Heathcare Reform

poopshovel wrote:

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care

I make money. I use the money I make to pay the doctor. How the hell is my neighbor paying for my health care? Please ess-plain.

He's paying for health insurance. You explained it pretty well in your own post. He gets charged more than you do for the same procedures because the hospital has to make up the money they lose providing care for people who can't pay by charging higher rates to those who can.

oldsaw wrote: BTW, everyone in the US has access to medical attention, whether or not they have insurance coverage. It's a prime reason why ER's are crowded and too many hospitals operate at a loss, even though those losses are covered via the tax burden.

Then please read my previous post and explain to me why my girlfriend is still walking with a cane and can't get the treatment she needs, even after the insurance company has agreed to pay all the bills. The system is berkeleyed.

Josh wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care

I make money. I use the money I make to pay the doctor. How the hell is my neighbor paying for my health care? Please ess-plain.

He's paying for health insurance. You explained it pretty well in your own post. He gets charged more than you do for the same procedures because the hospital has to make up the money they lose providing care for people who can't pay by charging higher rates to those who can.

I think you missed the part in his post that he mentioned that he pays for all his treatments.

Where are you going for care? You couldn't get a seat in the doctor's office here for $100. Richmond, Va FYI.

North GA. 40 minutes north of Atlanta. Have you actually called around and asked for a CASH price for services? Would you be willing to drive 40 minutes if it saved you a grand?

Yes, the "insurance" price or "medicaid" prices are inflated. Why? The doctors/hospitals know that not only are they only going to get a fraction of what they bill, but that they're also going to have to pay someone "x"-dollars an hour to fight to get that money.

Obviously, this solution isn't the be-all end-all. I'm just saying that there are other options besides paying out the ass for insurance or sitting in the ER with the messicans.

Corey - The way I see it (SOOOO genuinely sorry to hear this, BTW,) your issue is a legal issue, not an insurance issue. The insurance company can, and should be nailed for f'ing this up. Who would you go after if the gov't was denying 'coverage?'

16vCorey wrote:

Josh wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care

I make money. I use the money I make to pay the doctor. How the hell is my neighbor paying for my health care? Please ess-plain.

He's paying for health insurance. You explained it pretty well in your own post. He gets charged more than you do for the same procedures because the hospital has to make up the money they lose providing care for people who can't pay by charging higher rates to those who can.

I think you missed the part in his post that he mentioned that he pays for all his treatments.

I didn't miss it, but it seems evident that neither party in his decribed scenario is paying the actual cost of their services (nor is the actual cost easy to ascertain). It sounds to me like the doctor in question is offering cut rate services to uninsured patrons as a public service, but in the end someone is paying to keep the place open.

Josh wrote:

16vCorey wrote:

Josh wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care

I make money. I use the money I make to pay the doctor. How the hell is my neighbor paying for my health care? Please ess-plain.

He's paying for health insurance. You explained it pretty well in your own post. He gets charged more than you do for the same procedures because the hospital has to make up the money they lose providing care for people who can't pay by charging higher rates to those who can.

I think you missed the part in his post that he mentioned that he pays for all his treatments.

I didn't miss it, but it seems evident that neither party in his decribed scenario is paying the actual cost of their services (nor is the actual cost easy to ascertain). It sounds to me like the doctor in question is offering cut rate services to uninsured patrons as a public service, but in the end *someone* is paying to keep the place open.

It sounds to me like your logic is more than a little backwards. Surgery took 1/2 hour. If I was grossing $200 an hour CASH, I'd have my catastrophic coverage and HSA back in a heartbeat...and a nicer car. Yes, "someone" is "paying." Guess who's getting paid? The insurance company and the gov't. The doctor gets the scraps.

Seriously. Talk to your doctor. Ask him who he'd rather deal with, Mr. Franklin, the insurance company, or some worthless gov't employee who has no incentive to return phone calls or cut checks. Then ask him/her how much he/she'd be willing to discount the insanely inflated price in order to have cold hard cash in hand, rather than fighting for months to get paid a fraction of the bill.

poopshovel wrote: Corey - The way I see it (SOOOO genuinely sorry to hear this, BTW,) your issue is a legal issue, not an insurance issue. The insurance company can, and should be nailed for f'ing this up. Who would you go after if the gov't was denying 'coverage?'

I'm not saying that it is or isn't an insurance issue, I'm saying it's a "our system is berkeleyed" issue. The insurance company has agreed to pay all the bills, won't settle until everything is accounted for. The doctors won't do the surgery unless you have insurance to cover it. So unless you have your own health insurance, it's a catch 22. The insurance won't pay until after the surgery, and the doctors won't do the surgery until they get paid.

First, let me give you a little background on what is to follow. My late wife had MS for 8 years so I understand what an incurable, degenerative disease can do on all levels. Being a conservative, free market capitalist, I don't want the government involved in any part of my life that it doesn't absolutely need to be. During my wife's illness we had become very involved with the National MS Society. After an e-newsletter urging people to contact their senators during the recess, I contacted the chapter with my concerns and, being a top 50 fundraiser, planning committee member, etc., I was even contacted by a rep from the national office with the same unsupported arguments. The following was my reply to him with links and references. BTW, my association with the MS Society ends August 30th after I complete my commitments to the Bike MS event.

"David,

I appreciate your response to my concerns; however, after reviewing your goals for healthcare reform I find it even more puzzling that the Society can support this (largely unwanted) legislation. While I agree there is room for improvement in our present system, it remains the best health care system in the world. Before I go into that, let me outline a positive plan for fixing health care.

• Tort reform. The reality of frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards is twofold. The sheer cost of malpractice insurance is staggering. One reference I read stated the average OB/GYN delivers 100 babies annually and (in Florida) pays $200,000 in malpractice premiums, adding $2000 to the cost of delivering each child! Secondly, fear of frivolous lawsuits causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine”. In defensive medicine, extra tests, x-rays, MRIs, etc. are ordered, not to improve patient care, but to shield the doctor in the case of a malpractice suit. This has been estimated to cost between $100 and $178 BILLION annually. (Source: http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp)

• Require a co-pay on all services under current Medicaid, Medicare and other “entitlement” programs. This action would prevent people from using the ER as a primary care physician.

• Establish programs to encourage and reward healthy choices. Safeway has been doing this and in a recent radio interview Safeway’s president revealed their medical costs have been reduced by 40%!

I have said before that the system isn’t that badly broken. A neighbor of mine has just had his second open heart surgery. The first was 17 years ago and cost $50,000. The second cost $125,000. Using the rule of 72 and our average inflation rate of 4%, we find that average cost would double every 18 years. Add in the costs of malpractice (almost unheard of 17 years ago) and newer technologies and I feel that the cost of care is very much in line. Now to your concerns…

“Pre-existing conditions will no longer be considered for insurance coverage; no one can be denied coverage for any factor and every legal citizen will have access”

I have been a licensed life and health insurance agent in the state of Ohio and this has, as far back as I can remember, always been the case, at least in Ohio. You can move from policy to policy and can not be turned down for coverage, although you may have to offer proof of previous coverage. This means you cannot wait until you are sick to purchase insurance. This is an item that should be handled by individual states, not the federal government.

You state that you want coverage for every LEGAL citizen. If they are illegal, they are not citizens. Second, the house bill DOES cover illegals.
“According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million. Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually. One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines.”

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_illegals_healthcare/2009/07/19/237484.html

      “Providing help for small businesses with tax credits to help purchase insurance for their employees.”

The house version of the bill actually provides a method of fining employers with payrolls as small as $250,000 if they don’t offer the “public option” regardless of what other programs they do offer. Also there is a provision that forces people onto the public option if they were to change jobs or some other event that would have them enrolling into an otherwise qualified plan. From the House bill (HR 3200): “SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. 6 (a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT- 63 (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”

The main reason why I am puzzled by your acceptance of this bill is in your principles… “Principle 5 Comprehensive, quality health care should be available for all individuals, and this is especially important for people with chronic diseases. Continuity of care and timely access to appropriate medical providers help individuals with chronic diseases such as MS achieve and maintain optimal health and wellness. Models of care coordination (such as medical home, disease management and centers of excellence) that promote continuity of care and multi-disciplinary approaches to chronic care management improve care and reduce complications. Continuity of care is a key component to providing quality health care across the spectrum of complex conditions.”

Any plan like this is economically unsustainable to begin with, as evidenced by the states and other countries that have tried it. The only way to prolong the “experiment” is to ration care. The government will decide how healthcare is to be distributed. Would you like to be in front of the government review panel with a disease that is incurable, progressive AND very expensive to treat?

Governor Palin: “Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.”

Sources: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434&ref=nf

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/13/palin-is-not-wrong

As I said before, the system needs some tweaking, but for the Society to urge passage of such reckless legislation as this is very, very wrong. You mention the senate bill several times, yet as far as I know (as of this past Tuesday), none of the FOUR committees have finished drafting their individual proposals. It’s a shame that congress, with the presidents urging, are trying to draft and pass a hugely complex bill in less time than it took the president to pick out a new dog.

Let’s face another fact. If you read the Constitution, nowhere is this authority over health care given to the federal government. They have already overstepped their authority in many areas of our lives.

If the house bill were to pass as law, I know at a minimum my doctor would leave medicine with absolutely disastrous consequences for the diabetic community in Cincinnati.

Finally, if this health plan is so wonderful, why aren’t our elected officials clamoring to be covered by it?

Allen S"

Interesting link with cash prices of medical procedures

poopshovel said: Here's the big one for me: When did we get a right to live forever (hint: we didn't.) So if we don't have a right to live forever, how long do we have a right to live for? I'm not screaming "OBAMA LIES, GRANNY DIES!" What I'm saying is, at what is your neighbor's life not worth your tax dollars? If your 90 year old neighbor needs $200,000 worth of surgeries to keep his unproductive ass alive for another year, should the government be able to steal that money from you, the young, healthy taxpayer? (seriously, I'm just curious.) I'm just curious if this is the same useless 90 year old who jumped out of a landing craft in Normandy? I should explain that I'm Canadian and may have a different perspective of who owes whom what.

triumph7 wrote: First, let me give you a little background on what is to follow. My late wife had MS for 8 years so I understand what an incurable, degenerative disease can do on all levels. Being a conservative, free market capitalist, I don't want the government involved in any part of my life that it doesn't absolutely need to be. During my wife's illness we had become very involved with the National MS Society. After an e-newsletter urging people to contact their senators during the recess, I contacted the chapter with my concerns and, being a top 50 fundraiser, planning committee member, etc., I was even contacted by a rep from the national office with the same unsupported arguments. The following was my reply to him with links and references. BTW, my association with the MS Society ends August 30th after I complete my commitments to the Bike MS event. "David, I appreciate your response to my concerns; however, after reviewing your goals for healthcare reform I find it even more puzzling that the Society can support this (largely unwanted) legislation. While I agree there is room for improvement in our present system, it remains the best health care system in the world. Before I go into that, let me outline a positive plan for fixing health care. - Tort reform. The reality of frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards is twofold. The sheer cost of malpractice insurance is staggering. One reference I read stated the average OB/GYN delivers 100 babies annually and (in Florida) pays $200,000 in malpractice premiums, adding $2000 to the cost of delivering each child! Secondly, fear of frivolous lawsuits causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine”. In defensive medicine, extra tests, x-rays, MRIs, etc. are ordered, not to improve patient care, but to shield the doctor in the case of a malpractice suit. This has been estimated to cost between $100 and $178 BILLION annually. (Source: http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp) - Require a co-pay on all services under current Medicaid, Medicare and other “entitlement” programs. This action would prevent people from using the ER as a primary care physician. - Establish programs to encourage and reward healthy choices. Safeway has been doing this and in a recent radio interview Safeway’s president revealed their medical costs have been reduced by 40%! I have said before that the system isn’t that badly broken. A neighbor of mine has just had his second open heart surgery. The first was 17 years ago and cost $50,000. The second cost $125,000. Using the rule of 72 and our average inflation rate of 4%, we find that average cost would double every 18 years. Add in the costs of malpractice (almost unheard of 17 years ago) and newer technologies and I feel that the cost of care is very much in line. Now to your concerns… “Pre-existing conditions will no longer be considered for insurance coverage; no one can be denied coverage for any factor and every legal citizen will have access” I have been a licensed life and health insurance agent in the state of Ohio and this has, as far back as I can remember, always been the case, at least in Ohio. You can move from policy to policy and can not be turned down for coverage, although you may have to offer proof of previous coverage. This means you cannot wait until you are sick to purchase insurance. This is an item that should be handled by individual states, not the federal government. You state that you want coverage for every LEGAL citizen. If they are illegal, they are not citizens. Second, the house bill DOES cover illegals. “According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million. Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually. One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines.” http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_illegals_healthcare/2009/07/19/237484.html “Providing help for small businesses with tax credits to help purchase insurance for their employees.” The house version of the bill actually provides a method of fining employers with payrolls as small as $250,000 if they don’t offer the “public option” regardless of what other programs they do offer. Also there is a provision that forces people onto the public option if they were to change jobs or some other event that would have them enrolling into an otherwise qualified plan. From the House bill (HR 3200): “SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. 6 (a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT- 63 (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.” The main reason why I am puzzled by your acceptance of this bill is in your principles… “Principle 5 Comprehensive, quality health care should be available for all individuals, and this is especially important for people with chronic diseases. Continuity of care and timely access to appropriate medical providers help individuals with chronic diseases such as MS achieve and maintain optimal health and wellness. Models of care coordination (such as medical home, disease management and centers of excellence) that promote continuity of care and multi-disciplinary approaches to chronic care management improve care and reduce complications. Continuity of care is a key component to providing quality health care across the spectrum of complex conditions.” Any plan like this is economically unsustainable to begin with, as evidenced by the states and other countries that have tried it. The only way to prolong the “experiment” is to ration care. The government will decide how healthcare is to be distributed. Would you like to be in front of the government review panel with a disease that is incurable, progressive AND very expensive to treat? Governor Palin: “Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.” Sources: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434&ref=nf http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/13/palin-is-not-wrong As I said before, the system needs some tweaking, but for the Society to urge passage of such reckless legislation as this is very, very wrong. You mention the senate bill several times, yet as far as I know (as of this past Tuesday), none of the FOUR committees have finished drafting their individual proposals. It’s a shame that congress, with the presidents urging, are trying to draft and pass a hugely complex bill in less time than it took the president to pick out a new dog. Let’s face another fact. If you read the Constitution, nowhere is this authority over health care given to the federal government. They have already overstepped their authority in many areas of our lives. If the house bill were to pass as law, I know at a minimum my doctor would leave medicine with absolutely disastrous consequences for the diabetic community in Cincinnati. Finally, if this health plan is so wonderful, why aren’t our elected officials clamoring to be covered by it? Allen S"

Thanks, Allen!

From all your excellent points, the one that really strikes home is the refusal of "public servants" to commit to the same program.

If the sauce is good for the goose, it's equally good for the gander. Yet, the gander deliberately refuses to proclaim the sauce is good for all geese.

Why?

Josh wrote: As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care. At least if we threw everybody in the same pool we could attempt to make the distribution of costs a bit more fair, with the side benefit of making everyone generally healthier and not letting people go bankrupt because they had the audacity to get sick or fall down the stairs.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. How are people who get tax refunds and don't have the money for healthcare going to share the cost with people like me? (I just realized today what "Imputed income" meant, I'm taxed on the life insurance my company provides me as a benefit for my employment, so I'm getting taxed on something I didn't ask for and can't decline. It's not a large amount, but it's the principle).

My little sister who has 3 kids and is on Welfare and the current public option, who won't GROSS what I will PAY IN TAXES this year, how is universal coverage going to spread the costs out to her?

By raising taxes on the rich (who already pay HUGE portion of the tax burden) or taxing the benefits I receive from work? How exactly does that spread the costs to the currently uninsured?

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

As one of the protesters said: "Keep government away from my Medicare"!!!!

First, you are making the assumption that someone who is not paying taxes today won't ever be. Young people, students, the unemployed... these are not lifetime situations. And we are already collectively paying for the care of people on welfare such as you speak, so complaining that those people won't pay their fair share for health care under a universal public plan is kind of a straw man argument.

We have already determined as a society that it is perfectly acceptable for some people to pay more than others for the same public services, otherwise everyone would have the same exact lump sum tax bill every year. It's just a matter of whether you want to put health care into the category of services that we consider equal access to be paramount. Most of us could not imagine police and fire services, education, or roads being accessible only to those able to pay directly for their use (of course, we still have private security services, private schools, and toll roads, but nobody is denied these things). For some reason that I can't really determine, we are stuck on a notion that health care is not in this category. I can't quite understand that. If a man attacks me, I call the police, and they do what they can to prevent that man from harming me. I don't need to expect a bill in the mail. But if a microbe attacks me, tough luck, right? There seem to be a lot of people implying that nobody should help me unless I pay up. Yet I don't think many of the doctors feel this way, and certainly none of us are stepping forward to enforce this idea that everyone needs to pay their own way by actually denying emergency care to those who don't. We all seem to agree that it would be cruel to flatly deny care, but apparently it isn't cruel to bankrupt them if they survive. I can't really follow the logic here. We get bogged down in the specifics, the costs, the outcomes, arguing about who makes what decisions or the administrative complexity of providing health care, without really examining the basic decision: is our nation better off if everyone has access to health care. I happen to think it is. The argument should be about HOW we make this work not WHETHER we do.

To say that we don't need public health care because we can already buy insurance is like saying that we don't need a public police force because you can already pay protection money to the mob. I'm kind of kidding when I say that, but only kind of. I can understand that some people think they would receive better care under a fully private system. But maybe I don't see the value of them receiving better care if it has to mean that someone else receives no care.

Josh wrote: The argument should be about HOW we make this work not WHETHER we do.

Congratulations; you've found the nail, but now you just have to find the right hammer.

Hence the entire debate!

Josh wrote: For some reason that I can't really determine, we are stuck on a notion that health care is not in this category. I can't quite understand that. If a man attacks me, I call the police, and they do what they can to prevent that man from harming me. I don't need to expect a bill in the mail. But if a microbe attacks me, tough luck, right? There seem to be a lot of people implying that nobody should help me unless I pay up.

A police officer is doing his job of protecting your rights from being infringed by another person. You have a right not to be attacked and harmed by another person, and it is the government's job to protect those rights for you. That's why we have criminal law.

You do NOT have a right not to be sick, or to be taken care of if you are. Nor do you have a right to be provided with food and shelter. That's the logic, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Josh wrote: First, you are making the assumption that someone who is not paying taxes today won't ever be. Young people, students, the unemployed... these are not lifetime situations. And we are already collectively paying for the care of people on welfare such as you speak, so complaining that those people won't pay their fair share for health care under a universal public plan is kind of a straw man argument.

In your previous post you said including everyone would spread the costs out. But if those people already aren't paying, and will continue not to pay, that doesn't spread the cost out at all.

It merely increases the burden the rest of the taxpayers already have.

No one is saying people shouldn't have health insurance, although I wonder what portion of people could afford if they chose not to have a $150 a month cable/internet bill, it's just that I'd like to see a way to reign in costs and promote competition.

LIke making health insurance plans nationwide instead of state specific, wonder how much adminstration costs that would save?

I just don't think there is anyway the gov't getting involved and taking over is going to make the situation any better.

triumph7 wrote: - Require a co-pay on all services under current Medicaid, Medicare and other “entitlement” programs. This action would prevent people from using the ER as a primary care physician.

I get to this point of the "argument" and call BS. People who have Medicare and Medicade go to doctors. Both my parents and my in-laws are on medicare- they go to real doctors, have real, scheduled surguries, and whatnot.

ER's are for people who have nothing. Why? Because law challenge after law challenge has told every ER in the country that they HAVE to serve everyone, without question. If they can't pay, we all do.

We can complain about ailiens all day long, but the challenge has been held up in many courts over many years- unless laws are strictly, and constitutionally re-written, ER "heathcare" is going to continue without change.

We all know that ER care has inflated prices, right? If we get over the flawed idea that we can keep anyone (yes ANYONE) out of an ER, then perhaps we can move on and start finding more effective solutions, both fiscally, and car wise- like letting people go to doctors.

Whether you like it or lothe it, EVERYONE is entitled to care at an ER- this isn't my opinion- this is based on challenges in court. So I'd recommend getting over it, and finding better solutions.

As for benefiting the lazy- I'd suggest dealing with that, too. To cover the hard working un-insured, like joey, we are going to have to cover everyone. "General Welfare" can be a bitch.

The other part- the whole "unwanted legislation"- I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, there is a good part of the country that does not want it, but right now, there's pretty much an equal part of the country that does want it.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: The other part- the whole "unwanted legislation"- I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, there is a good part of the country that does not want it, but right now, there's pretty much an equal part of the country that does want it.

The masses will always vote themselves bread and circuses. That doesn't make it the right decision.

Duke wrote: A police officer is doing his job of protecting your rights from being infringed by another person. You have a right not to be attacked and harmed by another person, and it is the government's job to protect those rights for you. That's why we have criminal law. You do NOT have a right not to be sick, or to be taken care of if you are. Nor do you have a right to be provided with food and shelter. That's the logic, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Well, I don't have a constitutional right not to be on fire, either. Or to know algebra. But we still provide these services. Do you disagree with this practice?

The primary reason ERs are used by many people as their "Primary Physician" is the fact that it is impossible to get into their GPs office in a timely manner.

EXAMPLE: Today I am having severe abdominal pain, I have previously torn my abdominal muscles so initially I figured that I might have re-injured that muscle group. The pain has gotten worse and my abdomen is harder than normal so I call my GPs office. "Sure, Mr. Brown, we can get you in on the 16th at 3:00pm!" "Umm, today is the 18th" "Yep! It is! Would you like the appointment on the 16th?" "A month from now?" "Uh huh." "No, thank you." I can walk into the ER and get help within 4 hours.

BTW I am having abdominal pain but it probably has something to do with the six free Leinenkugels Summer Shandys I drank last night mixed with the free 1lb nachos and ballfield hot dogs that we ate while enjoying our box seats at the Lansing Lugnuts game last night.

No walkin clinics where you guys are?

I could get in this afternoon if I'm willing to wait a bit.

A few really, but If I need ANY scans I will be sent to the Sparrow ER.

Duke wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The other part- the whole "unwanted legislation"- I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, there is a good part of the country that does not want it, but right now, there's pretty much an equal part of the country that does want it.

The masses will always vote themselves bread and circuses. That doesn't make it the right decision.

Doesn't make it wrong, either. Right now, it's a matter of opinion. You think it's very wrong, I think it's very right. Both of us are right, in our own mind.

Do you really think that it's right that survival of a curable disease is prediated based on your income? Even if you are living the American dream, have a self owned business, work 80 hours a week, and still can't afford insurance- it's ok to die of a preventable disease?

How many more hard working auto enthusiests do we need to hear suffer due to lack of care do we need to understand that this issue is WAY beyond the "lazy" and the aliens.

One more thing- we think that the healthcare providers will suffer with government run programs, since the insurance industry pays them SOOO well.... Does anyone really think that the defense providers are really suffering?? Honestly, what makes govenment programs NOT work is PURE GREED by those in place to take advantage of it- much of the D industry, much of the pharmicuticals under the current system, etc. So we defend the system of pure greed capitalism, but let it get the best of us. Think about it.

For JB- interesting problem. The place I go to has enough doctors to cover for mine when I need to be there right away. Seems like a problem with the provider, unless the provider you have is dictated by your insurance company. With reform, you should be able to choose your provider, which, in theory, should make them far more efficent.

Duke wrote: You do NOT have a right not to be sick, or to be taken care of if you are. Nor do you have a right to be provided with food and shelter. That's the logic, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Oddly enough, we do have that right. Or, more correctly, Congress has the power to supply that right.

See Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Again, IMHO, health IS a national security issue. Assuming that we fight to defend the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as suggested in the Declaration of Independance.