House Democrat Health Plan

[Kathryn]

You use the collective term "we", but we are all individuals who have different levels of understanding and different needs. The collective "we" is never going to achieve the state of understanding that you imagine.

The collective "we" is who is at risk when we enter into such a poorly defined plan of reform.

No matter what you decide, there will always be others pulling in the opposite direction.

Yes, that's true - and when others question policy, is it constructive to label them as unpatriotic, racist, or elitist? Sounds a lot like China under Mao Tse Tung to me.

So, as far as I can tell, you have no argument here for delay. You cannot guarantee that the process will be different the next time the stars align properly.

I have what I consider a sound argument for taking more time to make such momentous changes, and you don't agree with that argument. I personally don't agree with the argument that doing SOMETHING (whether it's destructive or not) is better than doing NOTHING.

I also don't agree that we should do NOTHING - I believe changes have to be made. What I don't agree with is that sweeping changes have to be made RIGHT THIS MINUTE. But we're being redundant in our arguments at this point.

We can only act as individuals who join groups of like-minded individuals to work to shape government policies.

Seems to me that when liberals do this, it's called community action. But when independents or conservatives do this, it's called Astroturfing, or even suspicious subversive behavior.

I am almost never presented with the kind of representative who will follow all of my wishes.

Well, amen to that. Try being a social libertarian Christian and see what box you fit nicely into. There ain't one!

Nevertheless, I still go into that voting booth to choose the better candidate (or lesser of two evils).Delaying my vote until the smartest, most trustworthy candidate comes along makes no sense. I do what little I can to move in the direction I think best.

Don't you sometimes feel like a fool? I did, this last election. I kept looking at those choices and thinking, "Am I trapped in some sort of nightmare? Is this ballot really saying that my choices have come down to Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden, or John McCain and SARAH PALIN??? O LORD DELIVER ME FROM THIS WRETCHED EXISTANCE!"

Just not yet.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, that's true - and when others question policy, is it constructive to label them as unpatriotic, racist, or elitist? Sounds a lot like China under Mao Tse Tung to me.

So what is your point here? That those people are behaving like Communists? Isn't that engaging in the very behavior that you are lamenting?

I have what I consider a sound argument for taking more time to make such momentous changes, and you don't agree with that argument. I personally don't agree with the argument that doing SOMETHING (whether it's destructive or not) is better than doing NOTHING.

What I disagree with in your argument is that the premises reasonably lead to a valid conclusion. Your criterion for actually passing reform is to wait until you (or some vaguely defined "we") feel satisfied that we have clear answers and a thorough understanding of the issue. There will always be people in your state of mind, and we cannot wait until every one of them is satisfied. Are we just to wait for you to reach closure? You propose no coherent criteria for ceasing to delay. Hence, your argument is not sound.

I also don't agree that we should do NOTHING - I believe changes have to be made. What I don't agree with is that sweeping changes have to be made RIGHT THIS MINUTE. But we're being redundant in our arguments at this point.

It seems to me that you have just clicked your stopwatch. Mine has been running for decades now. When is the right time? There will always be people who counsel delay. The reason that I adamantly oppose delay is that the drug and insurance industries are using delay as a tactic to kill this reform cycle. The longer we do nothing, the more likely it is that momentum for change will dissipate. We actually have very little time to bring about change. Otherwise, "Obamacare" will go into the history books with "Hillarycare" as something that the public didn't really want. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the drug and insurance lobbies that don't want it.

Seems to me that when liberals do this, it's called community action. But when independents or conservatives do this, it's called Astroturfing, or even suspicious subversive behavior.

Sweeping generalization fallacy. Not everything called "astroturfing" is astroturfing, but some of the reported shenanigans going on are clearly astroturfing. The town hall disruptions are well-organized, well-funded efforts to create the false impression of public opposition by shouting down those who favor reform. And there is little evidence that it is "independents" doing the shouting here. You are an indpendent who is skeptical of the plan, but you have stated your opposition to those tactics.

Don't you sometimes feel like a fool? I did, this last election. I kept looking at those choices and thinking, "Am I trapped in some sort of nightmare? Is this ballot really saying that my choices have come down to Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden, or John McCain and SARAH PALIN??? O LORD DELIVER ME FROM THIS WRETCHED EXISTANCE!"

I am sorry that you felt that way, but the majority of voters did not. It was a very clear choice, and most people had no difficulty in making it. I have no regret having voted for Barack "Hussein" Obama.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have what I consider a sound argument for taking more time to make such momentous changes, and you don't agree with that argument. I personally don't agree with the argument that doing SOMETHING (whether it's destructive or not) is better than doing NOTHING.

Fair enough, but let's talk about what the proposed "something" actually is, in reality, instead of "makin' stuff up" (as Palin would say).

So for example, one of the proposals is that health insurers can no longer deny people coverage based on "pre-existing conditions". This is very relevant to people like me, for example, people with hemophilia. If I ever have a lapse in insurance (say I get fired or something, and lose my current insurance) then insurers will call my hemophilia a pre-existing condition, and they won't cover it. The medicine necessary to treat hemophilia is patented, so the price-tag is enormous. Paying for the medicine for 6 months would be like buying a house. And already, as a grad student making $2,000/month, $400 of that goes to insurance, and my employer (the university) likely pays $50-100,000 a year, for me alone.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm very, very thankful for the drug research that developed the medicine, and all the people who end up having to pay higher premiums, which has enabled me to live a very healthy, happy life (many have not been so fortunate). I feel very lucky, that's why I do my best to eat right and exercise, it's part of the reason I'm going into biophysics. But OTOH, anyone could have a child born with some genetic disorder. The whole point of paying for insurance is there's a safety net, in case it happens to us. And the whole "pre-existing conditions" thing just seems like a technicality insurance companies use to get out of having to live up to their end of the bargain.

So when we look at a REAL case of health reform, not a made-up one, what do you think?

 

[Kathryn]

So what is your point here? That those people are behaving like Communists? Isn't that engaging in the very behavior that you are lamenting?

(sigh) My point is that when large groups - and small groups too, for that matter - of Americans question our administration's policies, their very act of questioning - in a town hall meeting, in the streets in front of the courthouse, at the drugstore counter, or on the mall in DC - is a patriotic act, and a right given to us by our Constitution. When the very act of questioning a government policy is treated as suspicious, unpatriotic behavior, Houston we have a problem.

There will always be people in your state of mind, and we cannot wait until every one of them is satisfied. Are we just to wait for you to reach closure?

No, but I would appreciate specific answers to specific questions which seem integral to healthcare reform before I decide whether or not to support a specific bill, or encourage my representatives to do so. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

It seems to me that you have just clicked your stopwatch. Mine has been running for decades now.

Not to be sarcastic, but do I know you? Have we met before? I just joined this forum in November 2008, and my posts have focused more on the present than the past. No offense intended, but I don't see how you could reach the conclusion that I haven't been concerned about these issues in the past (for the record, I have been rather an activist all my adult life).

But in THIS thread, we are discussing the current issue of the current bill before the House concerning health care reform. That's what I've been discussing - not my political involvement in the past.

Not everything called "astroturfing" is astroturfing, but some of the reported shenanigans going on are clearly astroturfing. The town hall disruptions are well-organized, well-funded efforts to create the false impression of public opposition by shouting down those who favor reform. And there is little evidence that it is "independents" doing the shouting here. You are an indpendent who is skeptical of the plan, but you have stated your opposition to those tactics.

No, what I have stated is that I would appreciate a level playing field and fair reporting of events. Don't worry - I'm not naive - I don't expect that to happen, but it would be refreshing.

BOTH political parties, and a wide array of special interest groups, have been "astroturfing" for decades. I don't know why anyone is surprised or indignant - it's a common, predictable occurance and is has been used by the very groups who are now feigning surprise and indignation.

I am sorry that you felt that way, but the majority of voters did not. It was a very clear choice, and most people had no difficulty in making it.

I was hoping that you could be more objective about this issue. I don't see how you could possibly magically deduce whether or not most people found their political decisions easy to make in 2008. This was a close election (52.5% of the popular vote for Obama, and 45.7& for McCain) and the current administration and it's supporters need to remember that.

They also need to be cognizant of the fact that Obama's job approval ratings are steadily declining while the number of Americans who disagree with his policies is steadily rising.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

I am not saying I WISH this was so or that this makes me happy, because it doesn't. I am genuinely excited about the fact that we've come so far as a nation, that only 40 years after the Civil Rights movement, we have a biracial president in the White House. I am proud that the White House halls ring with the laughter of two little African American girls - the very image makes me smile.

Obama has been a big dissappointment with me, and the polls show that I am not alone in that opinion.

I have no regret having voted for Barack "Hussein" Obama.

I sincerely hope you feel the same way four years from now.

And Hussein IS his middle name. I do not apologize for observing the irony in that, a mere two years or so after Saddam Hussein's execution, and considering the tensions between the Middle East, Muslim extremist groups, and the US. It may not be politically correct to point out the irony - but I don't pretend to be politically correct.

I think all politicians are fair game when it comes to irony and parody!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This was a close election (52.5% of the popular vote for Obama, and 45.7& for McCain) and the current administration and it's supporters need to remember that.

They also need to be cognizant of the fact that Obama's job approval ratings are steadily declining while the number of Americans who disagree with his policies is steadily rising.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

I am not saying I WISH this was so or that this makes me happy, because it doesn't. I am genuinely excited about the fact that we've come so far as a nation, that only 40 years after the Civil Rights movement, we have a biracial president in the White House. I am proud that the White House halls ring with the laughter of two little African American girls - the very image makes me smile.

Obama has been a big dissappointment with me, and the polls show that I am not alone in that opinion.

I see what you're saying, Kathryn, but OTOH I'm confused as to why people who opposed Obama's policies to begin with are now "disappointed" in those policies. I've heard conservatives say things like, "this isn't change we believe in" or "this isn't the change we wanted". Well of course it's not the change you wanted, that's why you opposed Obama and opposed the Democrats in Congress. When someone loses an election by a wide margin, they don't get the changes they wanted, like they did for the last 8 years. Sheesh. Ending the Bush tax cuts, withdrawing from Iraq, avoiding war with Iran, public health reform, more investment in science and education, closing Gitmo....these are the things I wanted, that's why I voted for Obama and Democrats, and that's why I am not disappointed, broadly speaking.

By the way I do sympathize with your dilemma, given Sarah Palin. I don't hold that embarrassment against sane conservatives like you who recognized she was a disaster.

 

[themadhair]

@ Kathryn

My level of bluntness and sarcasm was in direct proportion to the vacuousness and irrelevancy of your postings. While you may choose to dismiss what I have said, you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that it was either off-topic or not addressing the faux-argumentation you have brought up. But I have to respect your choice to choose being offended rather than being informed.

Your argument, in a nutshell, is the following:
“We shouldn’t vote for health care reform because I don’t understand it.”

The collective "we" is who is at risk when we enter into such a poorly defined plan of reform.

And how is the health plan poorly defined? Because you don’t know the details and refuse to find out?

Also – didn’t I explicitly mention section 102 that enshrines in the legislation the option for people like you to keep your current health care plans should you so choose? Where is the risk? Made up?

I have what I consider a sound argument for taking more time to make such momentous changes, and you don't agree with that argument.

The argument that you personally don’t understand it?

Maybe this is because I’m non-US but I just don’t get this. I’ve had relatives get almost bankrupted in the US over the current farcical situation. So here is a health care reform plan that as far as I can see:
1) Sets up a government run insurance company to provide increased competition in the health insurance industry.
2) Establishes a whole host of consumer protections, two of the important protections being forcing insurance companies into timely payments and the covering or pre-existing conditions.
3) Gives everyone the option of sticking with their current health insurance plan should they so choose.

I haven’t heard anything close to a negative with this bill. I can’t find anything negative in it. You may make the argument that it doesn’t go far enough in some areas and you’d probably have a fair point – but considering the gargantuan improvement this bill is over the status quo I don’t how that is a recipe for voting against rather than trying to get those improvements in as amendments.

Will someone, anyone, give me a decent explanation of a problem with this bill?? It’s too complicated or we should wait (wait for what exactly?) really don’t cut it, and have little to do with the actual bill itself. Seriously, help a non-US out here.

 

[Autodidact]

So far, all I hear is inflammatory rhetoric from BOTH sides of the political scene.

Maybe if our politicians would give the American public REAL facts and REAL answers about the specifics of their healthcare plans, people would not be so upset. However, facts seem to be sorely lacking. All I'm hearing from the powers that be is what the plan does NOT involve, according to them (no death panels, no euthenasia, no rationing, no tax hikes, etc).

I want answers, specifics, about the plan. I want to know how this huge change will affect my family's healthcare options. I want to know how I will be treated in ten years. I want to know if my children and grandchildren will be shackled with a huge debt, and if not - how are we going to avoid that? I want to know how this reform will be funded. I want to know whether or not my representatives can assure me that my taxes will not go up - or if they will go up, how much, and what will I receive in return? I may decide that it's a good return on my investment and support the plan. Or I may decide otherwise. But I need FACTS.

And I don't want to be called UnAmerican or be accused of sliding into the town hall meeting on Astroturf, or have it implied that I'm a racist just for asking.

By the way, I am an independent who voted for several Democrats in the primaries last year - including a Democrat presidential candidate. I have never voted a straight ticket in my life and don't see that in my future. I carefully weigh platforms, and listen intently to politicians. I research issues, and when I do, I read views from all angles. I often change my opinion after researching an issue.

In other words, I am reasonable. I love my country. I admire the foundations upon which it was built.

And I'm nothing special - there are lots of people like me out here. We just want clear answers from our representatives and President.

Too bad there aren't more like you. Instead some opponents of reform chose to lie, and to shout their lies so loudly no one else could have a chance to discuss your questions reasonably.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm confused as to why people who opposed Obama's policies to begin with are now "disappointed" in those policies. I've heard conservatives say things like, "this isn't change we believe in" or "this isn't the change we wanted". Well of course it's not the change you wanted, that's why you opposed Obama and opposed the Democrats in Congress.

I know, I've heard the same thing - but I'm not your standard issue conservative. I remember clearly the first time I heard Obama speak - I was mesmerized. I was truly hoping that he would represent the best our country. You may not know this, but I have four biracial children. It meant a lot to me that a man of mixed racial heritage could become President of the United States.

When someone loses an election by a wide margin, they don't get the changes they wanted, like they did for the last 8 years. Sheesh.

Hey, I didn't like what was happening the last 8 years either. Bush was nothing more than an ineffective puppet.

I don't hold that embarrassment against sane conservatives like you who recognized she was a disaster.

I am an independent. Actually I am socially libertarian and fiscally conservative. Many republicans would disagree vehemently on many of my views.

Just trying to clarify my position for you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Even if the majority of the US does not support healthcare reform (which is a flat out lie), we should do it anyways.

Here lies the problem. You want to shove your ideology down every one's throat.

You believe the government is the solution to the problem while I believe the government IS the problem.

You want a bigger government while I want less intrusion in my life.

At the end of the day, it would be intellectually dishonest of you to not acknowledge that our current health care system cannot take on another 50 million people without ALL OF US having to deal with some sort of health care rationing.

If a doctor can see 30 people today and there is twice as many people standing in line needing care on any given day, someone is going to be turned away. Do you think your Barry Obama health care card is going to change this glaring fact?

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ABOUT HEALTH CARE THERE IS GOING TO BE A SHORTAGE OF AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR SOMEONE!

 

[tumbleweed41]

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ABOUT HEALTH CARE THERE IS GOING TO BE A SHORTAGE OF AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR SOMEONE!

So lets pass Health Care reform and at least reduce the number of people shorted.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So lets pass Health Care reform and at least reduce the number of people shorted.

Unless you believe that doctors are going home early because of their lack of patients, health care reform will not allow one more person to be seen on any given day.

Now, if this reform is so great, can someone please tell me why congress should not have to be on this program as well?

People have said I am unable to be convinced of anything. Would someone please explain or direct me to where the tort reform section is within the health care bill?

If we really want to reduce medical costs, we could start by lowering the good doctors overhead right? Malpractice insurance is a big factor in health care expenses.

Everyone wants portability when we leave a company. Who should have to pay for this? Adding the considerable expense to the top 5% of taxpayers seems to be a popular option.

The problem is, we have this economy problem and tax revenues are down. Perhaps we should fix the economy before we implement draconian taxes on the wealthy. They do not have unlimited funds to pay for the democrats never ending wish list of government run programs.

Why not just kill all the rich folks and just take their money? Oh, I know why we don't do that, we might need more money next year and they all would be gone.

We would not have anyone to demonise or sponge off of any more.

 

[PureX]

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ABOUT HEALTH CARE THERE IS GOING TO BE A SHORTAGE OF AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR SOMEONE!

That's a completely different issue, unless you are proposing that we not offer health care to the poor, and let them suffer and die untreated so that we have enough hospital beds and doctors for those who have the money.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's a completely different issue, unless you are proposing that we not offer health care to the poor, and let them suffer and die untreated so that we have enough hospital beds and doctors for those who have the money.

Our current system provides health care services for EVERYONE who has a life threatening condition.

We already have a program for the poor, it is called medicaid.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe I have missed something. I just need a few questions about this health care reform bill answered (with facts to back up the answers) and if the facts make sense to me, then I will support the bill. People keep telling me to read the bill (easier said than done) and in there I'll find the answers. But I don't see them in the bill, so I want my representatives to answer these questions:

1. Why are you basing this bill on extending healthcare coverage to 50 million more people? As I see it, there are only about 10 million Americans who actually do want but do not currently have health insurance. I don't see a burning need to include illegal aliens, the poor who are already eligible for Medicaid, and Americans who are able to afford health insurance but voluntarily choose not to carry it in those figures.

So why don't we work at getting the 10 million or so the insurance they need -let's do that first, and then if the rest of us see that model working well, we may want to expand it.

When a politician starts throwing that 50 million figure at me right off the bat - I know I'm already being misled. Bad place to start with me.

2. Tell me how a government-run health care system will avoid becoming the Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs of health insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the mortgage programs that the government added to the mix which then disrupted and led to the crash of our housing market. What happened was this: The administration felt that "everyone deserves an equal chance at home ownership." They created these programs which extended high risk loans to high risk individuals - people with poor credit and no down payment. Those two mortgage entities did not have to worry about extending high risk loans, because they were backed by the US government. But this intrusion then forced private mortgage lenders to accept higher risk loans as well, with little or no down payment, when in the past they would have turned that business away in order to remain solvent. IN other words, the false security offered by the government programs undermined and adulterated the free market, creating utter chaos and ruin in the housing market.

Tell me how we are going to avoid this scenario in the healthcare industry.

3. We are already short on doctors. Please tell me how we are going to recruit and retain doctors when they already are frustrated by Medicare and Medicaid red tape. Doctors generally are reimbursed at a lower rate under these plans.

On that topic, we already have at least four government run health care programs - Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals and plans, and military hospitals. All four programs are notorious for ineptitude, waste, and callous treatment of patients. How will this program be any different? And why should we trust the answer to that question?

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

4. Speaking of ineptitude - I have yet to see a government run program - whether it be a war or a highway project -that came in under budget. Honestly - is the assertion that Americans will actually become healthier and so reduce the cost of insurance and this program over time realistic? Is the administration forgetting that the Baby Boomer generation -the largest generation ever born to mankind - is just now entering retirement and old age simultaneously? In other words, after working and paying taxes all their lives, they are now about to become takers rather than givers. Who is going to foot the bill for their elder care?

Even a surtax on the wealthy (those making over $250,000 a year) will not likely pay for the costs. Various taxes will have to be raised (some proposed ideas are additional taxes on junk food, sugar, etc) as well as penalties on companies that do not offer health care coverage to their employees. I can assure you that these costs will be transferred to the consumer. So even if we are not officially taxed by the federal government, our cost of living will rise.

Speaking of employers - I keep hearing that our private insurance plans won't be affected. Frankly, I find that hard to believe. If I were an employer, and I had the option to drop the expensive health care coverage I currently provide, take a hit in the form of a penalty, but then cover those costs by charging my customers more - I might choose that option, thus forcing my employees to turn to the government plan, and raising the cost of living to my customers.

5. Senator - will you be enrolling your own family in this plan?

6. Considering that over the next twenty years, the baby boomers will retire and therefore quit funneling income taxes into the system, while simultaneously requiring more care in their elder years. How is the government going to provide care for these millions of non-tax payers without some form of rationing?

7. Speaking of that, the rate of illegal immigration remains very high. How does the goverment intend to fairly distribute the health care needs for all Americans, and simultaneously raise the capital needed from this large group of illegal aliens? Or are American citizens expected to foot the bill for that group as well? If so, how is this fair?

8. I am adamently opposed to abortion on demand, especially late term abortions (unless the mother's life is in serious danger and there are no other alternatives). Under this plan, will my tax dollars be used for such abortions?

Now - let's talk about the statement made by some people - "Just read the bill, the answers are in there."

I am an educated person with great reading skills. My career has been built on reading the fine print, explaining legal jargon, writing policies, etc. Even with that background, I find this bill to be extremely hard to read. If it's difficult for me to read, I can assure you that the majority of Americans would also find it hard to read and understand.

I am not a healthcare professional, an attorney, an insurance company policy writer, a medical researcher, or a pharmaceutical company executive. Therefore I find this bill overwhelming. In fact, the whole ISSUE of healthcare is pretty overwhelming.

I work full time and I take care of my family. That's my job. I pay my REPRESENTATIVES to understand what they are voting on, and then to vote the will of their constituents. They have all sorts of resources and staff at their disposal - I don't.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What it boils down to is our President is asking us all to support this health care bill on faith.

 

[twinmama]

Our current system provides health care services for EVERYONE who has a life threatening condition.

We already have a program for the poor, it is called medicaid.

And it is not working.
In many states it is unfunded and help often comes (too)late.

And there are lots of people who are living on the edge of poverty, not having enough money to get insutance but not poor enough to get medicaid.

I know many such families in USA. Decent, working families who are living one teethache away from living on the street. One family has a very sick girl(rare lungproblem)and they are bankrubted trying to get her help. And because the girl has "pre-existing condition" they can't get her insurance.

 

[Kathryn]

So - there are medical government programs already in place - and they're not working. These were programs that were voted on and put into place specifically to address issues and treat people who they are not now addressing and treating.

Maybe (and this is a novel idea) the GOVERNMENT isn't all that good at administering healthcare! Do ya think?

Ask any veteran whose had to rely on a VA hospital (don't even get me started on that one).

 

[Reverend Rick]

Someone needs to cut Barry's credit card in half. WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY.

Health care is expensive. It would be easier to give everyone a car or a house than it would to provide them all with unlimited health care. [/rant]

Ok, I feel better now!

Seriously, does anyone think it would be a good idea for folks to have a co-pay when they see their doctor? People do go to the doctor some times when they really don't need to.

How do we combat fraud, waste, and abuse?

 

[Copernicus]

So - there are medical government programs already in place - and they're not working. These were programs that were voted on and put into place specifically to address issues and treat people who they are not now addressing and treating.

Are you proposing that we do away with Medicare? It could be vastly improved by bringing down the cost of medicine and eliminating the idiotic "donut hole". Still, Americans seem to want to keep it now. When it was first passed, the objections to it were exactly the same ones being raised against the government plan under consideration now.

Maybe (and this is a novel idea) the GOVERNMENT isn't all that good at administering healthcare! Do ya think?

Try to remember what the problem is here. The insurance companies are actually worse than the government when it comes to administering health care. Their approach is to increase premiums while reducing services. Government-run systems in Canada and Europe actually deliver better health care more cheaply than our largely privatized system.

Ask any veteran whose had to rely on a VA hospital (don't even get me started on that one).

One can always find anecdotes to back up such impressions, but actual research has shown that the government health care programs lead to higher patient satisfaction than private options. Moreover, there are plenty of examples outside the US of government-led health care programs. Satisfaction went down in the UK after Margaret Thatcher succeeded in watering down their program. Canadians do not want their health care system replaced with one like ours.

 

[Copernicus]

Someone needs to cut Barry's credit card in half. WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY.

We are in a serious financial mess. That is true. The President could, of course, do nothing and let us slide into another great depression. If businesses cannot borrow money to meet payrolls, then nobody works. You can thank 8 years of Bush-administered incompetence for that! BTW, who did you vote for when Bush was running for President?

Health care is expensive. It would be easier to give everyone a car or a house than it would to provide them all with unlimited health care.

It is expensive, but it is more expensive to continue with the present system. We spend about twice as much as other countries on health care, and we get worse results.

Seriously, does anyone think it would be a good idea for folks to have a co-pay when they see their doctor? People do go to the doctor some times when they really don't need to.

Government programs in other countries do use such methods to deter casual use. Private insurance companies not only charge heftier fees, but they devise methods for canceling policies of patients who need health care, and they come with lifetime caps. These and other policies make Americans pay more for poorer service.

How do we combat fraud, waste, and abuse?

We can start by removing the expensive bureaucracy that the insurance industry has set up to deny health care to people who need it.