I work in health care, in a quite conservative county in a swing state. Seniors that were not illiterate called in and stated that they were afraid of being put to death, and blasting the administration in anger.

Isn't this, the town hall yellers and the birth certificate folks the same group of people? Opposed to the Obama administration, but having no arguments and perceiving their own alternate reality (seniors being put to death, Obama not having a birth certificate, medicare not government run)? If they and the corporate forces behind them prevail, it makes you wonder whether american democracy is any longer viable.

i've been a long time bemused observer of the demographic section you speak of. i know some of them personally. i do not understand why otherwise ok people get so carried away with the hate speakers from the right wing. i have the impression that they are patriotic people who can't come to grips with the cultural changes occuring in the US. but, there never was an excuse for not reading the fine print, even in the days when Rin Tin Tin made them all feel good about themselves. the very kind of demographic that despots can easily rile up through propaganda. no matter what their native language is.

I do not work in the health care industry and live in a liberal county in a safely blue state. There are no corporate forces behind me and I live in the same reality that you do (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I attended a town hall meeting on health care. I offer the following arguments against the health care legislation the Obama administration has proposed:

1. It will create a tax burden that will damage the economy in the short and long runs.

2. The estimated costs of the program are woefully low, and the perceived benefits are optimistically high.

3. Most Americans paying for their own health care will find the both the quantity and quality of that health care reduced.

4. "Universal" health care insurance is not a worthy policy goal. It is particularly unworthy to cover those who forego health care voluntarily or who are not legal residents or taxpayers. It also makes no sense to provide health insurance without limiting to those personal behaviors (smoking, drinking alcohol, etc.) which drive up costs.

5. The corporate forces you disdain will benefit tremendously. This is especially true of the insurance industry, given that the legislation requires people to obtain and employers to provide insurance.

I could go on and on and on.

You do yourself, and American democracy, a huge disservice by demonizing people that disagree with you or assuming that they live in an alternate reality or are backed by corporate forces. I know that liberals don't like this, but how about a debate on the merits?

Apparently liberals don't have any merits to debate?

the irate seniors aren't calling in because universal health insurance will drive up their expenditures. they already have universal health insurance called medicare.

your point is that the economy can't affort health insurance. but traugott wasn't talking about that. neither is he a raving 'liberal'. see, that's where the right wing nuts lose, they go off into the stratosphere with macro ideas like 'liberalism' 'stalin' 'socialism'. it's like watching a five year old trying to come to grips with sex education.

I have to agree that I am sickened by our "media", esp. the 6:30 national news that has decided to paint the opposition to Obamacare as pistol packing screamers based on a few exceptions.

The overlying concerns are cost, and what that cost means to taxpayers. If another government program is added in addition to Medicare to insure all those under 65, it will cost trillions to fund. The costs of both Medicare and Medicaid are growing faster than inflation. So, if we are to continue these 2 programs, this will be on top of any new program.

What should be addressed first is containing our costs. Finalize Iraq, overhaul existing Medicare/Medicaid programs, and stabilize our economy. That way we'll have controlled costs and revenue. Then we can focus on nationalizing health care.

1. End of life care makes up 80% of Medicare costs.

2. Obama says he'll save $500 billion from Medicare costs.

3. The Baby Boomers are coming.

We are going to provide healthcare for more senior citizens, with less money. It's not a huge leap, given the history of our country to assume the only solution is rationing. And since seniors spend the most on healthcare, who do think will be impacted the most?

I wish Obama had the wits of a 5 year old.

Hogan313:

You do yourself, and American democracy, a huge disservice by demonizing people that disagree with you or assuming that they live in an alternate reality or are backed by corporate forces. I know that liberals don't like this, but how about a debate on the merits?

How is a debate on the merits even possible when both side mischaracterize the subject. On the right you have death panels and on the left you have statements like,

"As we've noted before, if you add the failure of employer-linked health care with Medicare, Medicaid, government employment, and the military, a huge chunk of Americans already have taxpayer-funded health care. It's a diverse lot.'

When government employment is essentailly just employer-linked healthcare and the military is entirely its own system part commercial and part government. So for federal employees there is no difference and the military system works largely due to its authoritarian nature. Neither is comparable to what is being proposed.

You obviously don't know much about Medicare. Medicare isn't magically free to everyone over 65. For long term health care under Medicare there is a daily co-pay after the 20th day. Many seniors either have supplemental insurance, Medicaid or private pay to cover this.

Insurance premiums are subject to increases. With state cutbacks, Medicaid may not cover all co-insurance, i.e. Ohio will not pay for Part B coinsurance effective this month. Private pay is just that, and many seniors are on fixed incomes.

Part B has a 20% coinsurance, and that is covered by insurance, private or Medicaid. So again, with state cutbacks and rising insurance costs, the concern for an increasing burden isn't fabricated hype.

Before we throw out the idea of a public health care plan, let's take a hard look at the current insurance system.

It's system that pays its CEOs tens of millions of dollars (e.g. Ron William, Aetna: 24.3 million dollars or H. Edward Hanway, CIGNA: 12.2 million dollars) every year.

Now, I'll grant that these health industry CEOs "worked hard" for those huge pay packages -- but at what?

At maximizing shareholder value.

Q: How did they maximize shareholder value?

A: By maximizing corporate profits.

Q: And how does a health industry CEO maximize corporate profits?

A: By denying health insurance claims where ever and when ever and how ever possible.

America's Health Insurance Industry: Working Hard to Deny Your Family's Claims

-- MrJM

What if we required all premiums to be paid into escrow accounts, legally untouchable. Insurance companies would only be allowed to take profits on the services provided, ie healthcare? As an example if the company pays for or provides a $1,000 proceedure the can charge a fee from the escrow account, the percentage could be worked out. Would that change the system?

Q: And how does a health industry CEO maximize corporate profits?

A: By denying health insurance claims where ever and when ever and how ever possible.

Not just that- they make sure to reimburse at "prevailing rates" which are always ridiculously low compared to the actual prevailing rates.

Right by choice and others, what most people don't know (and, to my knowledge, Obama chooses not to emphasize) is that there is enormous waste in US medical care. So there is more than enough to save, without denying care to ayone. This is a fact that even most conservative HC experts admit to.

I recommend that you watch the video version of the book "Money driven medicine" by Mahar, which apparently will be shown in part on TV at the end of this month, I believe Bill Moyer's show.

ha ha, i live in europe where everyone enjoys govt.run health care. if any politician said he'd abolish this system and go back to private insurance, he'd soon lose his seat. americans are just too dumb to appreciate state health care! they live in a dream world of 18th century capitalism. proof that they are so ignorant- they voted for dumbya bush not once, but twice! god bless america, but they will never get a good health plan since congressmen (who all enjoy a "socialistic" govt.health plan, are bought by the insurance industry and other corporations.

inedal wrote: " ...in europe where everyone enjoys govt.run health care. if any politician said he'd abolish this system and go back to private insurance, he'd soon lose his seat."

There's an old saying ascribed (probably incorrectly) to Einstein about "the definition of insanity...". I've decided that the new definition of insanity is Americans sincerely defending our "system" of healthcare, its relationship to money, the government, insurance companies, etc. by somehow saying that it is in some way "the best health care on earth" and portraying the socialized medicine practiced by every other industrialized nation on earth as not only inferior but somehow evil and kind of degenerate. I can only imagine how Americans must look to Canadians, to Britains, to the French, and to so many other countries who must think that we're not only backward but kind of ... crazy? Are there really, really a lot of people in Germany who are saying, "Golly, I sure wish we didn't have this pesky and evil socialized medicine, because I want me some of that American health care - it's the best! Just look at how healthy them Americans be"? (In German, of course).

It's not just that all of these countries have universal coverage; it's that in many ways their experience is at least as good as ours, collectively. And the per capita cost is - what, 60% of what we spend?

Finally... oh wait, we do have socialized medicine for all. Here's how it works: you don't have enough money for either a doctor or insurance, you get really sick, you go to the emergency room, where you can't be turned away. Actually that works pretty well, because it saves you the time all those annoying doctor trips would have taken; plus, if you wait that long, you're more likely to die, thus being that much less likely to collect Social Security. Kind of a win-win for everyone involved except for that inconvenient dying part, but we all have to go some time.