Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama on progress in health care reform

Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:21 PM EDT
business, health, obama, health-care, only-on-msnbc-com, insurance, you, care, going, surgeon, rose-garden
msnbc.com News — Dr. Nancy Snyderman, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com
Advertise | AdChoices

— Dr. Nancy Snyderman: Mr. President, thank you for the invitation.

President Barack Obama: Thank you so much.

Snyderman: Today, in the Rose Garden ceremony, you talked about the need to buck up. And it seems like it was a message to Congress. Are you concerned that your health care information — the message got derailed, a little bit ...

Obama: Well, obviously, when I'm in the country, I am able to communicate a little more directly to the American people, and when I'm not, you know, those who want to defend the status quo are getting their message out more effectively.

And I think, though, Congress, overall, has been making extraordinary progress.  We are closer than we've ever been to fundamental reforms that provide people choice, make health care affordable, and solve some of these long-term structural problems that — that inhibit quality care.

So — so I'm optimistic, but I also understand this is a big deal, a big issue.

Snyderman: If you look at this big deal ...

Obama: Yes.

Snyderman:  ... do you have people at the bargaining table, the pharmaceutical industry hospitals in there?

I haven't heard anyone ask just for the American public to pony up here, that this is going to require some give for all the stakeholders involved. 

Obama:  Well, let me — let me talk about what I think the American people are going to have to do.

First of all, the American people have to recognize that there's no such thing as a free lunch.  Right?  So, we can't just provide care to everybody that has no cost whatsoever, you don't end up having to make any decisions. 

So, obviously, we've got to have a system that controls costs, gives people choices, but makes sure that we're getting a good bang for the buck. And we've got to have the American people doing something about their own care.

Snyderman: So, self-responsibility.

Obama: So, self-responsibility is going to be critical. This is probably not going to be something that's legislated. But I tell you what, every business out there is going to be looking at their health care bottom line. And increasingly what you're going to see is that businesses are going to incentivize their employees to stop smoking, lose weight, get exercise, get regular checkups.

What we can do is we can encourage those companies that have those sorts of wellness-prevention programs. We can make sure that it's easier to find a primary care physician to get a regular checkup, that everybody has basic insurance. But the American people are going to have to participate in their own health.

Snyderman: If you could talk about, you know, doing the right thing.

Obama: Right.

Snyderman: The reality is the average American wants to order à la carte, but wants to pay for the blue plate special. So, we like what we like.

Obama: Well, I think it's true, but certainly it's because of a lack of information.  

Snyderman: Is it really?

Obama: ... drug is just as good as a brand-name drug for a — if, then, they're happy to save money with the generic drug.

If, on the other hand, their doctors tell them the brand-name drug is the one to use, partly because maybe the drug manufacturers have taken the doctor to some junket somewhere, well, then, naturally they want to listen to their doctor.

So the question is, can we provide good information to doctors?  Can we provide good information to patients?

Obama: If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?

Snyderman: That's going to be a — that's going to be a big deal.

Obama: Absolutely.  If — if we know that the generic is cheaper, works just as well, why do you want the more expensive ... see cost savings and the American people are going to recognize that, you know, efficiency will pay off for them in the long term, not just for the system as a whole.

Snyderman: If you talk about history, how do you protect our small businesses from not falling under the crunch ... which is a real issue, obviously.

Obama: Well, that's what's happening now. We just had a report in the Wall Street Journal that small businesses are rapidly eliminating health care. They just can't afford it. And so what we have to do is compare doing nothing with doing something. Doing nothing, we're on the path where nobody who works for a small business is going to be getting health care out there because small businesses just can't afford it. 
           
If we move forward on health care reform, then we can do a couple of things. We can help small businesses pool their employees so that they can get a better deal with insurance companies. We can make sure that the smallest companies are exempted from having to pay into the system, but you know, there are a lot of companies where 75 employees, 100 employees, they can afford to pay into a system so that all their employees are taken care of.

Snyderman: But the companies that, maybe, have 10 or 20 — would you allow them to pool?

Obama: There are going to be companies that have 10 or 20. I think that what we want to do is, instead of forcing them to buy health insurance for their employees if they can't afford it, provide them the option of a pool, give them tax incentives, give them the resources so that they can drive down costs, and I think a lot of them are going to choose to do so.

Snyderman: There is language, buzz words, that just seem to get under people's skin, a few of them: mandates. We mandate auto insurance. Why not mandate health insurance, universal health care; tax it, ration it, which I think is a big, you know, elephant that nobody wants to talk about in the room?

How do you change the language so that people don't wrestle, and we all recognize that ...

Obama: Well, I think that the most important thing for people to understand is that the system, as it is, is unsustainable. And if people understand that; if you look at the trend lines, where your premiums have doubled over the last nine years; your out-of-pocket costs have gone up 62 percent; the federal government is being bankrupt by Medicare and Medicaid — if you look at all these things, then you know that, just standing still, we are going to be overrun by health care costs.

Once the American people understand that, then it's a matter of us making intelligence choices.

I — I was opposed to the idea of an individual mandate, each person had to get health insurance, like car insurance.

Snyderman: But why?

Obama: I'm still — well, because my concern was, if we post a mandate, then people who couldn't afford it still would not have the ability to pay for the health insurance that was out there that was available, except now they were also being punished.

But I've changed my mind on this because what I've — was persuaded of was that, if we can phase this in so that we know there's affordable insurance out there — and, in fact, a lot of the uninsured are relatively young people who could be insured fairly cheaply — that that actually will drive down the cost for everybody.

So there's an example of, if the president of the United States can get educated on something and change their mind.  I have confidence that the American people, when they get all the facts, will see that we can improve quality.

People will still have a choice of doctors and choice of plans.  And over the long term, we're going to save everybody money.

Snyderman:  If you can change your mind on that, would you consider changing your mind on taxing health care benefits so that everyone ponies up a little bit?

Obama:  Well, you know, I have to tell you that I think the way that we are approaching it, the way I've suggested we approach it ... I'm very worried about people who are reliant on existing insurance plans suddenly being told, "You know what?  You are going to have to change your insurance plan, even though you may have negotiated with your employer for that higher benefits. That's an out-of-pocket cost for you."

And what I've said is that the better way to do this is to finance most of reform through reallocating dollars that are already being paid into the system. And you know, you're hearing a lot of noise out there about this is a $1.2 trillion reform effort, or a $1 trillion reform effort.  Actually, about $600,000 — $600 billion of that $1 trillion is money that's already being spent subsidizing insurance companies, subsidizing pharmaceutical companies, spending unwisely on health care through the government.

And if we took that $600 billion and reallocate it, then what we're really talking about is a cost of somewhere around $400 billion over 10 years, or $30 billion to $40 billion a year.

Snyderman:  And budget neutral by the time...

Obama:  Budget neutral. Won't add to the deficit. And, by the way, we'll get that $40 billion back by things like wellness and health I.T., etc. 

The problem is, is that that money may come later, once all these changes and reforms are in place, so we're going to have to do something up front.  I think the best way to do it is to lower the itemized deductions for people who make a lot of money — like me.  And if we do that, we can pay for it. And ultimately, this will pay for itself.

Snyderman:  Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about your new nomination for surgeon general.  You've had two surgeons general nominees — Dr. Sanjay Gupta, high-profile, academic neurosurgeon, Dr. Regina Benjamin, under the radar, family practitioner in rural America. They seem on paper to be diametrically opposed.

Obama: Could I say, I have great respect for Sanjay Gupta, but I never nominated him.  

The press nominated him. I never — you know, that was not — there were people who had suggested that he might make a good surgeon general.  And I think, in fact, he could have made a good surgeon general. He's a very well-spoken person and a lot of the job of the surgeon general is to get a message out.

Snyderman:  Did you pick the right person?

Obama: Oh, I'm confident I picked the right person.  The — when you look at Dr. Benjamin's track record, she is a family physician who's worked in some of the toughest areas, in a diverse community of low-income people, a lot of under-insured, under very adverse circumstances.  And yet, somehow, always made the best of it. 

She cares deeply about prevention.  She cares deeply about making sure that the American people are healthy. She is going to be an excellent surgeon general.

Snyderman: Mr. President, I know you hate this, but really, is the battle with the cigarettes going OK? I'd be remiss as a cancer surgeon not to ask you how you're doing.  

Obama: I'm doing quite well, thank you.

Snyderman:
Good luck.

Obama:  I appreciate it.

Snyderman: Thank you for your invitation today.

Obama: You bet. I enjoyed it. Thank you. Thank you.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Dr. Nancy Snyderman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (171)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
Floyd-291641

Sounds like BS to me !!

The Massachusetts plan at it's worst !!!!!!!

There's no reform here !!

  • 15 votes
#1 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:34 PM EDT
mabtle

Floyd --- It is BS, MS, and PhD (piled high and deep) Obama has NO understanding of what the real problems are in healthcare. It is attempting to put a BIG bandaid on the problems, covering them up with a lot of rhetoric. Problems in healthcare BEGAN when government stuck their nose where it did NOT belong. When government initiated DRG's, Medicare and Mediaid, and then invited insurance companies into the fold, healthcare deteriorated. Have you ever wondered why there are so many insurance companies now in the healthcare industries? It is NOT because of competition but because of profit where insurance companies can determine what kind of care you will receive and refuse the treatment plan of your doctor. I have actually seen a doctor on the phone arguing with a MD beaucrat from an insurance company on transferring a patient to the insurers hospital when the patient was unstable. Who knew the patient best -- the actual attending physician or the MD beaucrat sitting in an office hundreds of miles away? This neophyte of a president needs to live in the real world not the world presented by special interests. IF he wants such a program, then HE and CONGRESS should be the trial group to test the efficiencies of HIS healthcare reform for at least a full 12 months before pushing this BS on us the American people. Yes, I AM a healthcare professional and I DO NOT approve of this healthcare reform. This is NOT healthcare reform but another level of government beaucracy. True healthcare reform would address the problems that are currently creating this debaucle -- healthcare insurers, drug companies, medical malpractice, frivolous lawsuits, etc. By developing ten commandments for the healthcare industry preformance, responsibity and integrity and establishing tort reform would help control costs and availbility, but of course this would require thinking by Congress and committment to ignore the special interests and actually represent the American people as Congress was elected to do. Congress now is behaving like a bunch of children wanting to please a parent (Obama) and give him anything he wants. We need to DELUGE ALL Congressmen with a RESOUNDING NO to this pushed through proposal. Who ever said Congress or the President knows best. We, working and living in the real world, KNOW best -- we the CITIZENS of the USA.

  • 14 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:31 AM EDT
The Colonel-964761

So everybody has to understand there's "no free lunch." BUT, not one word about the waste in Washington. The over spending by his own administration. Always back to "the American people need to understand." "The American people need to tighten their belts." "The American people need to make sacrifices." Nothing about how cutting back on the budget and stimulus spending could provide all the money he needs for this health-care-at-gun-point program. I wonder how much money could be saved if Obama would sacrifice just ONE "Wednesday Party Night" a month. My guess would be tens of thousands of dollars.

Yesterday, my wife came home from work with some disappointing news. The owner of the business where she works had a meeting with his accountant who told him he had two choices if he wanted to stay above water:

1. Lay off 10 people right now or

2. Cut everone's pay by 20%

He felt bad and decided he couldn't do either of those things but knew he had to cut costs somewhere. So he type up a memo and sent it to all the employees notifying them he was cutting everyone's pay by 10%. Some people got mad. Some even quit on the spot. From what my wife said, he tried to explain that if he didn't, no one would have a job. Including him. Now Obama wants to tax this business (and me) more through Cap and Trade and force Government mandated health care on all the emplyees. I assume she'll be out of work before the end of the year.

My business has dropped an average of 50% this year. We are struggling, but her parents help out so we haven't lost our house. Yet. Something bad is on the horizon. Not just for me but for all of us. I have always felt very priveledged that I was born in America. I have always looked at the other nations of the world and felt secure that my way of life was never in jeopardy. I now no longer feel that way. My way of life is slowing being pulled out from under me and there's nothing I can do to stop it.

I'm genuinely scared. I wish Obama would stop doing these things. I really wish he would.

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:17 AM EDT
Amy 1243

I agree - this man just keeps getting scarier and scarier. With no one to check him congress, I'm frightened of what this country will look like in 4 years. Leave my money alone and get Gov't out of every single aspect of private lives!

  • 11 votes
#1.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:31 AM EDT
The Colonel-964761

A portion of a report put out by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The report is titled "Constitutional Implications of an "Individual Mandate" in Health Care Reform" by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith:

"Mechanisms of enforcement of an individual mandate would invite scrutiny as well. Enforcement through the federal tax system would be useless for those who have no income to be taxed and do not file tax returns or for those who have no tax liability. This suggests even more aggressive types of enforcement will be necessary. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., who was recently nominated by President Obama to become Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, "developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable."

I think you get the idea.

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
Chris-537131

If you want to see a good parallel to the mess our health care delivery system is in, one should look back to the 1700's and early 1800's at fire departments. Fire departments were originally volunteer and consisted of stacks of buckets. The buckets would be contributed by the town's citizens and everyone able would man bucket brigades when their was a fire.

But then the first pump wagons and fire engines came on the scene. Horses were expensive to buy and keep and pumpers and steam-powered pump apparatus was even more expensive. So, in most communities there were created for-profit fire companies. These companies operated by subscription. You maid a monthly fee and they affixed a plaque beside your front door. If you didn't pay, they took down the plaque. There were usually multiple fire companies created and they competed for business, trying to underprice or oversell the other. If you had a fire and a different company showed up, they would let your house burn. If you had a fire and no plaque, they would let your house burn. They would not even protect their own houses until they were actually on fire --- no preventive hosing down.

The result was that often whole city blocks or even multiple blocks burned. Fire protection was so expensive that lots of people couldn't afford it in the first place. Small fires in poor sections of town quickly blossomed into huge fires that overwhelmed the fire companies in better-off sections of town.

Cities and towns began to consider city-owned-sponsored fire departments modeled after their police forces. Taxes would have to be raised to pay for it. City payrolls would have to be expanded, but the potential for saving lives and property were huge. The fire companies protested that it was socialist and that they deserved their profit and that thousands of people would be put out of work and that there was no way a city could do a good job, etc. (Sound familiar?)

But the benefits outweighted the costs and every city went either one of two routes: 1) Most cities went to city-owned and operated fire departments, or 2) others, but some smaller towns went to subsidized "volunteer" fire departments with a full-time paid cadre.

In the first case, the fire departments were supported by some sort of uniform taxation, usually some form of property tax. In the volunteer fire departments these were generally supported out of general funds and supplemented by numerous fund raisers where only the "giver" type of people contributed funds.

Both systems work pretty well with the provision that city fire departments work much better on a large scale because of the equipment and manpower required for a larger community with larger buildings and a greater population and a greater danger of rapid fire spread. Think of a major event like the WTC disaster and the huge fire department response. Volunteer fire departments worked quite well in more rural situations where structures were small, fires typically did not spread, and there were a small number of fires. Frequently, the role of the volunteer fire department was to make sure that a small house fire burned itself out without doing unnecessary damage.

We would never go back to a subscription fire system. It simply did not work. Some people took the "it won't happen to me" approach and didn't subscribe. Competition was coun terproductive. The profit motive sapped their effecrtiveness and unnecessarily drained off important capital as profit. And last, but certainly not least, huge fires burned lots of homes and businesses.

Some things are better off left to unfettered capitalism (such as Jobs in his garage), some things need carefully regulated capitalism (such as banking), some things need a degree of socialism (police and fire departments) and some things need a degree of communism (the state and national parks.)

Name-calling and misrepresentation doesn't help. Pelple need to step back, take a deep breath, and look around at the rest of the world and honestly and objectively see what works and what doesn't, and pick the form of delivery that fits the needs of the public.

We really can do better than the most expensive (about twice #2 - France), but 37th ranked (France is #1) health care system in the world. We can also do something about out huge malpractice rate (#1 in the world and the #5 leading cause of death in this country.) Only about 30 or so percent of the people in this country have adequate health care insurance (most of them are on Medicare or MedicAid or in VA hospials). The rest are either uninsured or have scam insurance (like AFLAC) or have "penny insurance" that covers virtually nothing.

But until people look honestly at where we stand and what can be done about it, we won't do any better.

If you are interested enough to seek it out, the Pew Charitable Trusts does lots of international polling on social issues including health care. Google them and be surprised. Every country with universal health care published exhaustive data about costs, problems, wait times, etc. Google them and see what they really look like. You will find out that the anti-universal health care information you are hearing does not match reality and are misrepresentations, apples-and-oranges comparisons, or downright lies.

As Cicero used to ask (with attribution to Ravilla) "Cio bono?" before every acta was voted on in the Roman Senate. "To whose benefit?" Look and see who stands to lose profits as a result of universal health care and you will have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the opposition. There are literally $2 trillon annually in profits at stake.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
Arthur-379160

Any reform that does not include a public option is wasted time, effort, and tax payer money, and is more of the same b/s we have had for decades.

The government is doing quite well, such as the US Post office. I can send a letter anywhere in the US for 44 cents. Try sending the same letter via private enterprise corporation, FedEx, et. el., and it will cost more than five dollars.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
ANNA-NYC

Arthur - I agree with you. Government needs to intervene in some things that basically have became a monopoly. And though we have many private insurances, they somehow manage either to fix prices for all of us, or just drive them up in order to attract investors. any way - according to the plan, they still will be able to operate, public option will be just one of many. We have the same system with worker comp. insurance - there are private companies and there are state insurance programs. For some companies, private is better choice, for some - state.

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:56 PM EDT
BZe1

Rubbing hands together gleefully...... thinking..... let the for profit health insurance comps, big pharma and those in their generous pockets and their cohorts with their miss-information spielmiesters, regurgers, spinners, lobbiest etc etc etc begin their whining, wingeing, mealy mouthing...LOL

Who benefits if there is no public universal health plan?.......

Who benefits if there is a public universal health plan?........

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
The Colonel-964761

All I can tell you is who will suffer if it is implemented.

me.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
ANNA-NYC

All I can tell you is who will suffer if it is implemented.

me.

What makes you think that? There is no way average person would suffer. Of course, if you make more than $350k, then yes, unfortunately. But would you rather "suffer" with your income, or "benefit" like people who make way less than that? You still will be better off than average person who struggle to make ends meet, trust me.

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:24 PM EDT
The Colonel-964761

I would rather live my life without the Federal Government interfering. If you honestly believe that you will recieve this "right" and it will not cost you. You are wrong. More wrong than I can tell you. I cannot change your mind. You have already have it made up. The ONLY thing that is going to change your mind is time. In time you will see the effects it will have on you, your family, your income, and the quality of your health care. When that day comes in your life, and remember this day when someone told you it would, I won't be there to say "I told you so." Saying that will be meaningless. I will be out of business. My wife will have no job. I will probably no longer own my home. I will be spending my days trying to find work and survive. Where I'll be living I do not know. I predict this will happen probably within a year if Cap and Trade and Health Care passes. It may sound "pessimistic," But I am only trying to be "realistic."

Talk to me in one year and you will have a different opinion. I guarantee it. Goodbye.

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
ANNA-NYC

I will be out of business. My wife will have no job.

Do you work for private health insurance then? I don't get where are you coming from. Also, private ins. probably will be out of baseness, at least some of them, there will be new jobs in public h/insurance. And they will need people with experience.

it will not cost you

It will definitely cost me. But I hope not as much as I have to pay right now. And cost is just going up and up and up - 20%, 15%, min 10% a year. My income don't grow that much, not even close.

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
Spriggs

It's time we refused to lag behind the many industrialized nations with universal health care. We cannot afford to sustain the current system - in which medical decisions are made by non-medical "suits" in the upper echelons of HMOs - any longer and retain our identity as a civilized modern nation.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
dave20121

We spend twice as much as France...now, it's going to cost more and my access to care is going to include a longer wait to be seen by a doctor.

I would like to see a hospital, with a staff of professionals, in conjunction with big pharma, offer a health plan with the elimination of lawsuits. It may not be a choice for some people, but it is a choice I am willing to accept in exchange for the cost benefits.

Think of it as the choice between liability and comprehensive auto insurance. I know it's radical. But, I bet that I would have an endless list of doctors to choose from.

If healthcare insurance is mandated, I hope it is treated like auto insurance. Auto insurance is not designed to cover, flat tires, oil changes, spark plugs etc. It is for more serious damages. Mandated healthcare should be for catastrophic ailments. After all, these are the reason people file for bankruptcy, not the common cold or fever.

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
Steelman-495358

Sounds to me like we have a bunch of Acorn asswipes responding to Floyd's post (#1). You're morons because you think its the insurance companies fixing prices. Have you ever thought that possibly it is the medical industries charges that drive prices and those increases are simply reflected in insurance companies charges? Well think about it because that is exactly what it is. Why aren't you screaming at Obama and congress about why they refuse to enact tort reform which would have a significant effect on lowering rates? The biggest reason of all is that healthcare is not a constitutional benefit to be provided by government or the taxpayers. If everyone wants healthcare, then they get their ass to work and pay for it like the rest of us.

  • 1 vote
#1.15 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:00 PM EDT
mabtle

URGENT!!!!! TAKE NOTE, URGENT!!!!!--- Everyone needs to read #37 It's Not An Option. Someone got a hold of the bill and read through some of the provisions. READ!!!!! It will be illegal to have private insurance, if you do have in the beginning you can keep it but NEVER change, etc. Investor's Business Daily had an article on it. IT is scarier then ever.

  • 1 vote
#1.16 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:10 AM EDT
Cairnblsd

For those of us worried by what we’ve heard from some politicians who are telling us we will end up with, "the kind of substandard healthcare those living in Canada, the UK and other countries with universal healthcare receive", here's a little information for you (Source BBC.com country profiles. Average life expectancy data from the UN):

Average Life Expectancies by Country (All listed countries except the USA have a version of universal healthcare):

United States 76 years (men), 81 years (women)

Australia 79 years (men), 84 years (women)

Austria 77 years (men), 83 years (women)

Belgium 76 years (men), 82 years (women)

Canada 78 years (men), 83 years (women)

Denmark 76 years (men), 81 years (women)

Finland 76 years (men), 82 years (women)

France 77 years (men), 84 years (women)

Germany 77 years (men), 82 years (women)

Greece 77 years (men), 82 years (women)

Iceland 80 years (men), 83 years (women)

Ireland 76 years (men), 81 years (women)

Italy 78 years (men), 83 years (women)

Japan 79 years (men), 86 years (women)

Netherlands 78 years (men), 82 years (women)

New Zealand 78 years (men), 82 years (women)

Norway 78 years (men), 83 years (women)

Spain 78 years (men), 84 years (women)

Sweden 79 years (men), 83 years (women)

Switzerland 79 years (men), 84 years (women)

United Kingdom 77 years (men), 82 years (women)

    #1.17 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
    Reply
    Jerry-352313

    This man really, does think he can do this with rhetoric and charisma.

    He is very close to being a meglomaniac

    • 15 votes
    Reply#2 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:02 PM EDT
    Lori-1140712Restored

    He is not close; he IS a malignant narcissistic megalomaniac. HE has glided through life on BS and now he is doing it as President.

    • 6 votes
    #2.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
    revolution time!

    America is "no longer what we once knew"............It is at the highest all time low in "decades" and we are not at "rock bottom yet".........I see a Revolution is right around the corner my fellow scared Americans!!!!!!!! The corruption and government is out of control!!!!

    • 5 votes
    #2.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:41 PM EDT
    Reply
    Cp-906160

    There is so much, so wrong, with that whole interview that I feel ill.

    The more I try to support our President, the worse I feel.

    The biggest thing that jumped out at me is that the government is going to reallocate more efficiently and fairly some 600 Billion already being spent.

    I do not think anyone can come up with a single example where the government has gotten its finger in a pie that ended up either more efficient or more fair.

    The more I think about our current state of affairs, the more I think of becoming a hippie. Live off the grid and let these fools destroy themselves.

    Be there to help rebuild from the ashes.

    • 14 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:12 PM EDT
    rdg-309597

     

    the issues are often misrepresented, for instance, most Doctors will prescribe generic

    when at all possible, for common sense and the good of the patient, but sometimes

    newer (thus branded) drugs are needed to more effectively treat the condition, such

    as diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension etc.  I have been a Dr. for 35 years, and do

    see Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured etc as well, and I have NOT been on any "junkets"

    nor am I influenced by any pharmaceutical rep. unless their product is effective and

    necessary for MY patients.  Maybe some of our elected officials may be more influenced

    by $$ and "contributions" and lobyists than most reputable Physicians, come on Docs

    speak up..Thanks for the time..RG MD.

     

    • 7 votes
    #3.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
    JoJo-362265-751247

    RG, good for you and keep up the good work.

    • 1 vote
    #3.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
    Reply
    TamSam

    One quote is true "the american taxpayer can not expect something for nothing". Well said, those of us hard working people who pay taxes do not expect something for nothing. The problem is the ones who do not work, that can work that expect something for nothing. In no way am I putting down the disabled, laid off or those who honestly can not find a job, I am strictly talking about those who have and continue to abuse the system. They will once again benefit from laziness while the rest of us support them.

    • 16 votes
    #4 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:25 PM EDT
    ANNA-NYC

    They will once again benefit from laziness while the rest of us support them.

    You still don't get it, do you? One more time - "lazy" and poor people have Medicaid and subsidized state insurance plans. It's middle middle class who are crashed by h/i premiums. Why the hell people like you keep taking about "lazy" people not getting health insurance? Hard working people can't afford it, because it's so damn expensive! In NYC, f/e you can get subsidized state plan for family of 4 if you make up to 55K. What if you make more than that - can you afford to pay $1000-1300 a months?

    In no way am I putting down the disabled, laid off or those who honestly can not find a job

    You don't. They are already covered by state and federal programs.

    • 3 votes
    #4.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:18 AM EDT
    bill s-956208

    Anna Do you think this plan is going to be helpful to the folks you are concerned about? Let me answer that for you..NO. It does nothing to address the causes of our health care expense..ie baby boomers reaching the age of 60+..living longer on expensive meds and expensive diagnostics and the fact that we as Americans do nothing to promote our own general good health. We eat poorly..don't get enough rest..are way too stressed and get have become an obese nation..all of the above are the major reasons we have high health care costs...Throw in frivolous law suits and enormous shackles placed on our pharmacutical industry and there you have it. Obama only wants to buy votes w/his plan..Cover the uninsured buy taxing others..40mil votes is a lot of votes. This political football has nothing to do with fixing health care. Nothing at all..

    One more thing..if employers have to foot the bill they will offer less..lay off people and move business to countries where the economic environment is more favorable. All of that equals more unemployed/uninsured here in the US

    • 4 votes
    #4.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:43 AM EDT
    ANNA-NYC

    enormous shackles placed on our pharmacutical industry

    Let me tell you one story. I was prescribed medication against GERD - protonix. My plan don't cover Rx at all, so I had to buy it from local pharmacy. 1 month supply cost me $110.00 (30 pills). Then my friend told me about on-line Canadian pharmacy. I ordered 3 months supply for $50.00 (90 pills) + $10 shipping fee. Now, calculate how much more I was charged for the same drug in US and how much profit was received by our "shacked" pharmaceutical industry? Here 1 pill cost me $3.66, in Canada - $0.55. Difference is 6.65 times.

    • 4 votes
    #4.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
    bill s-956208

    Anna You need to educate yourself..There are plenty of generic and theraputic equivilents that you could be taking right here in the US that would be about 50 cents per pill. If you don't do your homework you'll never know. Blame the Dr and yourself for that issue. Not the healthcare system

    • 1 vote
    #4.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
    ANNA-NYC

    There are plenty of generic and theraputic equivilents that you could be taking right here in the US that would be about 50 cents per pill

    It was generic option - $110/month. Brand name would cost me $184 (nexium). And I am pretty educated about this - I have no other choice, since I have no coverage and have to shed out my out of pocket money. But since you think you are so much ahead of me - give me one example of cheaper option.

    • 1 vote
    #4.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:01 PM EDT
    ANNA-NYC

    And, also, just for your information - my sister is nurse-practitioner with MD. So, I can always get free advice on medical options.

    • 1 vote
    #4.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
    BZe1

    Bill, crazy as it may seem, there are actually some patients that do not respond to some drugs including some generics.

    There was a time when some meds cost $10 per tablet. LOL And some still do.

    By the way, patients who are transplant recepients and HIV/AIDS patients etc are on a variety of very expensive drugs for life. Who do you think is paying for same? The private for profit insurance companies? LOL ...Go wish....LOL

    How about cancer treatment drugs? Know what those drugs cost? Wonder why some folks end up losing their homes because of the cost for these treatments or die because they cannot afford it.

    Whether one want to admit it or not there is a double standard in the treatment of patients in this country. If you have the money you can buy the best. If you don't.....well you are screwd....... LOL

    And by the way... there is also a double standard based on ethnicity, appearance, age, type / level of insurance coverage etc also, whether anyone want to admit it or not. But most/many folks in the medical arena will not admit to that..... sort of bias. LOL

    • 2 votes
    #4.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:18 PM EDT
    JoJo-362265-751247

    My father in law reciently had cancer. The drugs were $3,000.00 per month. The Dr.s office told us right off the bat if we could not afford it, the drug company has a program to help. Fortunatly, he had very good insurance so we didn't find out the amount of help available but this isn't the first I've heard of this.

      #4.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
      bills

      Anna.."if" your sister is a nurse ask her the difference between a "brand " drug..like Protonix (expensive) and it's generic counterpart Pantoprazole that can be bought for less than $ tablet..your story is leaking like the Titantic

      Next of all ..yes on rare occassions 1 in 32 times does the generic or theraputic equivilent not work as well as the brand name drug..1 in 32...

        #4.9 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
        bills

        BZe1 one more thing..if you think cancer drugs are expensive to buy try developing one. They cost 100s and 100s of millions of dollars and very..very few ever make it out of clinical trial.

        for everyone complaining about the cost of drugs..let me ask this..would you rather not have them? did the cancer drug save your father in laws life? Aren't you glad that these big..ugly..greedy pharma companies were will to risk hundreds of millions of dollars to try to find a cure? Can't have it both ways..

          #4.10 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:55 PM EDT
          Spriggs

          Big Pharma's still wasting way too much $ on advertising/marketing. I know doctors and their staffs who are treated to lavish promotional lunches and showered with a wide variety of promotional paraphernalia. Wouldn't this money be much more wisely spent on research...or patient assistance for those who can't afford the exhorbitant price of cancer and other drugs? People on some of the newer, more expensive medications tell me they're sent umbrellas, tote bags, and other nonsense imprinted with their drugs' names, merchandise they don't want.

          It's obscene.

            #4.11 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
            JoJo-362265-751247

            Bills, my father in law died but that wasn't the point. I was trying to say that he could have gotten the medication for free or for reduced price. A new health care system wasn't needed. Gesh!

              #4.12 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:03 PM EDT
              mabtle

              ANNA - NYC Blame the malpractice lawyers. It is because of their constant sueing that the price of drugs are costly. Insurance is expensive for many reasons. One reason is that lawyers sue those with DEEP pockets, in other words if monies are available in a malpractice case, the lawyers will go after those with the deepest pockets. Doctors' liability insurance is extremely expensive and doctors have to pay their overhead plus their insurance plus have a living wage. Consequently, you pay more for healthcare, drugs, etc. If reform was truly the goal, then Obama would address tort reform and insurance reform. The real issue is TOTAL control of your choices, your liberties, your freedom, more intrusion in you private life, BIG BROTHER telling you what you can do or NOT do, what you can have or NOT have.

                #4.13 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:27 AM EDT
                choochoo-1167113

                I really would like to know who all of the "lazy" people you are talking about are. There are very strict requirements for anyone to obtain Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security. The whiners who carry on about how hard they "work" and "support the lazy people" are really the lazy scumbags. They hate work and are jealous of the elderly and disabled. That is TRULY perverse.

                • 1 vote
                #4.14 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:25 AM EDT
                rocketfan36

                This isn't about lazy, poor, or the rich. It's about the gov't spending more money than they've got. The gov't doesn't make any money to spend, they take it from the people. So if I understand this right: If you are rich you are required to share with all those that aren't. Why don't we poor people just skip the middle man and drive staight to the nearest mansion and take what is rightfully ours, they don't need all those cars. It's not fair that the one I've got is a POS. Who's with me on this? By the way, the Rockets are going to suck this year becuase they have lost all their talent to injuries, I think the gov't should step in and force the Lakers to send us some talent, it's just not fair they have far better players than the Rockets. Just sayin'.

                  #4.15 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:20 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  BP-881641

                  Hey Mr. Obama, I'm not asking for "something for nothing". I don't want anything. Just leave my money and my healthcare out of the government's hands.

                  By the way, the doctors I know aren't taken to "junkets" by pharmaceutical companies. That must be a lawyer thing.

                  • 12 votes
                  Reply#5 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:33 PM EDT
                  hotmama-1162215

                  So the question is, can we provide good information to doctors?  Can we provide good information to patients?

                  That portion of the interview really annoyed me as well.  I guess the pres & congress have better information about how drugs work than the doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  So doctors are making critical decisions for their patients based on being wined and dined by some "lobbyist"?  No, I think you're confusing doctors with Congress!

                  • 8 votes
                  #5.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:13 AM EDT
                  hotmama-1162215

                  So the question is, can we provide good information to doctors?  Can we provide good information to patients?

                  That portion of the interview really annoyed me as well.  I guess the pres & congress have better information about how drugs work than the doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  So doctors are making critical decisions for their patients based on being wined and dined by some "lobbyist"?  No, I think you're confusing doctors with Congress!

                  • 2 votes
                  #5.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:14 AM EDT
                  hotmama-1162215

                  So the question is, can we provide good information to doctors?  Can we provide good information to patients?

                  That portion of the interview really annoyed me as well.  I guess the pres & congress have better information about how drugs work than the doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  So doctors are making critical decisions for their patients based on being wined and dined by some "lobbyist"?  No, I think you're confusing doctors with Congress!

                    #5.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:14 AM EDT
                    crazy-351712

                    I think he needs to worry more about our elected officials and their junkets, what a worthless person this country has elected. The liar and thief!

                    • 11 votes
                    #5.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:34 AM EDT
                    john-847382

                    I think the prez and congress's info sucks. They are most ignorant on this issue as most people that can get generic drugs do so.

                    And as for the alacart vs. the blue plate special, who is more guilty than the president and congress and their health care system which is totally different from ours!

                    If they wish to impose their heath care policy on us, they should have to live, or die with it too, under the same guidelines as we will have to.

                    Also, as for the tests that are run that they seem unnecessary, you can blame that on the layers and court systems that pay out huge sums for malpractice lawsuits that affect the premiums of all doctors. They want to be sure they are right as possible which necessitates the running of extra tests!

                    So, they do not have a clue of what they are talking about!

                    • 6 votes
                    #5.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:12 AM EDT
                    The Colonel-964761

                    hotmama. I felt exactly the same way when I read that.

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:26 AM EDT
                    Tom Delno

                    Actually I think it's mostly representatives and senators who go on junkets with the lobbyists.. Oh by the way..they're not included in the health care plans.. along with the unions.. NO free lunch huh??

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
                    JoJo-362265-751247

                    Like the trip the SSA took reciently. $700,000.00 to pay for a stress relieving retreat for 700 employees!

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:19 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    donnatyler25Deleted
                    MG - California

                    This guy is on drugs! While most hard work AMERICANS are funding his tax and spend agenda, the illegals here have gotten a free ride. We need to stop giving citizenship to children born on American soil to illegals. We need to stop all welfare payments, medical aid, substance payments, etc., etc., to those people who are not citizens! We need to stop incarcerating illegals here on crimes and put them on a one-way ride to their country or origin. For Obama to say that taxpayers cannot expect a free ride while allowing and providing illegals a free ride, is a sure sign that this guy is smoke'n something funny. We need to get pissed off!!!!!!! I am.

                    • 13 votes
                    Reply#7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    He needs the illegal, dead, and cartoon charatcers to put him in office one more time...don't you get it? sarcasm, folks.

                    Call your Congress people and keep the pressure on them - on this and cap and tax: both will absolutely DESTROY our economy.

                    • 3 votes
                    #7.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:39 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    sygh

                    I'd like to read what a bunch of doctors from all over the country and also in Canada have to say.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:02 AM EDT
                    AC Robertson

                    From the Doctors in Eastern NC I have talked to do not want more restrictions or paperwork. The main problem voiced is the shortages in Doctors and RNs. These shortages have not been addressed by anything BHO has proposed....

                    One Doctor I have talked to complained about the increasing numbers of uninsured patients. She would not identify any specific demographic.....

                    • 1 vote
                    #8.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:45 AM EDT
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    I worked for a group of doctors - to a person they all said they went into medicine to help people. They spend 12 years in school, an enormous amount of money in loans and then on top of all that they have HUGE premiums for malpractice thanks to the ambulance chasers. They live comfortably but are not "rich" by any means. They do not make what you see these doctors making on these Hoolywood plastic surgeon shows. The other day they had to lay off somebody because the costs keep rising and they aren't making it. To do it fairly they put all their names (including the dr's)in a bowl and just picked one out - a nurse who had been with them for 17 years was out of a job that very day. That, my friends, is sad. The doctors who can who I have spoken with, say they will be gone if this planned health care fiasco goes into place.

                    • 3 votes
                    #8.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
                    bill s-956208

                    If you read the proposal closely you will se that the gov't had to buy off the Drs to get them somewhat on board. The gov't plan has a provision to pay the Drs 5% more than the private insurers..Now how that contains cost is beyond me but the gov't straight out bought their vote..THIS IS CHANGE ALL RIGHT..for the worst..

                    • 1 vote
                    #8.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
                    ANNA-NYC

                    Now how that contains cost is beyond me

                    Since it's going to be a non-profit option, government can afford to pay more to the doctors - they don't have to think about generating profit, as private company do.

                    • 2 votes
                    #8.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
                    JoJo-362265-751247

                    I can imagine that they won't need malpractice either. You cannot sue the government.

                      #8.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:23 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      Rex Parker

                      Obama is a would be do-gooder who hasn't matured enough to understand the unintended consequenses of his destructive actions. The fact that the unemployment rate is so high is no conicidence. There is such a thing as cause and effect. Time to wake up people and call a man who would destroy our economic engine on the wrong side of our best interests.

                      • 10 votes
                      Reply#9 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:07 AM EDT
                      AC Robertson

                      US Taxpayers have responsibilities but Illegals get a FREE ride. The Federal Government is not willing or not able to control the USA boarders, so the US Taxpayer has to pay billions to support people who do not pay taxes....... WHO is the IRRESPONSIBLE party here??????

                      Pregnant woman with Swine Flu misdiagnosed and dies in Spain. Her baby is then killed by a medical ERROR two weeks later....... This is the Universal Health care that BHO wants to force almost EVERYONE in the US to have. Except him and other Politicians.. see www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31892804/

                      • 9 votes
                      Reply#10 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:00 AM EDT
                      Dagmar54

                      We now know that there is life on other planets. He is not of this world. Insurance companies only want the healthy unless you fall under group insurance. Picking and choosing what coverage your insurance will provide can be costly in the long run. I had that type of insurance for my sons. Big mistake. Anyway, how are the unemployed to maintain insurance?

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#11 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:32 AM EDT
                      Virginia in AZ.

                      The moment your congressperson is sworn in they and their spouse and dependents have health insurance (FEHBP). What kind of health insurance? read on and grit your teeth.

                      Members of congress have their own pharmacy, doctors, nurses, technicians standing by. They can get their prescriptions filled, an x-ray, electrocardiogram, physical without ever leaving the building. What is the cost of such a healt plan? Could you afford it?

                      Representatives pay----- $300.00------------------------Senators pay------------- $ 600.00-------------------------You the taxpayer--$2,000,000.00------------------------Yes that's right, you the taxpayer pays 75% of the members of congress premiums per year

                      The taxpayer also pay's their many sources of pay and benifits. They voted themselfs a cost of living wage this year while the rest of us were watching our life savings and jobs disappear.

                      These are the same people that voted that medicare could not negotiate with pharmaceuticals companies for cheaper prices. The VA does negotiated with the pharmaceuticals companies and get a much better price. This list may give you a clue as to who and why Americans can not get reasonable health care prices.

                      The top Recipients of health insurer money!

                      (S) McCain(R-AZ)$251,834 Rep Cantor(R) $113,850 (S)McConnell (R-KY)$200,200 (S) KYL (R-AZ)$90,000 (S)Bauscus (D-MT) $183,75 (R) Boehner (R-OH) $101,200 and the list goes on.

                      The top Recipients of drug Co. money

                      senator John McCain $294,603 representative Boehner (R-OH)$ 156,125 and the list goes on. Go to www/Consumer Watchdog to read more.

                      How many of you have health care like our congress? How many of you have looked at your policies and checked to see how many days of hospitalization and the dollars amount your policy will pay? I know from experience that the moment your days or dollar amounts are reached the hospital telephones you and informs you have until noon to bring dollars or take the patient,and the insurance drops you.

                      Do we need health care here in America? YES we do! Lets get it stright, President Obama tells you if you are happy with your health care provider and the cost keep it. But to the Millions who have lost their job,They need to be able to receive care of the doctor or hospitial when they or members of their families are ill. Remember they have paid for years for insurance now some are working and not making enough money to pay for insurance. But members of the congress and their families do not have to worry about their insurance, the American taxpayer is picking up the tab.We all need insurance so here is what I suggest we do, At midnight July 16th each and every senator and representative and families will have the insurance plan they now enjoy that you and I pay 75% of CANCELLED. NO MORE SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE.

                      Now, let us see what insurance plan that all Americans want to have.

                      • 8 votes
                      Reply#12 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:58 AM EDT
                      4thepeople

                      Virginia in AZ let me help you with a couple numbers left out. You seem to have conveniently ommitted some of the major offenders.

                      In 2007 and 2008, President Obama raised $928,316 in contributions from individuals employed by the health insurance industry, and $1,068,200 from those employed by the prescription drug industry. However, President Obama did not raise any of this money from industry PACs (political action committees).

                      Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who has become the leading architect of health care reform in Congress, received more campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries than any other current Democratic member of the House or Senate. Senator Baucus received $183,750 from health insurance companies and $229,020 from drug companies.

                      From Healthcare providers:

                      Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)     $101,400, Nelson, Ben (D-NE)         $83,300, Warner, Mark (D-VA)        $89,700, Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)         $104,500, Towns, Edolphus (D-NY)        $87,750, Tanner, John (D-TN)           $68,500

                      From Drug Companies

                      Baucus, Max (D-MT)        $229,020, Dingell, John (D-MI)         $180,300, Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)     $196,540, Frelinghuysen, Rodney (D-NJ) $152,850, Clyburn, James (D-SC)        $145,514, Mendez, Robert (D-NJ)     $147,243

                      I don't know about where you live but here in Liberal Hell also known as Seattle Obama could have insured 200 families for a year or more with the money he was given for his campaign just by these companies. Why should my tax dollars pay for someones healthcare. There are a few select cases I would be willing to support such as orphans, severely hanicapped ..... but I pay for my family health plan and my wife also pays for coverage at her work. And I can safely say our annual gross earnings don't come close to the contributions your chums above recieved. 

                       

                      • 8 votes
                      #12.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:30 AM EDT
                      4thepeople

                      Virginia in AZ let me help you with a couple numbers left out. You seem to have conveniently ommitted some of the major offenders.

                      In 2007 and 2008, President Obama raised $928,316 in contributions from individuals employed by the health insurance industry, and $1,068,200 from those employed by the prescription drug industry. However, President Obama did not raise any of this money from industry PACs (political action committees).

                      Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who has become the leading architect of health care reform in Congress, received more campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries than any other current Democratic member of the House or Senate. Senator Baucus received $183,750 from health insurance companies and $229,020 from drug companies.

                      From Healthcare providers:

                      Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) $101,400, Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $83,300, Warner, Mark (D-VA) $89,700, Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $104,500, Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) $87,750, Tanner, John (D-TN) $68,500

                      From Drug Companies

                      Baucus, Max (D-MT) $229,020, Dingell, John (D-MI) $180,300, Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) $196,540, Frelinghuysen, Rodney (D-NJ) $152,850, Clyburn, James (D-SC) $145,514, Mendez, Robert (D-NJ) $147,243

                      I don't know about where you live but here in Liberal Hell also known as Seattle Obama could have insured 200 families for a year or more with the money he was given for his campaign just by these companies. Why should my tax dollars pay for someones healthcare. There are a few select cases I would be willing to support such as orphans, severely hanicapped ..... but I pay for my family health plan and my wife also pays for coverage at her work. Our combined annual gross earnings might come close to the lowest contribution amount that your chums above have listed.

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:31 AM EDT
                      mabtle

                      This is the reason we need TERM LIMITS. If there were Congressional Term Limits then Congress could not easily be influenced by special interests. Suggest 1 term for Senators and 2 terms for Representatives. Congress would NEVER pass such an Amendment as then they could never have a career in representative politics. The way the ssyem is now, Congressmen represent special interest only or there respective parties NOT the American people. The Founding Fathers intended to have citizen representation in the legislature NOT career politicians.

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:43 AM EDT
                      mabtle

                      I want the SAME healthcare benefits and PLAN that Congress gets and the Democratic Party pres nominee PROMISED and Nothing LESS.

                      • 6 votes
                      #12.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
                      Gordon90N

                      Mabtle #12.3,

                      If we could convince the states to convene a Constitutional Convention and you could get at least 75% of them to agree with the amendments, then it becomes the law of the land. Although this method has never been used, the founders of our country had the insight to foresee the possibility that we'd get "an out of control" Congress and require a method to modify our Constitution, without any interference from Congress.

                      As far as term limits, I'm all for them. For the Senators I'd prefer 3 '2yr' terms instead of one 6yr term __— might make it easier to get rid of a "dud" sooner, with less chance of them messing things up too much. You might also want to set a date for an early election to force the bums out before they can cause more damage, by specifying all incumbents who have already served more years than whatever the new limits are as ineligible. You might want to consider a provision whereby we "the people" have a mechanism to recall ( repesentative/senator/president ) before their terms are up.

                      • 1 vote
                      #12.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:49 AM EDT
                      vol fan in chatt, tn

                      I almost agree with term limits, but not quite. However, you could make it not as lucrative for them to SEEK positions by doing the following:

                      a. provide them with the same healthcare options as they rest of America- say, Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They pay a portion of their own costs like the rest of America - do away with the pharmacy, the clinic, and the doctors and nurses that they have round the clock 24/7 and also they can wait to have tests just like the rest of us. That would save millions.

                      b. no retirement benefits or only a small supplemental retirement plan - that eliminates the long termers who are just in it for what they can get (the career politicians) they won't stay forever if there isn't anything long term for them.

                      c. get rid of the cafeteria- they can eat out of vending machines like the rest of us or fast food and they can PAY for it.

                      d. an immediate reduction in salary - to what it was in 2007 before things started going south. Stop the annual middle of the night pay raise (some of them - about 70 or so-wanted to do this but Queen Pelosi wouldn't even let it come to the floor). A very slight or modest increase in salary the years they balance the budget and reduce the deficit (cutting pork spending would help that), and the years they don't either balance or reduce the budget they will be penalized a percentage of their annual salary accordingly.

                      These and others measures gives them an incentive to make things happen and work together for the American people. The won't be career politicians either- they will become what our founders wanted our leaders to be - statemen and women who were more concerned for the welfare of our country, than their individual comforts and wants. Not many in Congress resemble that today!

                      I am thinking about running myself on this platform. Wadda ya say?

                      • 4 votes
                      #12.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:14 PM EDT
                      Tom Delno

                      I brought this very thing up to my senator from Michigan in an email.. When she replied she didn't respond to that part of my email.. I agree with you one hundred percent.. I hear stuff like we need these perks to attract the best... Hmmmm We're definitely not getting our moneys worth!! Don't forget about their retirement too.. Anyway, I'll vote for you if you can level that playing field!!

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:56 PM EDT
                      john-847382

                      Ya got my support. makes sense to me.

                        #12.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
                        mabtle

                        Vol fan in chatt,Tn -- GO for it. You make some very good points on Congressional benefits.

                          #12.9 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:52 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          Just ask-1217488

                          What happened to the campaign statement, all Americans deserve the same health care benefits as congress gets?

                          If you want to save money, start by eliminating the people on Social Security who has not paid in to it like the illegal immigrants… who are collecting from the system. Illegal drug users, if you collect, then you have to pass a urine test. Just like most employers do when they hire… gee I wonder just how much that alone would save taxpayers…

                          • 9 votes
                          Reply#13 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:11 AM EDT
                          mabtle

                          I want the SAME healthcare benefits and PLAN that Congress gets and what the Democratic Party pres nominee PROMISED. Nothing LESS.

                          • 3 votes
                          #13.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
                          BZe1

                          Just Ask, is Social Security and Welfare the same program. I thought you had to contribute to Social Security to get anything back from it. But then I could be wrong.

                          By the way I thought with SS you get back some of what you put in i.e. through you payment of a SS tax, and will be covered by Medicare at age 65, or earlier if disabled? Hmmm I doubt that you can be covered by Medicare if you have not paid anything into SS.

                          I thought that with SS your health insurance coverage through Medicare is automatic at age 65 but you can chose not to register for it and continue to carry you private insurance coverage......Mind you for some folks the for profit health insurance companies premiums are un-affordable at that age........

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
                          BeautifullyBroken

                          Just ask-1217488

                          What happened to the campaign statement, all Americans deserve the same health care benefits as congress gets?

                          If you want to save money, start by eliminating the people on Social Security who has not paid in to it like the illegal immigrants… who are collecting from the system. Illegal drug users, if you collect, then you have to pass a urine test. Just like most employers do when they hire… gee I wonder just how much that alone would save taxpayers…

                          I want to clarify a couple of things for you. Social Security is not the same as TANF (straight welfare). Illegal immigrants cannot receive Social Security, however legal immigrants who have never paid into the system can. There is Social Security for the 65 and older crowd, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) for the disabled, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (which is basically welfare for those whose SS or SSDI is not enough and those who do not qualify for SSDI.) Children who become disabled prior to the age of 21 and receive SSDI do receive Medicare just like retirees and disabled adults. Those who also receive SSI get Medicaid in addition to Medicare. Medicare does come with a monthly premium and now prescription drug coverage is separate with its own premium.

                          I happen to be disabled, the only medication I have found that works for all of my illnesses happens to be illegal according to our federal government so I will never be able to pass a urine test and yet you believe that it should be a requirement or people like me lose their benefits? Should all those people who have paid into Social Security their entire lives also be forced to pass a drug test in order to keep their benefits? For example do you think the 68-year-old grandmother who eats marijuana laced brownies or drinks marijuana laced tea in order to have an appetite so she doesn't waste away should also have to pass drug tests? You cannot impose laws onto people that support your morals, you cannot choose one element of society (low-income in this case) and make their laws different from another (middle-income). That is unconstitutional.

                            #13.3 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:45 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            4thepeople

                            We could all get insured for a dollar a year if these companies would quit greasing the pockets of these politicians with funds derived from our monthly insurance premiums.

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#14 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:38 AM EDT
                            lugz

                            This is ridiculous at this time. The President has got to stop shoving his agenda down our throats. There is no reason in the world this must be done NOW.

                            He should let his Stimulus package work out it's course and see how we stand then. Before we spend anymore of our tax dollars. So far we're still in a recession, unemployment still rising and he wants to spend 1.5+ trillion dollars we and our grandchildren can't afford. This is insane. They have no idea on the final cost of this ten year plan only guesses.

                            We should have a better idea of some of the new taxes we will all be paying such as possible Cap and Trade (which will raise the cost of everything we consume not just utilities), Income Sur Tax, Employer Tax, Tax on Sugar Drinks, Hire Income Tax (Bush Tax Breaks expire), Vat Tax etc. . We could just be taxing the middle class out of existance.

                            We have to wait until we get out of this recession and people back to long lasting jobs. Then we can really think about a health care plan that is good for everyone one that might work if properly thought out. not one rushed thru to meet a dealine set by the President to meet his own agenda. A Health care plan we'll all be on including our Reps and Senators. If it's good enough for us then it should be good enough for them after all we're paying for it.

                            • 7 votes
                            Reply#15 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:18 AM EDT
                            mabtle

                            Lugz -- Agree with you. We do NOT need this SHOVED down our throats. Let Congress know that the only healthcare plan viable for all of us is the VERY SAME PLAN that they Congressmen get nothing LESS. Everyone DELUGED your Congressmen.

                            • 3 votes
                            #15.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:14 AM EDT
                            john-847382

                            Lets see...787 billion dollar stimulus package, around 300 million citizens and others in the country. So 787 billion divided by 300 million....Why, that would come to around 282 thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child.

                            Why did they not just give it to the people to spend, I think that would have worked better than what they are doing now.

                            Now they want us to swallow a health care package that will not work also!

                            • 2 votes
                            #15.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
                            JoJo-362265-751247

                            Do that math again.

                            787,000,000,000.00 /

                            300,000,000.00

                              #15.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:34 PM EDT
                              choochoo-1167113

                              Have you made any effort to find out why this has to be done "NOW"? Could it be because the bailouts made huge holes in the economy and the people who were responsible for those huge holes invented a solution to fix it? And, have you considered that their "solution" was to decrease the amount that is needed to pay for health care for the baby boomers and this country's poor? The medical and drug industries will be making big profits from the 50 or so million people who will be insured who are not insured now. The doctors will be making more money because they won't have to deal with poor elderly and disabled Medicaid recipients because their benefits have been all but eliminated. So, the doctors, hospitals, etc. can spend their time more profitably by treating the non-poor. You might think "that's fine because it won't effect me". Think again. Few of us escape old age or disability. Business interests love the health reform plan because they won't have to generate revenue for many people except the workers who are generating profits for them. And, retailers don't make alot off of poor, elderly or disabled people, either. Does the word holocaust sound familiar?

                                #15.4 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:01 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                BogusGreen

                                TANSTAAFL rings a bell.

                                Oh that's right lookup the word and see how Obama is conning you all.

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#16 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:45 AM EDT
                                choochoo-1167113

                                President Obama is not solely responsible for any of this. The health care reform debates have been going on for a long time. Where were you when the discussions were at the state and local levels?

                                  #16.1 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:08 AM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  kflann

                                  I just hope there is a goverment plan, I'm paying out my you know what for health care now. If their plan is alot cheaper for me, I'll get it. Don't care what anyone thinks, bring it on, might even allow me to retire early.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  Reply#17 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:39 AM EDT
                                  Ben Fox

                                  My one question to you will it be a better plan. Would you be able to purschase it, and how much would they charge you since you work? Big questions, will it allow me to have test I need in a timely fashion or would they just let a condition be untreated. How much will it really cost, 1.5 trillion or 5 trillion, I think the higher amount and I sure don't want to pay for 30 million people who choose not to get insurance.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #17.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:08 AM EDT
                                  mabtle

                                  You live in a dream world. When the government does anything it costs you more in the long run and you get LESS with many strings attached.

                                  • 4 votes
                                  #17.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:46 AM EDT
                                  Sue-322113

                                  I got news for you...it is going to cost your more regardless......Have you all learned nothing about the bailouts...who got the bailouts....who got the bonuses...the rich and they are not going to pay for this.....they line the govs pockets and why would the gov bite the hand that feeds them.....unlike the stimulus......the tax will trickle down....price inflation, and layoff....same with cap and tax....those freezers in your grocers stores that run 24 hours a day.....we will pay for them everytime we go to the grocery store....not the owner. The biggest problem with healthcare is the malpractice ..... all of those frivolous lawsuits that those frivolous lawyers bring about has malpractice insurance sky high for doctors and hospital......what is the government? Lawyers...so why would they fix the problem.....we are in for the of our lives.....

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #17.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
                                  Tom Delno

                                  Yeah while the rest of work past retirement

                                    #17.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
                                    choochoo-1167113

                                    Have you read AARP The Magazine lately? Retirement is pretty much a thing of the past.

                                      #17.5 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:09 AM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      lugz

                                      A link to the organizational chart of the planned Health Care. What a mess. Posted link only for information and no other reason. Its the only site I found the Chart.

                                      http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/campaigns/democratshealthplan.html

                                      • 1 vote
                                      Reply#18 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:40 AM EDT
                                      btco

                                      Yeah - If I had a box of crayons like the Party of NO, I could make a much better chart. Come on no, we need reform here.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #18.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
                                      lugz

                                      Well here's your crayons show me your better chart.

                                      While There may be a need for reform this is not the time to spend more money that we as a nation can't afford at this time. People may need or want certains things all the time, but when they can't afford it they have to wait until they can. Let's get out of this recession, get people back to long lasting jobs not temp jobs.

                                      We don't need anything shoved down our throats just to meet an agenda.

                                      We need to take the time to get all the facts with any health care plan. Not- here this your plan like it or not and we think its going to cost this. The president says the cost is 1 trillion, congress says 1.5 trillion+ a big difference especially when we're 11 trillion dollars in the hole.

                                      If I'm going to accept any health care plan I want our Reps. and Senators on the same Plan. Now that would be true health care reform.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #18.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
                                      john-847382

                                      Reform for the sake of reform makes no sense and often is not what you were expecting

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #18.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      DrMan

                                      I love how Obama says there will be no "free lunch," at the same time Pelosi and her lib friends are talking about how we need to "tax the rich" to pay for their socialized care. Either way, it will be a free lunch for those who say they can't afford to pay anything for health care.

                                      • 8 votes
                                      Reply#19 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:50 AM EDT
                                      LetsBeReasonable

                                      A lot of misinformed do-nothings posting here. No matter what Obama says the GOP is the party of NO and do nothing. If we continue along that same path, the issue is going to get much worse.

                                      As an aside, here is some factual information: 20% of all ER visits involve the uninsured.

                                      www dot

                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#20 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:28 AM EDT
                                      AC Robertson

                                      Write the reference without the www. then it should post.

                                      What are the numbers for Illegals going to the ER????????

                                        #20.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:39 AM EDT
                                        crazy-351712

                                        You spout that party of no crap constantly, you keep on beliving. Mean time, obama and the hoods in Washington(yes that includes both sides of the aisle) are raping this country.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #20.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:46 AM EDT
                                        LetsBeReasonable

                                        Sorry, this post won't accept any references to web sites that I paste in.

                                        Crazy - tell me what the GOP plans to do about anything other than oppose everything Obama has put forth? The current GOP would oppose everything Reagan proposed by comparison.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #20.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:54 AM EDT
                                        crazy-351712

                                        Read my post, they are ALL corrupt. Obama is the most corrupt! We have one side opposing everything and one side trying to ruin the country. So as this time i am glad the gop is saying no. Not reading bills and passing them through, is that what you expect of your elected officials?

                                        • 8 votes
                                        #20.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:12 AM EDT
                                        Citizen Zane

                                        The reason that the Republicans have become the Party of No, is becaue the left wing of the Democrats is proposing legislation that is so horrendous that it would be irresponsible for them not to vote NO all of the time. Moderate Democrats are likewise irresponsible if they support the nonsense from the far left. "Party of No" is a clever phrase to fool stupid people into believing that the party is blocking important legislation. I think that the Republicans are the party of incompetent morons, but right now, they are the only thing standing between us and the clutches of the party of the truly insane - the Democrats. What we really need is to vote all of these ding dongs out of office. timeforpitchforksandtorches.blogspot.com

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #20.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:03 AM EDT
                                        The Colonel-964761

                                        mabtle. Agreed. If I am to have forced health care. I want what Obama promised.

                                        LetsBe Reasonable. Have you ever woken up in the morning and realized something was not right. You then looked at the clock. Realized you were late for work or your bus and began to panic. That day of "waking up" over Obama is coming for you. Unfortunately by then it will be too late. Obama will have gotten Cap and Trade and will have gotten his Health Care because people like you are so fervently behind him. If you could "wake up" now, before it happens, at least you won't be so blind-sided by it. You could at least prepare yourself mentally for the coming horrors. Reasearch. Read. Reason. Realize. It will happen.

                                        Supporting Obama for the sake of supporting Obama is not a sound plan. Politically, intellectually, or economically.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #20.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:59 AM EDT
                                        john-847382

                                        If its wrong, they should say no! On both sides!

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #20.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:16 PM EDT
                                        john-847382

                                        And your point is?LBR

                                          #20.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          LetsBeReasonable

                                          Another fact for the do-nothings and party of "NO:":

                                          Hospitalization of the Poor Much Higher for Asthma, Diabetes, Other Preventable Diseases

                                          www dot healthcare411 dot org

                                          • 2 votes
                                          Reply#21 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:32 AM EDT
                                          mabtle

                                          Lets be reasonable --- Diabetes Type 1 is not preventable for it is genetic based disease. Hispanics have a gene that predisposes them to diabetes. Diabetes Type 2 can be avoided/and or controlled by weight and diet control, sometimes an assist with oral mhypogylemic agents.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #21.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
                                          LetsBeReasonable

                                          mabte - Type 1 and type 2 diabetes have different causes. Yet two factors are important in both. First, you must inherit a predisposition to the disease. Second, something in your environment must trigger diabetes.

                                          Genes alone are not enough. One proof of this is identical twins. Identical twins have identical genes. Yet when one twin has type 1 diabetes, the other gets the disease at most only half the time. When one twin has type 2 diabetes, the other's risk is at most 3 in 4.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #21.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
                                          mabtle

                                          Lets be reasonable genetics is a heredity factor. Hispanics have a higher isposition to the disease, diabetes like blacks have a higheer disposition to hypertension. There are always other factors that increase the potential of developing diabetes. Genetics though has the biggest impact.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #21.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:23 AM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          George From Illinois

                                          20% of all ER visits involve the uninsured

                                          And how many of them are illegal? They go to the ER because they need a pregnancy test or they have a runny nose. You want to control health care costs from the bottom up then stop the abuse of the system by those who in no way qualify for treatment of any kind because they are ILLEGAL.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          Reply#22 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:48 AM EDT
                                          LetsBeReasonable

                                          So your solution to the illegals that businesses hire is to deny them any care at all? Many of those "illegals" were legal and hard working people who are not needed any more so are turned back into "illegals". They also go to the ER when they have a heart attack, get shot, beaten, etc.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #22.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:55 AM EDT
                                          LetsBeReasonable

                                          Hospitalization of the Poor Much Higher for Asthma, Diabetes, Other Preventable Diseases

                                          www dot healthcare411 dot org

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #22.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
                                          George From Illinois

                                          Many of those "illegals" were legal and hard working people who are not needed any more so are turned back into "illegals".

                                          What the heck are you talking about ? Illegal is illegal, meaning they are in this country through illegal means and therefore should not be entitled to ANY benefits, period.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #22.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:14 AM EDT
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          You want to control health care costs from the bottom up then stop the abuse of the system by those who in no way qualify for treatment of any kind because they are ILLEGAL.

                                          Illegals need to go home or be sent home! They are costing our country billions of dollars! If they want to be here, fine, but come and do it the right way. Why should hard working Americans be forced to pay for people who should not even BE in this country? We are already carrrying enough people who don't work and now the illegals too. It's insane!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #22.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
                                          btco

                                          Illegals cost 2 tenths of 1 percent of our total health care spending as a nation. When you think about it, illegal costs are not the main problem we have.

                                          Now move to the next party of NO talking point.

                                            #22.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
                                            JoJo-362265-751247

                                            This article was written in 2004, but revelant. Figures for California only.

                                            In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.

                                            Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

                                              #22.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
                                              Lonnie-1003775

                                              lets be reasonable. . and DEPORT illegals. . .

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #22.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:30 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              AvenueDeleted
                                              Wiredheart

                                              In this Snyderman interview, our much heralded supposedly well educated supreme being states that AMERICANS will have to 1- BUCK UP, 2- He also states that employers will have to INCENTIVIZE their employees to quit smoking. As far as the first word is concerned, this is a show of his ARROGANCE in that he was referring that when he is away, Congress goes to sleep. With regards to the 2nd word, the word INCENTIVIZE is a CORPORATE slang or jargon word for INCENTIVE. This a person who cannot QUIT smoking, so what incentive does he need. I also thought that the BEST leaders lead by EXAMPLE.

                                              Also, for the record, the soldier scheduled to deploy to Afganistan, but refused to until he was shown proof of BO's citizenship, vis a vis his Birth Certificate, well his orders were cancelled. He is now staying State side. I wonder if that will be on the National Barach Cable (ABC) stations. Everything that you wanted in a GOVERNMENT- TRANSPARENCY and OPENESS .

                                              • 3 votes
                                              Reply#24 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
                                              LetsBeReasonable

                                              Obama sounds like Reagan to me.

                                              Remember, Reagan started this whole business through ERISA by giving employers a tax break if they would provide insurance to employees. Prior to that most people bought insurance through an agent or had coverage through a union. This was all an attempt to avoid universal healthcare. Obama is trying the same tact but is expanding coverage to include those not covered (somewhere between the poorest of the poor and the lower middle class).

                                                #24.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                Wiredheart

                                                Synderman states and I quote " Today (9/15/2009) in the Rose Garden you stated that AMERICANS will have to BUCK up---" . Also, while referring to quitting smoking, something he seems unable to do, he uses the word " incentvize" in the context that employers WILL HAVE to do something to get them to QUIT. Looked up in my dictionary- incentive ok, insensitive-ok, incentivize- corporate non-word jargon for incentive.

                                                Well BOZO, read my words- BUCK UP AND QUIT SMOKING. Your incentive is that you will lose your job anyways, but if you quit, We THE PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE THE SAME HEALTH CARE AS THE REST OF US.

                                                Rushing this the same way you did is SIMPLY BRILLIANT. ONE MORE NAIL IN THE DEATH COFFIN OF WHAT USED TO BE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                Reply#25 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:03 AM EDT
                                                carol-983330

                                                we do need a change in our current health care BUT Obama's plan is tooo drastic.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                Reply#26 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
                                                LetsBeReasonable

                                                Obama's plan is very similar to Reagan's plan (that we have now...coverage through ERISA). It just extends coverage to those falling through the cracks.

                                                  #26.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
                                                  Ivonne-411507

                                                  Letbe reasonable your statement is factual untrue, the penalties and fines imposed to both companies and individuals are punitive. And what part of the constitution gives the government the right to force me to have health care even if I don't want it and I am capable of paying for my own care. Just a point Obama is paying people to go through different states promoting his plan not because they believe in ti but because it pays between 14-16 dollars /hour. A true grass-root movement won't you say.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #26.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:39 AM EDT
                                                  Reply
                                                  LetsBeReasonable

                                                  Remember, Reagan started this whole business through ERISA by giving employers a tax break if they would provide insurance to employees. Prior to that most people bought insurance through an agent or had coverage through a union.

                                                    Reply#27 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
                                                    Carol Ann-2461951

                                                    And, it didn't take long for the insurance companies to catch on. When we started our business in 1985, a company could buy insurance for it's employees at about 2/3 the cost of the employee buying it for themselves.

                                                    Today, buying insurance for employees costs almost twice what individual insurance costs. That's health and auto insurance...

                                                    Why do we continue to buy group insurance you ask? For the same reason we started buying it. Our employees would not buy it for themselves if we gave them the money and told them it was for insurance.

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #27.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:54 AM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                                    Leave a Comment:
                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                    FUN STUFF:
                                                    • Leaderboard |
                                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                                    • The Greenhouse
                                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                                    • Code of Honor |
                                                    • Company Info |
                                                    • Contact Us |
                                                    • Jobs |
                                                    • User Agreement |
                                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                                    • About our ads
                                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com