries turned to national healthcare. You can find arguments similar to this from about oh...1948 on. Just wait another 10 years when the system bankrupts...pfft.

You aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

Whether you support it or not, whether you like it or not, we are eventually going to have some form of universal healthcare. Under our private system, costs have skyrocketed to percentages of income that are becoming unbearable. Most people realize when the federal government runs something, it turns out to be a mess. On the other hand, state run programs usually run much better as the oversight is closer to home and the programs are not quite as large. It would make much more sense to have the states run their programs separately rather than having the feds run the entire program.

Eventually, those who oppose national healthcare will find themselves without much say in how these programs are developed, unless they become involved with the process now. If you want to keep some form of private insurance available, then work on solutions that would support a dual system. Otherwise, we might end up with something like the Canadian system which is the last thing I want, and I support nationalized healthcare, but I don't want Canada's system because the choice of private insurance is not available. Everyone has to use the public system as that is the only thing available. That is the main reason some people from Canada choose to come to the US. If they allowed for a private insurance as an add-on for those who wanted it, then they would not have to come to the US.

In the UK, everyone has access to the public system. It has it's flaws. Those who choose can purchase private insurance. By doing so, they are seen by doctors much quicker; they get preferential treatment. The cost for private insurance is nowhere near as high as it is in the US because people with private insurance still use the public system for many of their health needs. Doctors will bill the government for certain things even when the individual has private insurance. Under this system, everyone has coverage, but some have better coverage. Even with the better coverage, it costs much less than what we pay for here in the US.

I agree it's going to happen, I was talking philosophically on weather I thought UHC was good and I am convinced the free market works best, insurance companies as well as the Insurance Association is already on board, Warren Buffett is an insurance giant and won't have his buds left out in the cold.

 

[johnrocks]

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

High Deductible health insurance. A 50 year old male can get a Blue Cross policy that provides 5 million in lifetime protection with $5000 yearly out of pocket for $71 a month in my zip code. There's not a hospital in America that won't work with you if not waive that $5000 if they get the other $500000 from your stay intheir fine facility from cancer,heart attacks,accidents etc.

What if that 50 year old male needs $15,000 worth of medical care per year, and still needs the longterm protection? Now top that off with the fact he only makes $30,000 per year. Now let's say this man wants to start his own business. Since he has a pre-existing condition, he can't get any insurance even though he had been covered in the past by his former employer. What should he do? Or maybe he has a private health plan, but now he wants to move out of state. The insurance company he is with isn't licensed in the state he is moving to, and since he has a pre-existing condition, he cannot get health insurance. Tough luck for him I guess. Good thing it's not you.

Long Term Care is very affordable if you plan ahead and if government didn't act like a safety net, these costs would be even more affordable. Those laws that forbid insurance plans to be sold nationally should be abolished, one of the reasons this does not take place though is some States are more interventionist than others, for example California mandates 51 different benefits the bare min. policy can have so if I want just basic coverage and live in Ca., tough apples, I got to have one with those benefits i may not even want such as Physician co pays or a women in her 20's has to have maternity, those should be options that you pay extra for, like leather in a car versus cloth.

 

[auditor0007]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

Well, let's see; we pay $7200 per year for healthcare. Canadians pay $4000 approximately. It really doesn't matter where the money comes from; in the end, the Canadians pay much less than us. Now, if they want better healthcare with their current system, they can choose to pay more. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine how much more they would have to spend to make things better within their current system. Maybe they should allow for private health insurance as a rider so that they can offer more services.

The problem with the Canadian system is that the entire system is run, managed, and paid for by the government. The doctors are paid directly by the government as they have no private patients. In order to keep costs within the budget, the government restricts the number of doctors and so forth. This is something we don't want.

While I support a national plan that is paid for by the government, I do not want to see doctors and hospitals being managed by the government. This is why I would support a dual system where some things are paid for by the government and others by through private insurance. Basically, give everyone a basic package. If you want the gold package, you pay extra through your insurance.

 

[auditor0007]

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

That's why seniors are taking buses to Canada and Mexico to buy their drugs.

and ONLY the drugs
because Canadian tax dollars are subsidizing them
how much longer do you think that will be allowed?

It's not so much that the drug prices are being subsidized as it is that the government caps how much the insurance companies may charge. We are the only country in the world that pays whatever the drug companies ask.

This is what upsets me about our goverenment. I am not so much upset that we pay full price for these drugs as I am that these companies will sell the same drugs to these other countries at a reduced price. In the end, Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and that is ridiculous.

I have an easy solution to this. We should pass a law capping the price of any drug to the average price it is sold for outside of the US. Tell the pharmaceutical companies if they want to charge us more, than charge everyone else more. If all these other countries paid a fair price for these drugs, we wouldn't have to subsidize them by paying more for them. I'm not big on capping prices on anything. However, when these companies accept those caps from other countries, why should we foot the bill for them?

 

[DiveCon]

That's why seniors are taking buses to Canada and Mexico to buy their drugs.

and ONLY the drugs
because Canadian tax dollars are subsidizing them
how much longer do you think that will be allowed?

It's not so much that the drug prices are being subsidized as it is that the government caps how much the insurance companies may charge. We are the only country in the world that pays whatever the drug companies ask.

This is what upsets me about our goverenment. I am not so much upset that we pay full price for these drugs as I am that these companies will sell the same drugs to these other countries at a reduced price. In the end, Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and that is ridiculous.

I have an easy solution to this. We should pass a law capping the price of any drug to the average price it is sold for outside of the US. Tell the pharmaceutical companies if they want to charge us more, than charge everyone else more. If all these other countries paid a fair price for these drugs, we wouldn't have to subsidize them by paying more for them. I'm not big on capping prices on anything. However, when these companies accept those caps from other countries, why should we foot the bill for them?

oh, i agree
they should not be charging US Citizens more for the same drugs

 

[auditor0007]

This doesn't relate directly to a pro or con concerning national healthcare. I'm just curious how many of you understand how expensive healthcare actually is, and if you do, whether you question why it is so expensive. My wife was diagnosed with leukemia in 2001. She had chemo, then she had a stem cell transplant, then ten months after being diagnosed, she died. Anyone want to take a guess at the total price that the insurance company paid? Keep in mind, the insurance companies only pay around 60% of what is actually billed. To help in figuring out the total, I'll tell you that she spent a little less than half of those ten months in the hospital. The rest of the time she was at home.

 

[johnrocks]

This doesn't relate directly to a pro or con concerning national healthcare. I'm just curious how many of you understand how expensive healthcare actually is, and if you do, whether you question why it is so expensive. My wife was diagnosed with leukemia in 2001. She had chemo, then she had a stem cell transplant, then ten months after being diagnosed, she died. Anyone want to take a guess at the total price that the insurance company paid? Keep in mind, the insurance companies only pay around 60% of what is actually billed. To help in figuring out the total, I'll tell you that she spent a little less than half of those ten months in the hospital. The rest of the time she was at home.

Sorry about your loss. My Dad was sick for the last 20 yearsof his life with strokes but then got lung cancer and passed in 2000, I know how expensive, I though am convinced it's from government intervention, not the free market, we have not had a free market in health care in 60 years.

 

[johnrocks]

and ONLY the drugs
because Canadian tax dollars are subsidizing them
how much longer do you think that will be allowed?

It's not so much that the drug prices are being subsidized as it is that the government caps how much the insurance companies may charge. We are the only country in the world that pays whatever the drug companies ask.

This is what upsets me about our goverenment. I am not so much upset that we pay full price for these drugs as I am that these companies will sell the same drugs to these other countries at a reduced price. In the end, Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and that is ridiculous.

I have an easy solution to this. We should pass a law capping the price of any drug to the average price it is sold for outside of the US. Tell the pharmaceutical companies if they want to charge us more, than charge everyone else more. If all these other countries paid a fair price for these drugs, we wouldn't have to subsidize them by paying more for them. I'm not big on capping prices on anything. However, when these companies accept those caps from other countries, why should we foot the bill for them?

oh, i agree
they should not be charging US Citizens more for the same drugs

I read as much as 40% of the cost is from government regulations. I had rather pay than to see drug research compromised, $50 for a bottle of xanax for glaucoma that is about a themble full is a small price to pay for my eyesight, I would not appreciate looking likeall the time.

 

[DiveCon]

It's not so much that the drug prices are being subsidized as it is that the government caps how much the insurance companies may charge. We are the only country in the world that pays whatever the drug companies ask.

This is what upsets me about our goverenment. I am not so much upset that we pay full price for these drugs as I am that these companies will sell the same drugs to these other countries at a reduced price. In the end, Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and that is ridiculous.

I have an easy solution to this. We should pass a law capping the price of any drug to the average price it is sold for outside of the US. Tell the pharmaceutical companies if they want to charge us more, than charge everyone else more. If all these other countries paid a fair price for these drugs, we wouldn't have to subsidize them by paying more for them. I'm not big on capping prices on anything. However, when these companies accept those caps from other countries, why should we foot the bill for them?

oh, i agree
they should not be charging US Citizens more for the same drugs

I read as much as 40% of the cost is from government regulations. I had rather pay than to see drug research compromised, $50 for a bottle of xanax for glaucoma that is about a themble full is a small price to pay for my eyesight, I would not appreciate looking likeall the time.

even if they are selling it to Canadians for $20 a bottle?
remember, they more than likely got US tax dollars to fund some, if not all, their research

 

[johnrocks]

oh, i agree
they should not be charging US Citizens more for the same drugs

I read as much as 40% of the cost is from government regulations. I had rather pay than to see drug research compromised, $50 for a bottle of xanax for glaucoma that is about a themble full is a small price to pay for my eyesight, I would not appreciate looking likeall the time.

even if they are selling it to Canadians for $20 a bottle?
remember, they more than likely got US tax dollars to fund some, if not all, their research

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

 

[DiveCon]

I read as much as 40% of the cost is from government regulations. I had rather pay than to see drug research compromised, $50 for a bottle of xanax for glaucoma that is about a themble full is a small price to pay for my eyesight, I would not appreciate looking likeall the time.

even if they are selling it to Canadians for $20 a bottle?
remember, they more than likely got US tax dollars to fund some, if not all, their research

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

not sure where you are going with this

are you saying the prices are higher here because the government is making them charge more?

 

[johnrocks]

even if they are selling it to Canadians for $20 a bottle?
remember, they more than likely got US tax dollars to fund some, if not all, their research

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

not sure where you are going with this

are you saying the prices are higher here because the government is making them charge more?

No, governments elsewhere cap the prices so they charge more here to recoup the costs and make a profit.

 

[DiveCon]

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

not sure where you are going with this

are you saying the prices are higher here because the government is making them charge more?

No, governments elsewhere cap the prices so they charge more here to recoup the costs and make a profit.

well, in that case
the drug companies should just say fine, we wont sell drugs in your coutry if we cant make a reasonable profit to pay for future R&D

 

[auditor0007]

I read as much as 40% of the cost is from government regulations. I had rather pay than to see drug research compromised, $50 for a bottle of xanax for glaucoma that is about a themble full is a small price to pay for my eyesight, I would not appreciate looking likeall the time.

even if they are selling it to Canadians for $20 a bottle?
remember, they more than likely got US tax dollars to fund some, if not all, their research

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

Then the drug companies would sell them to us at a lower price, or force these other countries to pay more, or stop producing certain drugs. The fact is that these drug companies spend double on marketing and administration than they do on R & D. In fact, profits are greater than the amount they spend on R & D.

http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html

But it still gets back to the fact that Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world. Americans cover all of their costs, and the sale of their drugs to the rest of the world is just gravy even at the much lower prices they accept from everyone else.

If drug prices are capped in the US, the drug companies will tell everyone what the minimum price is that they can sell the drug for. Do you think Canada, Europe, and Japan will deny their own people valuable drugs or will they foot their fair share of the bill? I'll take the chance that they'll begin to pay more.

 

[auditor0007]

Like you said earlier, price controls, we are the release valve so to speak since most others if not all have controls, what would happen if ours were capped?

not sure where you are going with this

are you saying the prices are higher here because the government is making them charge more?

No, governments elsewhere cap the prices so they charge more here to recoup the costs and make a profit.

That is exactly my point, and it needs to stop. The only way it will stop is if we force the drug companies to change the way they look at all of their markets. Let's look at it from a different angle. If we cap prices like every other country, are the drug companies just going to close their doors? Are other countries going to go without if they are forced to pay more? I believe the answer to both questions is "highly unlikely".

 

[smb15]

Are you talking about the same government that has raided social security on the no payback plan? Is this the same government that has screwed up medicare, and medicaid? Is this the same government that has screwed up the welfare program??? Is this the same government that has set us back in energy independence? I don't think that a bunch of lawyers are up for the task of running a trillion dollar industry proficiently. This is the same government who has done studies, come up with a cost, pass it in congress, and the senate, have it signed by the president. Then it ended up triple the cost. Now this is reality...not "pie in the sky."

First, you speak as if the "government" isn't directly responsible to and reflective of our society. Was it the government that raided social security on the "no payback plan?" No. It was the society at large. We were continually presented with choices in our elections. Choices that included things like whether or not the "government" should raid social security funds. We continually voted people in who thought that that question was a joke that should be ridiculed, or called the people supporting the notion as quacks or goofs. Was it the government that screwed up medicare and medicaid? Well I suppose it speaks to which government you speak of. Medicaid is a state managed program with shared funds. While your state medicaid system may be crap, I doubt very seriously you can speak for all 50 programs. Some of which are managed very well. As far as Medicare, there are challenges to be sure but most of those challenges occur as part of lack of oversight for the program. The oversight of the program that is and has been conitinually cut in favor of retaining benefits while not increasing spending on the system. It is also part and parcel of the last 20 or so years of anti-regulation, anti-oversight paradigm which has permeated througout all levels of our society. So it is a no-brainer that the government will directly reflect this. As far as screwing up welfare...well I played your generalities game enough. Here I must ask for specifics on what you think is screwed up otherwise an intelligent response is impossible. As far as a bunch lawyers running a trillion dollar industry...more sound bite crap...more irrational fear crap. Who said it would be a bunch of lawyers? Again please try and drop the sound bite material and argue real points. As to the triple the cost of some undeclared bill. Without specifics it is really diffucult to respond intelligently. I would ask you to provide a specific bill in which this occurred.