What should be done with the American health care system?

[Moby]

Dis just posted too many links in support of a single payer system.


Obama wants to increase the number of people that can get health insurance but hasn't proposed a single payer system yet.
McCain wants to take away group health care and push everyone to individual health care as well as nationalize regulation by removing state influence.
Romney wants to force everyone to either get insurance or pay a fine.

I'm not sure that anyone is pushing for a single payer system.

According to Kaiser, insurance costs for a family of 4 doubled from 2001 to 2007. The number of people without health care insurance is on the rise and will continue to increase as costs go up.

We all end up paying in one way or another. If people don't get care at a doctor's office they show up at hospitals, costs go up and the next guy has to pay more.

What do we do?

[Moby]

I want to order drugs online from any country in the world. I know the government claims they want to protect us but we just had 45 million toys filled with lead end up in the hands of our children. I don't think we should expect them to protect us.

I'd much rather just have them move over and let me purchase meds from a source that I chose.

[MintJulep]

Dis just posted too many links in support of a single payer system.

Obama wants to increase the number of people that can get health insurance but hasn't proposed a single payer system yet.Obama's proposal is the stepping stone for a single payer system as the result will be the bankruptcy of insurance companies after which the government would seize control of our healthcare system.

McCain wants to take away group health care and push everyone to individual health care as well as nationalize regulation by removing state influence.

His approach was wrong as well, IMO. A $5,000 tax credit is nice, but often isn't a drop in the bucket towards the annual cost of individual insurance. Also, it leaves those hanging who would be denied individual insurance but would be able to acquire it through a group plan.

Romney wants to force everyone to either get insurance or pay a fine.Romney as well as Hillary have the right idea, in my opinion. By increasing the premium pool, it would drive premium costs down considerably while preserving the quality of the private system. People in a certain income bracket should be eligible for a plan subsidized by the govt and those in high income brackets would be fined for not carrying insurance, as it should be.

I'm not sure that anyone is pushing for a single payer system.Obama is. It's simply not an in-your-face admission for socialized medicine, however, anyone who can connect the dots can see what the end result will be.

According to Kaiser, insurance costs for a family of 4 doubled from 2001 to 2007. The number of people without health care insurance is on the rise and will continue to increase as costs go up.Interesting you mention Kaiser, as they are a microcosm of socialized medicine.

We all end up paying in one way or another. If people don't get care at a doctor's office they show up at hospitals, costs go up and the next guy has to pay more.

What do we do?I say the best solution is bringing down costs via mandated insurance and tort reform in order to preserve quality and choice.

If you want an idea of what a one-payer system would look like in the US, go to your DMV, remove the sign outside and replace it with one that says "Free Healthcare" and there you'll have it, dirty walls, long waiting lines and all.

[Mr. Blue]

Well, I don't have an answer just yet, maybe later in the thread, but can someone explain to me why is the cost of healthcare insurance so high? Why is medical malpractice insurance so costly?

I think this is that first stumbling block in getting a working healthcare system. I keep reading different answers on the topic and none really satisfy me...As I think the easiest solution would be to make healthcare insurance affordable and then let individuals purchase the insurance. I think the more bureaucracy of a Universal Healthcare system isn't going to solve the problem like just bringing down the cost of healthcare insurance in the first place.

Once health insurance is in the sane level where the majority of people can afford it, employers can afford it, then we can come up with solutions for those that still can't.

[Moby]

Obama is. It's simply not an in-your-face admission for socialized medicine, however, anyone who can connect the dots can see what the end result will be.
Why do you claim to be in a no-koolaid zone?

[Moby]

How do we go about lowering the cost? It's recently doubled in price and there doesn't seem to be any signs of the sky rocketing prices leveling off.

Right now with health insurance there are way too many hidden costs. There's almost no way to shop by phone, get a price list or have any idea how much a simple doctor's visit will cost. It's not easy and it should be.

Some doctors claim to offer different prices depending on your insurance company and that's nuts.

[MintJulep]

Why do you claim to be in a no-koolaid zone?Because I'm not drinking the hopey-changey koolaid. Obama's plan is the stepping stone for full-on socialized medicine.

I have two questions for you:

1.) Do you know anything about The Chosen One's "plan" for healthcare?

2.) What happens to auto insurers if they are forced to insure and pay auto claims for everyone who has already wrecked their cars?

There is much more to this "plan" than the cheap, transparent words of "hope" and "change".

[Moby]

My concern with drugs are 2 fold.

1. We have global economy so why can't Americans take advantage of that when purchasing meds?
2. A lot of people with employer based socialized insurance take very expensive drugs when they don't need to. I know people that take cholesterol medicine instead of walking 30 minutes, eating oatmeal for breakfast and packing lunch instead of hitting a drive through. They don't care because tax payers or consumers are picking up their health care costs.

[MintJulep]

How do we go about lowering the cost? It's recently doubled in price and there doesn't seem to be any signs of the sky rocketing prices leveling off.

Right now with health insurance there are way too many hidden costs. There's almost no way to shop by phone, get a price list or have any idea how much a simple doctor's visit will cost. It's not easy and it should be.

Some doctors claim to offer different prices depending on your insurance company and that's nuts.Expand the pool of money going into premiums. If everyone, including the young and healthy, has coverage, it would lower premiums tremendously while at the same time, preserving quality and allowing doctors to stay in private practice.

Hillary had the right idea.

[Moby]

Because I'm not drinking the hopey-changey koolaid. Obama's plan is the stepping stone for full-on socialized medicine.
You're drinking some one's koolaid and it sounds like Murdoch's.

Of course if you can find anything in Obama's proposals that claim he's focusing on a single payer system that will drive away all the doctors that come here from other countries in hopes of riches then please by all means, show us.

If not, I'll just assume that you're drinking koolaid. :D

[Moby]

Expand the pool of money going into premiums. If everyone, including the young and healthy, has coverage, it would lower premiums tremendously while at the same time, preserving quality and allowing doctors to stay in private practice.

Hillary had the right idea.
So you think everyone should be forced to purchase health insurance or pay a fine?

[MintJulep]

1. We have global economy so why can't Americans take advantage of that when purchasing meds?
I really don't have the answer to that. I do know that the U.S. is responsible for all of the ground-breaking medications created and it takes around 1.3 billion to develop a new drug.

2. A lot of people with employer based socialized insurance take very expensive drugs when they don't need to. I know people that take cholesterol medicine instead of walking 30 minutes, eating oatmeal for breakfast and packing lunch instead of hitting a drive through. They don't care because tax payers or consumers are picking up their health care costs.One, what is "employer based socialized insurance"? If you're talking about a group plan, that isn't socialism. You pay into it yourself. Socialized means the gubmint --read that, taxpayers-- pay for your care.

Two, high cholesterol is usually genetic and increases with age. Some people who are very fit, eat healthy, etc. still have high cholesterol. It is a huge risk factor for heart disease and arterosclerosis and taking statins is a preventative measure.

[MintJulep]

So you think everyone should be forced to purchase health insurance or pay a fine?You know, I don't know how I feel about the govt mandating everyone to carry insurance, but I DO know how I feel about the government taking over the HC industry and taking away my right to choose my doctor.

I think if someone can afford health insurance, they should pay for it. If they cannot, there should be a safety net thru the govt. However, if you are making $75/year, there is no reason you cannot afford insurance.

[MintJulep]

You're drinking some one's koolaid and it sounds like Murdoch's.

Of course if you can find anything in Obama's proposals that claim he's focusing on a single payer system that will drive away all the doctors that come here from other countries in hopes of riches then please by all means, show us.

If not, I'll just assume that you're drinking koolaid. :DHe wants to mandate insurance companies cover everyone, regardless of health condition. This means, you can be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and go pick up an insurance policy the next day and be covered.

Gee, guess what happens when more claims come in than premiums? The company will be out of business in short order. Enter the Nanny-state govt to take over.

There is a reason for risk assessment with health insurance just as there is a reason you cannot buy homeowner's insurance after your house burns down.

I don't want shithole healthcare. While it has many flaws, we still have the best heathcare system in the world.

You are the one drinking the koolaid if you think the Messiah will not destroy our healthcare system if he succeeds.

[Moby]

You know, I don't know how I feel about the govt mandating everyone to carry insurance, but I DO know how I feel about the government taking over the HC industry and taking away my right to choose my doctor.

I think if someone can afford health insurance, they should pay for it. If they cannot, there should be a safety net thru the govt. However, if you are making $75/year, there is no reason you cannot afford insurance.
Who's trying to take away your right to choose a doctor?

So you think the limit for forced health insurance is $75k?

You prefer taking away the right to spend your money on insurance or not as Romney did but you're afraid of some invisible people taking away your right to choose a doctor.

You have me really confused now.

[MintJulep]

Who's trying to take away your right to choose a doctor?In a government takeover, doctors would be forced out of private practice and turned into civil servants making a uniform wage. It will destroy innovation and incentive and drive the best and brightest minds away from the medical field.

So you think the limit for forced health insurance is $75k?We don't have it so there is no limit. I just threw a number out there. Actually, I think the limit could be lower. Forty or $50k is enough to afford health insurance. You might have to forgo the brand new Acura TL and/or 65" LCD TV, but you can afford it. It's a matter of priorities.

You prefer taking away the right to spend your money on insurance or not as Romney did but you're afraid of some invisible people taking away your right to choose a doctor.I think everyone should carry health insurance. I will sign on to a mandate for insurance before I support a dirty-walled, collective shithole medical system any day of the week.

You have me really confused now.You clearly don't understand health care, insurance, etc.

[foxbaron]

Well, I don't have an answer just yet, maybe later in the thread, but can someone explain to me why is the cost of healthcare insurance so high? Why is medical malpractice insurance so costly?

I think this is that first stumbling block in getting a working healthcare system. I keep reading different answers on the topic and none really satisfy me...As I think the easiest solution would be to make healthcare insurance affordable and then let individuals purchase the insurance. I think the more bureaucracy of a Universal Healthcare system isn't going to solve the problem like just bringing down the cost of healthcare insurance in the first place.

Once health insurance is in the sane level where the majority of people can afford it, employers can afford it, then we can come up with solutions for those that still can't.


Some of the reasons health care is so is because of the administrative b.s. paperwork that goes with it. Another reason is because health care providers now do what they call bundling in their charges. Instead of just charging a set fee for example to set a broken arm they charge a seperate fee for each and every part of the process. Examination, cleaning of the wound, bandages, x-rays, emergency room fee, and so and so on. What used to cost a few hundred bucks to treat now costs over a thousand bucks because they charge for each little action they do. And it all requires more paperwork.

Doctors even go to training seminars to learn how to do this.

Another cool rip off is when you go to the hospital and you are laying in bed and some doctor you have never seen before comes in and talks to you for a few seconds and then leaves and you and your insurance company get a bill from him. This is the medical professions form of CYA. Get a second doctor to concur with your teatment so if you get sued you have a defense.

If you were a mechanic wouldn't it be great to get another mechanic to give a second opinion on the tune-up you just did and then he can bill your customer too and you could do the same for him and bill his customer and you both can make all this extra income.

Never could understand why insurance companies pay these other doctor's bills.

[Mr. Blue]

Some of the reasons health care is so is because of the administrative b.s. paperwork that goes with it. Another reason is because health care providers now do what they call bundling in their charges. Instead of just charging a set fee for example to set a broken arm they charge a seperate fee for each and every part of the process. Examination, cleaning of the wound, bandages, x-rays, emergency room fee, and so and so on. What used to cost a few hundred bucks to treat now costs over a thousand bucks because they charge for each little action they do. And it all requires more paperwork.

Doctors even go to training seminars to learn how to do this.

Another cool rip off is when you go to the hospital and you are laying in bed and some doctor you have never seen before comes in and talks to you for a few seconds and then leaves and you and your insurance company get a bill from him. This is the medical professions form of CYA. Get a second doctor to concur with your teatment so if you get sued you have a defense.

If you were a mechanic wouldn't it be great to get another mechanic to give a second opinion on the tune-up you just did and then he can bill your customer too and you could do the same for him and bill his customer and you both can make all this extra income.

Never could understand why insurance companies pay these other doctor's bills.

Well, that's just highway robbery. Which, leads to the point of bringing sanity to the system before making the system bigger. This basically is the problem, we shouldn't be throwing money on a system that's just, umm, broken.

[disrupter]

The vast majority of the American people want a single payer system,

but by all means, Sir Moby, let's not listen to them,

what is this, a democracy or something?

[ROdger Right]

The vast majority of the American people want a single payer system,

but by all means, Sir Moby, let's not listen to them,

what is this, a democracy or something?

I hope it isnt.
When have we ever been a democracy?
IF we cant maintain our republic which is supposed to limit government then we are in for a good long anarchy/milatary rule depending on where you live.

[Moby]

Never could understand why insurance companies pay these other doctor's bills.
As long as you can continue to raise rates it's in your best interest to keep more money pouring into the system.

If insurance premiums are $100 for everyone and I make 2% then that's only $2 a month. If insurance premiums are $1,000 a month and I make 2% then I get $20 so it's better to keep pushing costs higher.

Exxon has been using the same argument.

Also in many cases the insurance companies don't actually end up paying that doctor. You may still end up paying your portion of your 80/20 plan but that doesn't mean that the agreements with between the larger hospitals and your insurance company do that.

[Moby]

In a government takeover, doctors would be forced out of private practice and turned into civil servants making a uniform wage. It will destroy innovation and incentive and drive the best and brightest minds away from the medical field.
Here's the problem. You keep arguing about something that does NOT exist. No one is proposing a government take over. This is a very typical tactic used by Frank Luntz and Karl Rove. You use of the visual with the sign in front of the DMV is a perfect example of it too.

Step back and look at the real facts which is something that none of the pundits want you to have.

One of the proposals on the table is to create a new type of insurance that will receive tax benefits for offering affordable products and consider the US population a group as opposed to a single employer or union as a group.

In order to receive those tax benefits they will need to insure everyone at the same rate. I think they can make adjustments for age, smoking and maybe even state (I'm not sure about that) but all smokers age 50 will pay the same rate. All non-smokers age 40 will pay a different rate, which will probably be less.

This insurance will be for those that you think should be forced to have insurance but can't get it because of health conditions.

On one hand you want to do away with the normal insurance companies because almost all limit your choice of doctors which you are very much against.

You want to force everyone to get insurance.

You don't want to help those that can't.

Force someone to do something that they can't do just seems strange?

I like some of your thoughts but I think you're getting very confused with what's really happening.

Adding a new type of health insurance isn't taking over doctors.

[MintJulep]

Here's the problem. You keep arguing about something that does NOT exist. No one is proposing a government take over. This is a very typical tactic used by Frank Luntz and Karl Rove. You use of the visual with the sign in front of the DMV is a perfect example of it too.It does not exist yet. I'm saying this is what the end result will be.

One of the proposals on the table is to create a new type of insurance that will receive tax benefits for offering affordable products and consider the US population a group as opposed to a single employer or union as a group.A group of 350 million, funded by the taxpayers. Also on the table is requiring insurance companies to insure anyone, any time. Which makes as much sense as requiring homeowners insurance companies to insure those whose homes have already burned down. It is a recipe for bankruptcy.

In order to receive those tax benefits they will need to insure everyone at the same rate. I think they can make adjustments for age, smoking and maybe even state (I'm not sure about that) but all smokers age 50 will pay the same rate. All non-smokers age 40 will pay a different rate, which will probably be less."Everyone" cannot be insured at the same rate without breaking the insurance companies.

This insurance will be for those that you think should be forced to have insurance but can't get it because of health conditions.I would be okay with that alone.

On one hand you want to do away with the normal insurance companies because almost all limit your choice of doctors which you are very much against.Your choices may be limited to a degree, however, you still have a choice. And your doctor is still the one who makes your healthcare decisions. Not a government bean-counter reading an actuarial chart.

You want to force everyone to get insurance.If they have the means to afford it.

You don't want to help those that can't.I've already said there should be a safety-net for those in the income bracket which genuinely can't afford it. Not the ones who simply choose not to afford it because other "things" take priority.

Force someone to do something that they can't do just seems strange?Forcing doctors out of private practice is even stranger.

[GetAClue]

I just want to comment on the original question, "What should be done with the American Health Care system?"

In a word, NOTHING! We have arguably the greatest health care system in the world. I live close to Cleveland which is home to some of the best hospitals in the world, and the premier of these is the Cleveland Clinic. It is not uncommon to have world leaders fly into Cleveland to take advantage of these hospitals.

Now keeping this in mind, I believe the real question is, “What should be done about the access to affordable Health Care in America?” Knowing that we DO have the greatest access to the best health care in the world, how do we structure a system that provides affordable access to it while insuring that we are able to maintain the established high standard of Health Care.

I would argue that any plan that jeopardizes the quality of this care should never be considered.

[The_Limit]

I just want to comment on the original question, "What should be done with the American Health Care system?"

In a word, NOTHING! We have arguably the greatest health care system in the world. I live close to Cleveland which is home to some of the best hospitals in the world, and the premier of these is the Cleveland Clinic. It is not uncommon to have world leaders fly into Cleveland to take advantage of these hospitals.

Now keeping this in mind, I believe the real question is, “What should be done about the access to affordable Health Care in America?” Knowing that we DO have the greatest access to the best health care in the world, how do we structure a system that provides affordable access to it while insuring that we are able to maintain the established high standard of Health Care.

I would argue that any plan that jeopardizes the quality of this care should never be considered.

1. Thats because they are rich and can afford it.

2. No the U.S. does not have "the greatest access to the best health care in the world."

The evidence does not support the claim.

[Independent Harry]

I just want to comment on the original question, "What should be done with the American Health Care system?"

In a word, NOTHING! We have arguably the greatest health care system in the world. I live close to Cleveland which is home to some of the best hospitals in the world, and the premier of these is the Cleveland Clinic. It is not uncommon to have world leaders fly into Cleveland to take advantage of these hospitals.

Now keeping this in mind, I believe the real question is, “What should be done about the access to affordable Health Care in America?” Knowing that we DO have the greatest access to the best health care in the world, how do we structure a system that provides affordable access to it while insuring that we are able to maintain the established high standard of Health Care.

I would argue that any plan that jeopardizes the quality of this care should never be considered.

Wow, you really have no clue do you. We have the 42nd best healthcare system in the world. There are 3rd world countries that are in better health than us.

[doctordog]

1. Thats because they are rich and can afford it.

2. No the U.S. does not have "the greatest access to the best health care in the world."

The evidence does not support the claim.

Only evidence supported by people who believe in keeping a totally dependent class of people (Democrats) so they can keep their voting base full.

[GetAClue]

Wow, you really have no clue do you. We have the 42nd best healthcare system in the world. There are 3rd world countries that are in better health than us.

Funny, but the world generally shows up HERE for the best health care. I don't hear of anyone going abroad for treatment.

[The_Limit]

Only evidence supported by people who believe in keeping a totally dependent class of people (Democrats) so they can keep their voting base full.

I don't even know what "...by people who believe in keeping a totally dependent class of people," means.

It seems in arguing this point you appoint yourself sole arbitrator of who "believes in keeping a totally dependent class of people," and who does not.

You see, personal opinions do not matter much to me. I include myself in this category. The right avenue we should tread is to research the essays, opinions and conclusions of peer-reviewed studies which appear in scientific academic journals authored by the world's leading experts in the health field.

What I will not do, what I think cheapens the debate, is subjective personal arguments which serve no other purpose but to infuse honest debates with cheap tricks.

The conclusions of the experts is clear. The U.S. does not have "the greatest access to the best health care in the world," no matter how strongly you feel it does.

Its not about you or your opinions.

[Smurf-Herder]

Here's the problem. You keep arguing about something that does NOT exist. No one is proposing a government take over. This is a very typical tactic used by Frank Luntz and Karl Rove. You use of the visual with the sign in front of the DMV is a perfect example of it too.

Step back and look at the real facts which is something that none of the pundits want you to have.

One of the proposals on the table is to create a new type of insurance that will receive tax benefits for offering affordable products and consider the US population a group as opposed to a single employer or union as a group.

In order to receive those tax benefits they will need to insure everyone at the same rate. I think they can make adjustments for age, smoking and maybe even state (I'm not sure about that) but all smokers age 50 will pay the same rate. All non-smokers age 40 will pay a different rate, which will probably be less.

This insurance will be for those that you think should be forced to have insurance but can't get it because of health conditions.

On one hand you want to do away with the normal insurance companies because almost all limit your choice of doctors which you are very much against.

You want to force everyone to get insurance.

You don't want to help those that can't.

Force someone to do something that they can't do just seems strange?

I like some of your thoughts but I think you're getting very confused with what's really happening.

Adding a new type of health insurance isn't taking over doctors.

Hillary's original Healthcare Plan from years ago said this very thing.

All doctors would be bound by the plan. Not allowing any care beyond that rationed. With things like no mammographies before age 55 and other such regulations - giving the doctor a $10,000 fine for violating government rules on care. No patient would even be allowed to pay out-of-pocket for their own healthcare to get the level of care they want.

[doctordog]

I don't even know what "...by people who believe in keeping a totally dependent class of people," means.

It seems in arguing this point you appoint yourself sole arbitrator of who "believes in keeping a totally dependent class of people," and who does not.

You see, personal opinions do not matter much to me. I include myself in this category. The right avenue we should tread is to research the essays, opinions and conclusions of peer-reviewed studies which appear in scientific academic journals authored by the world's leading experts in the health field.

What I will not do, what I think cheapens the debate, is subjective personal arguments which serve no other purpose but to infuse honest debates with cheap tricks.

The conclusions of the experts is clear. The U.S. does not have "the greatest access to the best health care in the world," no matter how strongly you feel it does.

Its not about you or your opinions.

First you must define expert, until then all you have is opinions paid for by appointed experts, not necessarily expert opinions.

[kres24GT]

Get government out of it completely. The damage they have done has been terrible, hopefully we can recover once they have no say at all.

[The_Limit]

First you must define expert, until then all you have is opinions paid for by appointed experts, not necessarily expert opinions.

Wrong again my man.

I mean exactly what I say.

The most serious peer-reviewed essay published I can think of right now is a paper comparing the American health system with the Canadian system. It was funded by Harvard University and appeared in the New England journal of medicine.

It was not a political paper in anyway. It was technical right down to the last detail.

I know because, thought I have not read it all, I have seriously looked over large chunks of it.

It was an accomplished work authored by meticulous academics who then submitted the essay for peer-review.

[Independent Harry]

I don't even know what "...by people who believe in keeping a totally dependent class of people," means.

It seems in arguing this point you appoint yourself sole arbitrator of who "believes in keeping a totally dependent class of people," and who does not.

You see, personal opinions do not matter much to me. I include myself in this category. The right avenue we should tread is to research the essays, opinions and conclusions of peer-reviewed studies which appear in scientific academic journals authored by the world's leading experts in the health field.

What I will not do, what I think cheapens the debate, is subjective personal arguments which serve no other purpose but to infuse honest debates with cheap tricks.

The conclusions of the experts is clear. The U.S. does not have "the greatest access to the best health care in the world," no matter how strongly you feel it does.

Its not about you or your opinions.

You will find most of the people here who profess liberals are killing the world, also can't use simple logic to debate subjects.

[Moby]

It does not exist yet. I'm saying this is what the end result will be.
The end result of what?

You keep trying to connect Obama's plan to single payer plan and that's not the case in any way. Unless you have some actual documentation that no one has seen yet.

[Moby]

Forcing doctors out of private practice is even stranger.
Of course it would and no one has proposed anything like that. Unless you can show where someone has in recent years.

[Moby]

Hillary's original Healthcare Plan from years ago said this very thing.

All doctors would be bound by the plan. Not allowing any care beyond that rationed. With things like no mammographies before age 55 and other such regulations - giving the doctor a $10,000 fine for violating government rules on care. No patient would even be allowed to pay out-of-pocket for their own healthcare to get the level of care they want.
Hillary's plan from years ago is not an issue today as even she's abandoned the idea. Do you have a copy of her plan that said the above?

We're talking about the plans proposed today.

What's the alternative to offering affordable insurance?

[MintJulep]

The end result of what?

You keep trying to connect Obama's plan to single payer plan and that's not the case in any way. Unless you have some actual documentation that no one has seen yet.If he mandates insurance companies to cover anyone at any time, regardless of condition, what do you think happens when the claims exceed the premiums?

The insurance companies will go out of business.

Guess who steps in, then? His initial plans are simply a stepping stone.

You mentioned in another thread that Obama is simply giving "incentives" for companies to cover "everyone". Do you have any more details about that because I haven't heard about it.

[Smurf-Herder]

If he mandates insurance companies to cover anyone at any time, regardless of condition, what do you think happens when the claims exceed the premiums?

The insurance companies will go out of business.

Guess who steps in, then? His initial plans are simply a stepping stone.



He'll bail them out, with new regulations added to get the money. Just like pushing giving everbody a mortgage. We saw how that turned out.

[MintJulep]

Of course it would and no one has proposed anything like that. Unless you can show where someone has in recent years.Okay, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend like this isn't the game plan, but it isn't rocket science, you know?

Tell me, what happens to the insurance companies when the claims exceed the premiums taken in? What do you think will be the end result of insurance companies going out of business?

One more thing. Have you not figured out the purpose of the part of the stimulus package earmarked for a national database? Guess what that's for?

All you have to do is connect the dots.

[Smurf-Herder]

Okay, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend like this isn't the game plan, but it isn't rocket science, you know?

Tell me, what happens to the insurance companies when the claims exceed the premiums taken in? What do you think will be the end result of insurance companies going out of business?

One more thing. Have you not figured out the purpose of the part of the stimulus package earmarked for a national database? Guess what that's for?

All you have to do is connect the dots.

We're seeing the birth of The One, true, Big Brother.

[disrupter]

It isn't a 'healthcare' system,

it is a money thieving, profit laundering system pretending to be 'healthcare'.

Some small brains are fooled by the packaging & TV advertising.