Health Care

2243 Responses



In these United States of America, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.

But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.

Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want to regain both our health and our freedom.

But Obamacare is the worst possible answer. All it does is perpetuate a flawed system by forcing everyone to become a client of insurance companies, even those who don’t want to or need to participate.

Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?

There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.

Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.

As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his bookThe Revolution: A Manifesto“:

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.

Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?

Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.

Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.

As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.

The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the federal government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.

Transcript:

Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

Points to consider:

  1. No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
  2. If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
  3. Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
  4. More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
  5. Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
  6. First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
  7. The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
  8. Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
  9. The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
    Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
  10. Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
  11. Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
  12. The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
  13. The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
    Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
  14. Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
  15. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
  16. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.

»crosslinked«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

2,243 responses to “Health Care”

  1. Amiri Can

    https://www.change.org/petitions/cbs-news-60-minutes-get-ron-paul-on-60-minutes

    WE ONLY NEED A FEW THOUSAND MORE SIGNATURES, LETS DOUBLE IT!!! TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

  2. Cassie

    I think it would be wonderful if, like Ron Paul says, doctors were to compassionately give medical care for free to those who cannot afford it and the elderly...but I would like to know how Ron Paul plans to get doctors to do this. In a perfect world, they would already be doing so. But we live in a world driven by money and prestige. So for doctors, what is the incentive to give out this free care? How do you plan to regulate it so that those individuals needing free care are given it? How will this affect long-term care? Will the baby boomer generation simply be able to stay in nursing homes for free? If so, how do you plan to give them quality care if the nursing homes are making no money? Providing quality health care does cost money. How will there be money to continue providing affective treatments if doctors/hospitals are not charging? Also, what would be the criteria to receive this free health care? You simply say "I can't afford to pay you, please treat me anyway?"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3

  3. Neal Martin

    For as long as I can remember the issue of affordable healthcare has been voiced as campaign rhetoric, but nothing has ever been done about it. The current healthcare system in America is decidedly broken. Too many people have their hands in the pot for it to be a quick fix. As I see it, there are multiple factors that have lead to the current situation.
    The first factor that would need to be addressed to begin the process of revamping our healthcare system is to put an end to the 'good ole boy' network. What I refer to is the practice by other doctors of protecting and covering up for those within the medical profession who are incompetent. Every year thousands of lawsuits are filed against doctors and hospitals for incompetent practices. If a medical procedure or a decision by a medical professional results in permanent injury or even death, and if negligence or incompetence is the ruling, then those involved should be held responsible, and not just monetarily. If you cause the death of someone by accident in any other profession you are almost guaranteed judicial punishment. The same standard should exist for medical professionals. Holding medical professionals judicially culpable, regardless of how mush they spent on their education, is the first step to honest and real change in our healthcare system.
    The next factor that would need to be addressed is the legal aspect involved in our runaway healthcare expenses. Every year there are countless lawsuits filed against medical professionals. Many of them result in grossly inflated awards. The medical professionals and or facilities do not absorb these awards. They are passed onto the other patients in the form of inflated costs for medical procedures. I propose adopting a system similar to the German system that only allows for payment of lost wages, period. Even if a loss of life is involved. No amount of money can replace someone, nor ease emotional suffering. Furthermore, these astronomical awards are doing nothing to hold the responsible parties accountable. Not only that, but many of the lawsuits filed are frivolous at best.
    Another factor that needs to be addressed is the influence pharmaceutical companies have on medical professionals.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7

    1. realist

      You realize that medical professionals deal with peoples lives EVERY DAY. So you said QUOTE "If a medical procedure or a decision by a medical professional results in permanent injury or even death, and if negligence or incompetence is the ruling, then those involved should be held responsible, and not just monetarily. If you cause the death of someone by accident in any other profession you are almost guaranteed judicial punishment. The same standard should exist for medical professionals"

      All I have to say is that what you said is the most foolish thing I have ever heard in my life. Doctors aren't perfect but they are way more competent then people like you who think that they should be treated for malpractice like any other profession. Doctors are brilliant people with more education than you can dream of and they have to go through a brutal amount of hard work and residency training before they can practice medicine. Malpractice is a result of human error because nobody is perfect, but to treat the medical professional equally to other professions when it comes to malpractice is UTTERLY ABSURD.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  4. Jeff

    I fail to see how a government that provides health care coverage for its citizens is unconcerned about the rights of its citizens. It sounds to me, that Ron Paul, in believing that no one has the right to basic healthcare, is the one unconcerned about individual rights. Heck, even the pope agrees with me on that one.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 22

  5. Walter B Wriston

    Force the insurance industry to either relent on their punishing rates, or have them to totally syndicate risk governed by (let us hope) a some competent agency, most regulations and regulators are in fact the ones that aid and abet the very industries they're supposed to oversee! N Gas where I'm from EPA to them sure dump it in the river! There's no reason to nationalize al of healthcare but price controls and monopoly busting of big pharma must end, and to that end there is no reason what-so-ever that the US shouldn't have nationalized health insurance. The health-care system is raping Medicare! Billing fraud is rampant! And Ron I once supported you, but you'd release neoliberalism on the people of the US. Do we really need a "Shock Doctrine?"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  6. wellforlife

    Please Ron Paul:
    1) Repeal the FDA preemption (like Pres. Obama said he would do) - that would employ some of the unemployed lawyers and return some money to the people who've been harmed by the "system". This is completely illegal as it is. Establish Pro Bono law again.
    2) Quit allowing health insurance to charge unpayable debts against disability retirements.
    3) Completely cut off income taxes for the disability and elderly.
    4) Allow people (especially disabled and elderly) to stay off national health care.
    5) Get illegal immigrants off health care. Close the borders to immigrants.
    6) Get the racial bias against white people out of health care, jobs, welfare.
    7) Stop the "Drill baby" crap.
    8) Punish the employers who are violating work laws.
    9) Allow progressive punitive charges from health care, and legal charges.
    10) Wake UP people, this may be your country again, if you act instead of buying stupid current health care insurance.

    The horror of the current health insurance/medical welfare is proven. Are our politicians in denial or is the graft so great that they are all acting like crack whores?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  7. JohnB

    I really like many of Ron Paul's ideas, but he misses the boat on this one. A huge percentage of Americans fall below the cutoff point for paying any income tax, thanks to our modestly progressive tax system - so what is the use to them of a health care cost tax credit? (BTW I don't see Ron Paul's position on income tax on the site, but thought I saw elsewhere that he was a "flat tax" guy - again an error. Although a universal rate of 10% or whatever looks fair at first, think about it for a moment. Fairness needs to be measured by the IMPACT of a tax burden on the individual. A 10% tax to someone earning $300,000 is a flea-bite. A 10% tax on someone earning $15,000 is really serious.)

    But back to the healthcare - I don't buy all the "why should I cover your health" stuff. On that basis we should abolish ALL shared services - start with national defense, interstate roads, oversight agencies to keep keep us safe from grasping swindlers who will sell us anything no matter how harmful, or destroy our bests-loved places for their own profit.

    The mark of a civilized society is that we realize we're all in this together. We DO have some obligation to help provide for the unfortunate. How did "entitlement" become a bad word? Why is America the only advanced society that does not accept this responsibility?

    I wish everyone would watch the DVD "Sick Around the World." (Not to be confused with Michael Moore's polemic). It's a straightforward description of how health care systems work in a number of countries - UK, France, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland and others. It puts to rest the canard trotted out by right-wingers that these are all 100% "Government run bureaucracies." There's a wide variety of systems, many including privately-run insurance companies, hospitals, practices and independent practitioners. But they all have some things in common:
    - Everyone is covered.
    - Measured outcomes are often better than in the US (we rank 37th in a world listing.
    - Administrative costs are a fraction of what they are here.
    - No one can ever go bankrupt due to medical bills, unlike the US where that is the reason for up to 50% of personal bankruptcies.

    There is a better way.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 44 Thumb down 14

    1. cflo

      JohnB, you wrote "We DO have some obligation to help provide for the unfortunate". What do you suggest in the following case?: 27 yr old high school dropout has worked maybe 3 months total her whole life. Refuses to get a job, got kicked out of section 8 housing for drugs, lives with one person for a few weeks before moving on through the rest of her list of friends who will let her stay with them shortterm. Saw this way of life modeled by her mother, and is repeating it now. Has 2 young children that were just taken by DHS. Gets food stamps and Medicaid.
      The rest of us are being forced to pay for her. The system is enabling her to behave this way. If no one would give her food, a roof over her head, or healthcare then maybe just maybe she would get tired of living like this and would reluctantly get a job and pay her own way.

      I argue that there is a huge difference between lending a helping hand to those in a crisis -versus- enabling a lifetime of poor behavior.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12

      1. PattyS

        Well, you probably mentioned a pretty sad individual. Fist of all, the ssytem iun place allows for her (with her children) to receive DSHS benefits. Most states enforce a "ticket ot work program" where the receipent is required to prove they are looking for work on a weekly basis. However, the biggest problem with your person was the fact that she had her two children taken away by CPS. Don't you realize that only her children were entitled to medical benefits? Not her (unless she was pregnant and for 6 weeks after birth of her child...then she loses medical benefits.)
        I'm not God, and therefore have no place judging another person...I don't know what their circumstances are...is she mentally ill, drug or alcohol addicted and in need to treatment? Does she do drugs to self medicate because of some underlying problem? I don't know...do you? So, she doesn't qualify for medical...are you denying her food? Who are you to sit in judgment? God help you if you ever become indigent yourself and need help...should we deny you because we judge you unworthy?

        Often people's lifestyles seen so fustrating because they seem to be wasting all their talents...I agree. But, what I am aware of is that most people who need some help are really deserving of it. Ron Paul thinks that if someone needs medical care and has no insurance, can't afford to pay for medical care...which covers a lot of Americans....need to count on the good will of friends, family, community.
        I think that is exactly the reason we have supportive services through the government for indigant people because the private sector does not come through often enough. It is the nature of the beast. In an ideal world, we would be all caring for our neighbor...but let's face it. Isn't it easier for people to sit in judgment of someone else than lend a hand without conditions?
        You might reference someone you think is undeserving, but the fact is , most people who go without services are hard working people who don't make enough to pay all their bills, have employers who don't cover health care, and can't afford it on their own. We have a horrible record for healthcare of our citizens. We should be ashamed as a nation that we care so little for our fellow men.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6

    2. Earl

      Yes, but for poor people who are just above the poverty line a %10 tax is low. If I make 17,000 a year the government gives me a large chunk of my taxes back, but they keep a substantial amount, especially if I don't claim credits. I have to wait all year for that money while I'm spending everything I have on things I need in order to remain employed. I see hundreds of dollars missing from my highest paychecks when I would love to have that money to invest in something. A %10 flat tax would be more financially advantageous for me, a guy that earns a relatively low income, as it would give me a strong incentive to earn more money (and not see it gobbled away in taxes) and also give me the money in my pocket to help me in that goal. I really don't see the argument that it would hurt the poor. A %10 tax with credits for health care costs? wow, sign me up and set up an appointment with my dermatologist as well!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

  8. Victor

    Ron Paul is really the best solution for USA and for US nation and for the rest of the world.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 11

  9. Jerry Wm Bowers Jr

    I like Dr. Paul's idea about my paying 10% income tax to the Federal Government, and with that being THE ONLY tax I pay, I never ask the Government for help in any way!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12

  10. Scott H

    Although I think some of Mr. Paul's ideas are good, fogging the issue with what I consider to be an absolutely ridiculous assertion that before Medicare, Doctors provided free healthcare to everyone that needed it completely turns me off. First off all, Medicare was instituted in 1965. How many non-whites do you think were treated for free back then? In this day and age where doctors live in million dollar homes, go on vacations costing tens of thousands of dollars and drive Lexus's how many do you think would be offering free care because it's the "right thing to do"? Of course the doctor isn't the only one that would have to provide free care - what about the x-ray technician, MRI tech, Blood Work Tech, Chemotherapy people? Who is going to coordinate all these free services for free? Seriously, the idea that a tax break would make it possible for someone making $25,000 a year to pay for even the simplest operation flies in the face of logic. How can any intelligent person either put forth an argument like this or believe it? Does anyone ever THINK through proposals like this? In addition, if the socialistic approach is so very bad why are socialistic countries repeatedly rated as the best to live in and do business in? A person may have to wait for quite a while in Canada to get a knee replacement - but waiting quite a while is probably better than waiting forever. I recently read an article by a woman who had been against Mr. Obama's healthcare. That was before she was laid off and her husbands business went to hell due to the economy - and before she got cancer. Now, in the face of dying - she was pretty appreciative of the change in rules which prevented her healthcare company from denying her coverage. My guess is that most of the people supporting Mr. Paul would be doing a pretty fast flip-flop should they find themselves in a similar situation. Easy to stand on un-thought-out principals when there is no price to pay for them. Another when you are humbled by life's circumstances and you find out you're not so special after all.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 20

    1. sara N.

      I completely understand your concerns. But I think what Paul explains that free market will lower the costs of all of these medical expenses so health care might become affordable to most of us. The question is would that work? How will the transfer to a free market health care be? with some problems? Will doctors be willing to work for lower salary if the private health care provider have to reduce it to compete with others? What will be the quality if the private health provider has to reduce its costs to compete?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  11. Zentai Kitty

    Hello,

    I'm currently working on a project that includes a discussion of Ron Paul's ideas on a variety of topics. I'd like to make sure that the basis for the discussion is correct. Would the numbered list above be completely RP's ideas, as gleaned from (... ?) or would it be an amalgamam of his ideas and others, such as the author's own? This has a lot more detail than his official page, and we just want to make sure to only attribute ideas to him that are actually his.

    Regards and gratitude for any and all assistance,
    ZK

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    1. Zentai Kitty

      Durp - missed the vid and transcript note right above the list - just quite blind today ; - ) - great info for us : - )

      - ZK

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  12. Kelly

    I can't understand how any advanced society has not adopted the belief that taking care of your fellow citizens is a necessity.

    I'm from Canada, and our system is not perfect. I sometimes worry that as a small business owner, as I age, I may incur the costs of prescription meds, or maybe an illness may keep me from working for a period of time. These costs could affect my standard of living or my ablility to care for my family.

    Never, ever, have I ever been concerned that if I had a heart attack I could lose everything to pay for treatment. If I was not lucky enough to have univeral healthcare might I have to consider losing my home, my savings, my childs education fund to pay to save my life? I, literally, quiver at the thought. Or if I defaulted on these debts how long after would I be subjected to limited prosperity due to bad credit.

    Like I said, our system is not perfect. For instance, if you need a knee replacement in Canada you could wait quite some time in line. But it's because everyone one of your fellow citizens can get in that line that you have to wait. Everyone who is suffering a decreased quality of life can have access to the care they need. Not for free, but because I pay my taxes. As a matter of fact I love paying my taxes! No seriously, my roads are paved, there are police, my child can go to school, if my house is burning down someone will come put it out and I have free healthcare all because of the money I give the government. And with that money I expect them to provide services.

    And happy with the services I am, my mother was given 7 days to live last easter, secondary to cancer, and I'm lucky enough to have her still. She has quality of life too. The nurses that the government pays to come and see her three times a week ensure this. Sometimes they even fluff the pillows on the hospital bed that has been provided for her comfort. Not all stories are so great, people die, mistakes happen, we are all human.

    Whatever you decide to do as a society I hope it provides all with some piece of mind. I don't know how I would cope if I also added healthcare to my plate.

    Goodluck :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 10

    1. lucky85

      The problem is that the repugs in the U.S. consider good healthcare benefits to be a priviledge of the wealthy, not a necessity for the poor.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6

  13. Gustav

    This one is a complicated issue. I'm agree with everything that Ron Paul is fighting for with respect of drugs and the alternative treatment methods that are getting obstructed by the current system.

    However, I'm 100% opposed to the idea that the Goverment should not be involved in providing free assistance to those less fortunate.

    A big part of the population barely makes 12,000 dollars a year. No way these people can ever efford their medical needs even if prices get reduced.

    Unless the prices are reduced to zero for this particular huge sector of the population. They will always have to decidc between paying rent or a tooth pain.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 42 Thumb down 7

    1. Parsa

      Gustav, I also agree with you on the less fortunate and that we should take care of them; but there is also another point. Ron Paul's plans brings the wealth with the real value back to the people. His policies decrease the prices on one side and increase the power of purchase of people on the other side. So people with 12000 dollars a year can live as they get 30000 dollars a year or maybe even more; because he is going to make dollar valuable again.
      I am really in favor of Universal healthcare; however, when I compare the positive aspects of Ron Paul to the negative ones, the end to corporatism, fed, wars, etc. I find him much worthier.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 7

    2. Shawn

      I don't think the $12,000 a year will matter. Doctors are supposed to provide care to the less fortunate, even if its free. Right now healthcare is about money, not health, that has to be reversed. Not a problem in a place with lots of doctors. Becoming a doctor is expensive, so doctors sell out to pharmaceutical companies owned by health insurance providers. You tear down the Board of Education, auto school gets cheaper and better. Also pull government out of health care, that means Liscensing (which again Board of Education ensures only rich get good school) and regulating based on research down by pharmaceutical companies, insurance providors, and businesses (American Soybean Association provided almost all heart disease information in the 60's saying trans fat was good for you and to use margarine). You will see doctors pull away from unneeded and untested pharmaceuticals, and actually start curing disease, not symptoms (why cure only symptoms if you don't get a big paycheck from a repeat customers).

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5

  14. firefox52

    Ron Paul is the only choice we can make for President. I like his idea's of the healthcare systems and I think it is very do-able. I for one, do not have healthcare at this moment. I have carried healthcare for myself off and on for many many years. I just recently droped it once again. I am a healthy individual and never even make my deductable. When it came time for renewal I was prepared to buy another year. HOWEVER when they told me that my premium of 311 would increase to 469 well....I told them Thanks but no Thanks. I asked why?? And they told me becuase people in my area were using the insurance more and I would have to pay more. I told them good luck collecting it from someone else. I am frustrated 1st because the premiums are way to high for the amount of insurance you receive and 2nd I feel that it is not fair to me as a healthy individual. I should be rewarded for my health not penalized for it.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7

    1. JohnZappatos

      @firefox52 I agree Ron Paul is not the be all end all but I believe he is the best thing I've seen in my lifetime. I did not vote for Obama but I'm glad he won now that I can see what McCain is made of. We should all be registered Republicans so we can nominate him.

      As for insurance it does not work that way. Premiums are based on what the company pays out and is spread among your demographic group, and profit is taken from that to run the company. (don't dwell on the profit as all companies need it and when things are as they are now we want profit to be zero, not possible). Insurance is for what might happen and not for what hasn't happened.

      How many healthy people get breast cancer or any cancer for that matter every year?

      Stroke, flu, appendix explodes, you name it, you can win the "iron man" race and still get cancer.

      So we all pay in and hope we never use it. Now the question is will free market medicine decrease costs? I've read a ton on this subject and I'd like to see, for example broken bones set by technicians and that is all they do is broken limb bones. Or child birth back to mid wives in facilities next to hospitals. Cancer treatments need to have a sliding scale for the elderly. A 90 year old person should not get cancer treatment. And yes I'm saying this about my grandmother, mother and father. We all have to go sometime we need to be realistic about life and death. They say now 1 in 3 will die of cancer due to the cardiologists keeping us alive longer.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15

      1. firefox52

        @JohnZappatos

        You started off OK until you said " Grandma" wont get the help she needs because of her age. SEE YA..Good BYE!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

        1. JohnZappatos

          @firefox52 Sadly people keep their pets alive too long for themselves and not the pet. The same goes for people. Peoples adult children have not come to grips with their own mortality nor have they been responsible enough to have even thought about it. So they'll keep Grandma on the machine because they are to immature to face the life. So it everybody ends their life in the ICU with a 30 day stay we'll surely bankrupt the country.

          I'm reading your other post where you say:

          "The way to go would be Cheaper insurance or Lower Premiums. Not mandating we buy it or else we are penalized."

          One affects the other. You can't have everybody going without insurance till they turn 50 then get a policy filing claims for surgeries medications, all kinds of ailments when we get older. They will have paid in $2,000 but will withdraw $200,000. I will not work.

          You would like government to mandate prices to the companies, having them make it cheaper but you don't want it mandated to you.

          To say make it cheaper is an answer that has not been thought out. I've been on every side of this issue and the more I read the more I fear for our future. Because the majority of voters only got the sound bite.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

          1. Shawn

            Fear is holding your imagination in check, thats the propaganda and short attention span. Lets pretend the doctor you go to works on trying to cure you, not sell medicines and test. So lets pretend healthcare is about health, and not money. Doctors have an obligation to help those less fortunate, even if its for free. Government intervention recently has been lets throw money at it, like all problems people want government to fix. If you haven't learned, whenever people ask government to fix something, they break the hell out of it and make it expensive, tell me one thing that has been cured by government involvement and excess spending and money thrown out from somewhere.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3

        2. firefox52

          @JohnZappatos@firefox52

          Excuse me? I dont want the Government to make Insurance cheaper I want them to deregulate it and Make them all nation wide. That would make Insurance cheaper. What you are talking about is a criticaly ill person on life support, I am talking about Grandma so to speak who with life saving tech. would go on to live till who knows when. I cannot express to you how I feel about your attitude. YES to make it cheaper is the answer and DEATH PANELS are NOT.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

        3. JohnZappatos

          @firefox52 - Deregulation is another smoke screen. Unless everybody buys in they will be facing the same people getting insurance at 50 and taking out more than they put into insurance.

          Demands on medicine are high and ever increasing as our population ages. Most things never go down in price and if we see something from deregulation it will be temporary until ins co. see they are still facing huge payouts.

          They won't pay for mamogams for 20 year olds then why would we pay for Chemo on somebody 95? No death panels just common sense. So if you want every person to get the most advanced treatments at end of life and we'll make it cheap and affordable by deregulation that just won't work and its folly to even go down that road. You don't like my view but it's reality. You and the government do not know how to pay for it. They will try this that and the other taking us farther down the road to insolvency. I'm greatly concerned because healthcare won't be there for me when I get old. And if I get cancer at 85 I'll do what Paul Newman did, refuse treatment, handle my affairs, surround myself with family and check out.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

    2. kontiki

      @firefox52

      ...And if you drop to the floor or have a severe injury from an automobile accident and someone calls 911, everyone else will have to pay indirectly for your hospital visit, that's one of the very big reasons why your premium went up to "469".

      Do you also drive without auto insurance? Might as well, the rest of us are paying for your "just in case" medical insurance. We might as well eat the cost of having you slam into us. Being healthy today is only one check mark in your favor, not a referendum as to whether or not you would ever need any medical care that could not afford.

      Regardless of your libertarian convictions and desire for change in the medical industry, this is the way it is right now. I would love to see it change myself, but there has to be a system where everyone somehow pays into it, unless they can prove they are self-insured.

      Buy some catastrophic insurance with the high deductible for now, for God’s sake and yours.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

      1. firefox52

        @kontiki

        Excuse me? You assume quite a bit and taken liberty's with my supposed situation. I have more than enough resources to take care of any medical situation that might be in store for me. Then my Long term care kicks in after 30 days. So you see , Your senario does not quite what would happen. Yes, yes I do have car insurance and every Insurance available except Health. That I refuse to pay. In fact I probably have more INSURANCE than you do.

        Now then " My libertarian convictions " and my disire for change lead me to believe that this is NOT the way to go. My imposing the will of the Government upon me when the Consitution especialy protects me from that happening. The way to go would be Cheaper insurance or Lower Premiums. Not mandating we buy it or else we are penalized. At todays prices the Insurance would have a ' Bone" and become extremely rich. No I am sorry I do not want to trade My Liberties and my Freedom because the powers that be will not tackle big Insurance. Have a good day.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    3. lucky85

      What will you do if you have a catostrophic illness? Doctors and hospitals don't do a lot of charity work.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

    4. Eastcoast Rider

      It's ok if YOU think, Ron Paul is the best republican to elect. But; before you do, look back at the flood of 1939 and what the republicans did to the people, and have been doing ever since. The republican candidates all say that PRESIDENT
      Obama but the country in this finanicial down fall......NOTTTTTT; do you all remember; :p let me see; let me see....whats their name; ahhhhhh yea, I got it;
      daddy bush, and baby bush.....republicans; and democrat alike KNOWWS how we got in this Fix....and we know why a hit was put out on Osama....ask the baby bush....Can't we all just get along....We the people; have not forgotten.....love you........

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

      1. Ben

        First off, your post is barely legible. Second, Ron Paul is running for Republican because American idiots will tend to vote for someone only if they have a R or P next to their name. Ron Paul is truly libertarian or true republican, not like these new republicans and democrats that most people alive today are used to.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  15. Ace81

    http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

  16. merrily

    How are hospitals supposed to recoup the money required for charitable cases? This is a business - they cannot be responsible for all those how cannot pay.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  17. lucky85

    These pie-in-the-sky plans that have every one paying for their own healthccare cannot work in this economy where the real unemployment rate is pushing 20 percent, and millions more are barely making ends meet putting food on the table and paying for lodging. Govenment sponsored healthcare plans have worked well on other counties, and could work well here, if we got our priorities in order, i.e. stop spending hundreds of billions on the mlitary, and stopped tihe corruption in healthcare.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

    1. john lockes ghost

      The fact is, lucky, no health care program (government sponsored, insurance or HSAs) work when people can't pay for them. All require funding. The programs in Europe are funded through taxes, but during a recession, the government borrows money in order to maintain the money pool. In Germany, health care is a part of their social security system and has been since its inception by Bismark. It even operated during the war as my wife had her tonsils removed at a cost of a few phennigs. That would not have happened had their "trust fund" ran dry. The problem, though , with government sponsored systems is that government employees manage them and, in this country unlike Germany, congress steals from them. Insurance funded systems are no different except that the board of directors and stockholders are the theives.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  18. lucky85

    @ToriAlexander

    I have not used the term "deregulation" once. The only system that we know works better that the one we have now is the one we had prior to the 1990s when gov't sponsored HMOs began to put member-owned co-ops and other free market choices out of business. And exactly what system was that? HMO's are not a common thing now as choices for healthcare. The only thing you could be talking about is pretty much the current system, which is not working.

    So I'm going to stop writing to you.

    LOL, you said that last time.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  19. lucky85

    @ToriAlexander

    You're the one that doesn't seem to get it. The government is ALREADY in the healthcare business with medicare and medicaid, which seem to work pretty well. You want deregulation which is essentially what brougt the financial market to its knees. One cannot depend on "privatization" to do anything but try to increase profits, and that usually means increase cost to the consumer. A single payor system with negotiated costs is the only viable solution to really lowering healthcare costs substantially.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 I have not used the term "deregulation" once. The only system that we know works better that the one we have now is the one we had prior to the 1990s when gov't sponsored HMOs began to put member-owned co-ops and other free market choices out of business. I've never used the term "privatization" either. It's hopeless trying to discuss this any further if I'm just going to be your Libertarian or Republican stereotype for you. I actually voted for Obama last time around. Won't do that again. And if Ron Paul isn't in the race for President, I'll vote for Jill Stein. Not my first choice but I am willing to try to work with others with whom I don't completely agree if I think that they might listen. You, on the other hand Sir, are not listening. So I'm going to stop writing to you.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  20. lucky85

    @ToriAlexander

    You're not mentioning one of the most important things - the skyrocketing costs of hospital care, doctor's visits, and pharmaceuticals. The government is the ONLY entity that has the authorituy to try to reign in, or negotiate lowering these costs. Every other private entity generally also has their hands in this bucket of corruption, and has no interest in lowering costs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 You can agree with my point or not, but first you have to get it! The gov't has been SUBSIDIZING Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry. This is why the costs are so high. I'd be great if gov't wanted to reign them in, but they want to give the reigns to a select few. It's called crony capitalism, or actually facist capitalism is more like it. Let's solve that problem first, then see if there is still a need for Federal single-payer. My guess is the need would no longer be great. I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversation as you don't seem to be able to understand the concept of gov't subsidy of private industry.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  21. lucky85

    @ToriAlexander

    We already have "government run" healthcare, which is called medicare. This works pretty well and could be used as a basis for extending basic healthcare to all. This would provide "competition" to private insurance and force them to compete. Now all they do is shell out millions to politicians to keep the gravy train of the status quo.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 The middle class has been asking for universal health care recently only because medical costs are so high. But they've been driven up artificially because it's not a free market, i.e. the gov't is in bed with the insurance industry. If we had affordable health care for most people we wouldn't be asking for universal health care. I've offered several different perspectives on this situation, including compromises and mixed solutions that might appeal to a broader range of people. But you seem to want one thing and one thing only: Federal single-payer. Maybe that would be great for you, but in a democratic society it might be more appropriate to offer choices instead. Try considering other opinions, as I have yours, and you might feel less frustrated.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      1. lucky85

        You're simply wrong on this issue, a "free market" in healthcare would just make things worse, look at what the degulation of banks and financial institutions did - it created a catastrophe. "For profit" in a free market insures the ever spiraling upward cost of healthcare to continue.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      2. JohnZappatos

        @ToriAlexander@lucky85 Where do people get their information? The middle class has not asked for universal health care. Most work a job and are covered by their work plans. The employers and the government cannot contain the spiraling costs. That is the only reason this has come up for discussion. Medicare and medicaid will soon take up the entire tax revenue of the federal government. If free market was the easy answer to drive down costs then every country in the world would be doing it. We are also a funny country with pioneer roots. "Force us to buy insurance?" "No way, not me" (that is our attitude) But when we get sick we cry "But we are the richest country in the world why can't I have the best medical care for free"

        We hear horror stories of Canada and England. That is just smoke and mirrors to keep us from changing. Why don't we hear "Switzerland's healthcare costs are increasing at 1% per year and they have 98% coverage for their citizens? Then you'll hear the same BS that we are a much bigger country and it would not work here. Well roll it out state by state then. But we all know it will work much as every multinational corporation will attest.

        This ain't going to be easy but you people need to read through the BS.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    2. john lockes ghost

      @lucky85@ToriAlexander Actually, the better plan is allowing citizens to have HSAs and CHI. If you are reasonably healthy, over time your HSA will amass considerable wealth and actually replace the need for medicare.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    3. JohnZappatos

      @lucky85@ToriAlexander Works pretty well? It will be bankrupt in a few years that is why all of the urgency and discussion on it. That is the reason Obama had to address it because its broken not because it works well and needs to be replecated. Please just vote for Ron Paul and speak to nobody about anything.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    4. JohnZappatos

      @lucky85@ToriAlexander "Works pretty well" Are you kidding me they are what is going to bankrupt the country. That is why they are pushing for reform. If it weren't a problem we would never had heard anything about it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  22. lucky85

    "Well I don't quite agree, but I do respect your opinion. I think I was choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if I did chose single-payer, I'd rather have 50 single-payers, one in each state. A big federal government is not to be trusted"

    The farther down the totem pole you go in politics, the more corrupt it gets. State politics is almost always more corrupt than federal, and local politics is usually the most corrupt.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 I don't necessarily disagree, though it would be more convincing if you offered some evidence to support such a general claim. And if it is true, I believe it may be the lack of interest that voters seem to take in local elections. They are distracted by federal elections, where ironically, their vote doesn't really count. In my own local community there is horrible corruption. It's a small rural town and most of the residents have been here for many generations. As newcomers move in, however, the status quo gets challenged, more people start debating and taking an interest in politics. My own efforts to change policy in the local school were ultimately squashed because the corrupt school board could take refuge in a federal regulations that, simply put, place the bar way to low. A few miles away from me there is a local government that is both "progressive" and "efficient" and more people vote there.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  23. lucky85

    "True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling."

    We've had "for-profit" healthcare for a long time which is what has cause this mess. Jist like socoal security (which is not "bankrupt"), the government must be able to pick up the slack for those who cannot get insurance, and by providing this true competition will be created for the now corrupted healthcare system.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 As Dennis Kucinich said, we shouldn't be demanding more affordable health insurance, but more affordable health care. The invention of the HMO, prepaid medical care (which is not really insurance), and the gov't subsidy of these HMOs, has driven up health care costs. Ron Paul recommends that, for now, people buy catastrophe insurance and open health savings accounts. This will help stop HMOs from taking money out of the doctor-patient relationship for routine care. (If you tell your doctor you don't have insurance and want to pay cash, he/she will likely reduce your bill by 50%) This solution is not good enough, however, as catastrophe insurance is itself too expensive for most people. Would it be so bad if we went back to what we had before the 1990s, when the middle class could afford to pay for routine care out of pocket and could afford catastrophe health insurance? and the poor were taken care of by Medicaid, which, I think, back then used to pay the hospital or doctor directly and didn't have the poor subscribing to HMO which the gov't then paid. State run hospitals where the poor are treated at low cost or for free: no insurance middle man. And/or charities hospitals where the poor are taken care of for free or at low cost. Why have we gotten away from this? Why would we want to gov't to insure everybody instead just paying directly for care of those who really need it?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      1. john lockes ghost

        @ToriAlexander@lucky85 The lesson here is that the greater the number of people standing between the health care provider and the patient, the greater the cost. HSAs eliminate the middleman and CHI minimizes their interference. The problem is that if you receive health insurance from your employer, you may find it difficult to impossible to transfer your health care to an HSA and CHI mainly because the government, in collusion with the insurance industry, won't allow it. In other words, you are denied the freedom of choice. Now, that was the situation in the 1990's, things may be different now, but I doubt it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        1. lucky85

          @john lockes ghost@ToriAlexander There really is little "competition:" between health insurance companies currently. Many of the prices for drugs and services have prices that are preset by the hospitaol or doctor, so that most health insurance companies end up charging about the same rate for the insurance acording to plan, and you have to pick up the rest of the tab. There rates are skyrocketing both because of corporate greed, and because hospital and doctor costs have gone thru the roof. The system is broke, and somebodyn needs to fix it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

          1. john lockes ghost

            When my first son was born (1958) he was in hospital 7 days, my wife 3. I didn't have health insurance, but neither did the majority of people. The cost, $ 400. Two years later my second son was born. He and wife we in hospital 3 days. I still had no health insurance, cost $ 1,000. Another two years, and we had our third son. By then I and most people had health insurance. They were in hospital 3 days, the cost, $ 2,500. Health insurance drives up the price of health care, just like withholding taxes drives up the cost of government. When you can set your own income and are confident of acquiring x amount of money, you will raise your standard of living to be just a little bit more. Health insurance, like withholding taxes, provides a floor from which the health industry and politicians operate. The only way to cut the spending, is to remove the incentive.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        2. ToriAlexander

          @john lockes ghost I agree this is the best solution currently available. However, I wish the IRS would let people open a HSA without a CHI. I checked into CHIs and, for our family, it would cost us 10% of our income (full health insurance is about 18%), and we are at the "new" poverty level: middle class. We would also only have about 6 CHIs to choose from. How can the gov't only offer a tax break only to those who give 10% of their income to one of six big wealthy insurance companies? It's still corporatism-fascism if we are not allowed to have HSAs without CHIs. As far as eventually getting rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, I would put that last on the list of priorities after ending the Fed, stopping the wars, decentralizing gov't by allowing states to regulate themselves. If we did all that then maybe there would be more money available for the disadvantaged, whose numbers, one would hope, would have shrunk far below 50% of the population.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

          1. john lockes ghost

            Tori, you can't have one without the other. (sounds like a song lyric) The CHI is to protect you and family members from health issues that actually threaten your life. The HSA takes care of every day health issues like fixing a minor bone break, attending to a strep throat, sprains, splinters, etc.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  24. Anthony9097

    If the government is so evil and socialized medicine could never work, why does it work well in Canada and the majority or Europe? Those are civilized societies that believe everyone has the right to access the amazing medical technology we have in this day and age regardless of their ability to pay. We all deserve access to that technology. Don't let this loon or any other loons that agree with him tell you otherwise. These men are barbaric uncaring savages. I can't see it any other way.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. ToriAlexander

      @Anthony9097 That's a good question. However I do hear mixed reports about the quality of care. It may be that those countries have a democratic vote on health care. What I worry about with a federal program here is that we don't have the vote and our representatives have been bought. I would be more inclined to consider state socialized medicine, since states have democratic governments, but that's not my preference. I've already described some of my ideas below. Although I would not be happy with it, I would take Single-Payer over Obama Care in any case. I have zero desire to subsidize insurance companies.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. Anthony9097

        @ToriAlexander Single payer is what I am advocating! We agree.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. ToriAlexander

          @Anthony9097 Well I don't quite agree, but I do respect your opinion. I think I was choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if I did chose single-payer, I'd rather have 50 single-payers, one in each state. A big federal government is not to be trusted. Until a better solution is found, I wish we could at least get rid of the HMO system, use insurance just for catastrophes, and get the insurance industry out of Medicaid and Medicare, which should definitely be single payer. No government subsidies of the insurance industry!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    2. Tucci78

      @Anthony9097 - "If the government is so evil and socialized medicine could never work, why does it work well in Canada and the majority or Europe? Those are civilized societies that believe everyone has the right to access the amazing medical technology we have in this day and age regardless of their ability to pay. We all deserve access to that technology."

      Where does the "technology" (and the ability to use it effectively as well as humanely) come from?

      Oh, yes. The benign, wonderful, caring, loving "government" creates it out of thin air, the same way the Federal Reserve System creates "stimulus" out of thin air.

      I'm sure that "Anthony9097" is also depending upon "socialized" mechanisms to feed himself, clothe himself, house himself, fulfill his sexual desires and control his reproductive functions, breathe for him, pump his blood, and wipe his soiled little butt.

      Heaven forfend that "Anthony9097" should take any responsibility, show any initiative, even think for himself in this life.

      Anyone care to look at the perfect antithesis of a Ron Paul supporter?

      Then I give you "Anthony 9097," the consummate example of Odumbo's most prized constituency.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

      1. Anthony9097

        @Tucci78You know well that technology comes from socialized democracies just as much as the US. Your argument is totally erroneous and its also a strawman. You answered a question I didn't ask. Why do socialist democracies have such good healthcare? Don't dance around the question. If only the free market can bring success why has Europe always been our equal in healthcare and quality of life if not better? They work 35 hours a week with benefits. Because of you are a sucker and worship corporations you are worse off no matter how many people you insult.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

    3. lucky85

      Very good point . "Socialized" medicine works well in a number of countries. The idea is foreign to us in U.S., though, because we have grown up with health insurance tied to having a job. Health insurers always try to keep the "healthy" groups, and drop the "unhealthy" ones, which means if you are not healthy, you have to pay very high premiums, or go w/o heatlhcare. Extending medicare to all in some form would go a long way towards giving at least basic insurance to everyone, and getting rid of the corruption would reduce the cost.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  25. lucky85

    "From my very limited knowledge of economics I understand that any government interference with market forces screw the whole system up and causes inflation - ?"

    You do remember the market meltdown which forced some of the bailouts. The repug's deregulation of banks and financial institutions led to this financial disaster. The government (i.e.the people) needs to be involved regulating these industries because they tend to be easily corrupted. Pure capitalism is a proven failure, only a mixture of capialism and socialism is viable in today's world.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  26. lucky85

    "I would like to add that I advocate, unlike Paul, not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead"

    "Voluntary" contributions would never fly, as many would not give, or give much less than they would wth an income tax. This also doesn't address people with no jobs and no money, somebody else is stll going to have to foot the bill for them. As far as taxes go, a national sales tax is also a bad idea, as it is very regressive. The poor wold pay much more as a percentage of their income than the rich. Letting "charities" pick up the slack is also a bad idea, as there would be no consistent rules to go by, as each charitiy would used the money as they saw fit.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    1. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85@Tucci78 I said that donations to charities could be obligatory, in lieu of taxes; I did not say "voluntary." Everybody seems to want a plan to fix everything instantly. Not possible. What would be possible would be to increase dramatically the charitable tax deduction. Paul is always for deductions! This would be one of the few deductions that most Democrats might approve. It would be a step in the right direction, for tax payers would get more of a say how their money is used to help the disadvantaged instead of being wasted by the government. The 50% deduction we have now is ridiculously low. It gives only 17 cents on the dollar at the most! Make it 300% for the top earners and 600% for the lower end. You can't just get rid of the income tax immediately. You would have to phase it out. And, in a better world where Paul is elected, as government agencies are closed down, non-profits would pick up the slack. Accordingly, tax deductions for donations would go higher and higher.

      This would not be "putting a gun" to someone's head, Tucci78, to make them give to charity. It would be giving them the OPTION not to pay taxes and give to any charity instead. You can't have it all your way tomorrow. But we can at least talk about what sort of steps might work to go in the direction that you want to go.

      As some one who has worked as a volunteer with non-profits for 15 years, I know they tend to do a lot for very little. The IRS has pretty strict rules already for charities. People who say trying to encourage Americans to be more charitable "won't fly" are just projecting their own selfish natures on others. Ron Paul, you've noticed I'm sure, projects his charitable nature on others. And he's called naive for that. Well, I'd rather follow a naive charitable man than a cynical selfish one.

      Yes, we need free markets in the sense of markets that are not subsidized by the government, but we need a strong charity and non-profit sector too. I wish Paul's slogan were "Liberty and Charity." He'd get more votes.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    2. JohnZappatos

      @lucky85 Our current tax code is regressive where the rich pay less than the middle class. But most of all its all a waste of money. Reread the "Fair - Tax" imho it is the only way to go. The benefits are so many. Btw, the current proposed Fair Tax plan has "Family consumption allowance" which I believe needs to be removed. It just leaves another avenue for the tax law to be exploited.

      This talk of donations to charities makes my skin crawl. I can only imagine the number of fillings for start up charitable organizations.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  27. lucky85

    "Ron Paul does stand a chance. Don't kid yourself on that issue. That is why the discussion of health care is so important on this forum. As far as Tucci78, I'm making no judgement. I just want to understand the proposed health care here in its entirety"

    Paul is too way out in right field to garner enough of the moderate vote to get the nomination. He also is old, which doesn't help his chances. He looks like a retiree, and people are wanting the younger more vibrant candidate. That's partly why Obama won the presidency.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. JohnZappatos

      @lucky85 Obama won because the economy imploded.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  28. Tucci78

    On H. pylori as causative of upper GI inflammation and malignant neoplasia, Tami had written:

    "I don't use Wikipedia. It was addressed well in my pathogenic microbiology class. My father has Barretts Esophagus. I understand the process. I never stated that the bacteria was good. I said that it may not be the problem. What I mean is that something else allows it to do what it does, opens the gateway so to speak. Many carry it and are unaffected. They have yet to determine why. It's supporting that treatments are dynamic. It's amazing how things change so quickly."

    The proper response to the contention that H. pylori infection is not a predisposing factor in the development of Barrett's esophagus and other upper gastrointestinal disorders evokes Ring Lardner:

    "The race may not always be to the swift, nor victory to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

    All medical diagnosis and treatment - like it or not - is predicated upon the best possible appreciation of probabilities, and is from first to last a matter of calculated risk.

    Quibble about H. pylori infection however we like, patients presenting with upper GI inflammation or evidence of malignant disease who are also found to be harboring Helicobacter pylori infection can be expected with high levels of reliability to benefit by way of the eradication of that infection.

    And that's the way to bet.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Tami

      @Tucci78 I didn't say it was causative. I said that my father has Barrett's. What I meant is that I had researched the topic further when he was diagnosed. The appropriate response would have been made out of kindness actually. This is why nurses are so much better with their patients than doctors. I would never even think about attempting to make them feel stupid or insignificant to make myself feel better about myself or for any other reason. Good luck. While you are sitting here demeaning everyone I will be making this world a better place.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      1. ToriAlexander

        @Tami Thanks Tami for your thoughts and questions. Some people are listening.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      2. Tucci78

        @Tami - "I didn't say [H. pylori infection] was causative. I said that my father has Barrett's. What I meant is that I had researched the topic further when he was diagnosed."

        I didn't say that H. pylori infection was causative in your father's case. I know about the epidemiology and etiology of Barrett's esophagitis, and note that it's reliable to infer such in the differential diagnosis of particular cases.

        If somebody involved in his evaluation and care didn't rule out H. pylori infection in your father's case, that failure was malpractitionate deviation from standard-of-care.

        I don't get your need for a "There, there, you poor dear!" expression of sympathy in a Web comments exchange, but I'm male, and men tend to focus on solving the problem to whatever extent might be possible, and the assuagement of emotional upset is almost never anything about which we really give a damn.

        I should start faking it for you? Nah.

        I've got a very good idea of what my own personal cause of death is going to be, and while it can be deferred, I know it can't be avoided. I don't particularly need or want any Internet stranger's sympathy, and to the extent that there's any emotional load associated with the subject, I'm concerned with how my dependents and other family members are going to take it.

        The grandkids haven't yet lost anybody who's figured as large in their lives as I have, and though I know they'll get over it, I still - quite uselessly - fret about it. Oh, well.

        Oh, yeah. If what I write makes you personally "feel stupid or insignificant," they're YOUR feelings.

        I don't, can't, and don't particularly desire to control those feelings of yours.

        You want to consider getting a grip on yourself?

        Nobody else can do it for you.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  29. ToriAlexander

    This is how I imagine a solution. Would anyone care to comment? First of all, that the private insurance companies are gone. Poof. All the profits that the insurance companies enjoyed are now in the coffers of doctors and hospitals. All of a sudden the price of medical care drops. Most people can now afford to pay out-of-pocket for routine care. Some people start living healthier life styles to avoid having to pay out-of-pocket more than they really must.

    But there's a problem. Catastrophic illnesses and accidents can still wipe out a family's wealth. So, just as they did in Europe in the 1600s, communities start forming insurance cooperatives. Individuals each pay a certain amount into a big pool, and only those in serious need of medical help collect benefits. There are no stock-holders to pay and the administrators of the cooperative earn salaries agreed upon by the members. Such non-profit organizations existed in the U.S. right up until the time the government decided to start subsidizing HMOs, which put member-owned insurance cooperatives out of business by offering lower rates and more benefits, initially. Once co-ops were history, the rates went up and the benefits went down. There's no reason (except current government restrictions) that we can't go back to co-ops now. Or let the hospitals themselves run the co-operative, in the sense of selling health memberships. Hospitals might be in the best position to play the role of insuring their members as well as promoting health by providing free/mandatory wellness care.

    But there will always be those who, through fault of their own or no fault of their own, have no money or who have prior illness and so are not be able to afford even low-cost care or insurance. Although I'm not religious, I think we need churches if only for the charity work they do. While we all tend to open our hearts to the hard-working poor who fall upon bad times, who but the church will help the undeserving poor and feel good about it? They are in the business of bringing souls into their fold and are motivated to be charitable. I'd listen to a sermon or two from someone who saved my life. But fewer charities and community-based solutions exist today because the government moved in, Wallmart-like, and put the Mom and Pops out of business.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    1. Tami

      @ToriAlexander What about chronic disease? Define catastrophic as you are applying it. There are many diseases, like autoimmune, that require high and ongoing costs. I'm not sure that you are defining catastrophic that way. I can assure you that the ongoing costs break people. Catastrophic means to me an occurrence vs. ongoing.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      1. ToriAlexander

        @Tami To me any illness that's so costly it would be devastating financially is a catastrophe. But I think different co-ops would set the bar differently. I would like to add that I advocate, unlike Paul, not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead. Libertarians would get to "do what they want with their money" more or less and socialist-types might be happy with such a compromise. Non-profits are much more efficient that government, by far! And charity is a virtue the government should encourage. Very few people feel virtuous when they pay their taxes.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @ToriAlexander@Tami - "...I advocate ... not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead."

          Well, charity at gunpoint has at least the virtue of the victim's limited discretion in determining how and where his stolen money is going to be spent.

          I don't mean to be crude about it, but it's entirely too much like forcible rape being mitigated by its conduct in a comfortable bed, with candle light, soft music, scented lubricants and first-rate condoms.

          Gad.

          If the government-approved "charities" don't include options which allow the taxed persons to "do what they want with their money" - something like spending it to the benefit of their own family members, or on capital investment in their own businesses - their rights are still violated, aren't they?

          Your proposed "charity" at gunpoint is REALLY supposed to be some kind of "virtue"?

          Very good intentions, I'm sure.

          But you know what they say about the destination to which the use of such paving material inevitably leads.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        2. ToriAlexander

          @Tucci78 While analogy can be used positively in, say, the creative arts, it is an inappropriate form of argument. It is actually rhetoric, aimed to manipulate rather than to get at truth. My condolences to your friends and family for the ill fortune that you believe charitable obligation is "like rape." While I do not believe that we have a human right to health services, education and so forth, I am willing to say we have a human obligation to be charitable. If you disagree (go live on an island by yourself or) donate your money to a cause that will benefit you and yours, if indirectly. Maybe you'd like a wing in a museum bearing your name or if that's not likely a bench with a plaque. Whatever.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        3. Tucci78

          @ToriAlexander - "While I do not believe that we have a human right to health services, education and so forth, I am willing to say we have a human obligation to be charitable."

          If you empower the officers of government to ENFORCE such an "obligation," then by definition you're use of the word "charitable" is a farce, and the rape analogy is precisely apposite.

          There's a difference between a voluntary choice to do something out of fellow-feeling and loving kindness (which is the motive behind charity) and as a politically-ordained alternative to armed robbery.

          If you fail to acknowledge this difference, then you're divorced from factual reality, and you're no longer participating in this exchange under the pretense that you're either sane or honest.

          As for my alleged desire for postmortem tributes, I've no such vanities, and I find something disquieting and unclean in the personae of people - like former Ku Klux Klansman (and therefore model Democrat politician) Robert Byrd - who strive obscenely so to secure.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        4. ToriAlexander

          @Tucci78 I'm suggesting that the government offer another option, in lieu of paying taxes, a real charitable deduction not a meaningless one. If you think offering more options is "like rape," then you are just weird. I feel a duty to help my neighbor and that sense of obligation comes from within. Obviously that is too difficult for you to understand.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @ToriAlexander - "I'm suggesting that the government offer another option, in lieu of paying taxes, a real charitable deduction not a meaningless one. If you think offering more options is 'like rape,' then you are just weird. I feel a duty to help my neighbor and that sense of obligation comes from within. Obviously that is too difficult for you to understand."

          So what you're saying is that while the government is raping us, we should demand the option to relax and enjoy it?

          Beyond your endless yammer about charity at gunpoint as some kind of alleged set of "options" (who determines what sort of eleemosynary undertakings will qualify as any sort of permitted "real charitable deduction"?) there's also the ABSOLUTELY real question you refuse to discuss - and which I've mentioned at least once already - about whether or not any sorts of "charitable deduction" actually result in beneficial outcomes.

          Let alone the effective use of resources.

          What might become popular as a taxpayer-elected "charitable deduction" alleged to serve a health care benefit? Is it really what the recipients of such measures actually need?

          Moreover, is it what they want? What they'll TOLERATE or, instead, fight off like guerillas being commanded to have their children castrated?

          Ever read that Henry Thoreau quotation? Goes:

          "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design to do me good, I should run for my life..."

          As I've already observed, we all know where the road leads when your kind of good intentions get turned into paving material by government thugs.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        6. JohnZappatos

          @ToriAlexander@Tucci78 Your charity solution will only create a million sham charities for people to launder money through. Your heart is in the right place but solution is not realistic.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          1. Sims

            I agree with John. Look at history. Any organization, no matter how altruistic it's origins, becomes corrupt the larger it grows. Under this theory money is always the determination for it's corruption. For example, Susan G Komen, Monsanto, Mereck, the Federal government, etc...

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        7. Tucci78

          @JohnZappatos@ToriAlexander - "Your charity solution will only create a million sham charities for people to launder money through."

          First, consider that government-mandated charitable undertakings (coercively funded and managed by politicians and bureaucrats whose motives and conduct make the descriptor "corrupt" a tautology) are in and of themselves "sham" undertakings which do enormous damage as an inevitable matter of course.

          Second, consider that the role of "sham charities" being employed as vehicles for criminals "to launder money through" goes away all but completely as unconstitutional statutes criminalizing the production, sale, and use of psychoactive substances - the "War on (Some) Drugs" - is brought to a close, and other opportunities for extragovernmental organized crime (EOC) dry up and blow away.

          Third, "sham charities" also disappear as an end is brought to the unnecessary and (16th Amendment notwithstanding) unconstitutional unapportioned direct federal taxation upon wages, salaries, commissions, profits - and even waitresses TIPS for ghodsake - subsumed falsely under the heading of "income tax" is brought crashing to an end.

          No need to claim deductions to such "sham charities" if you aren't being ripped off every pay period by that unlawful federal gouge, right?

          Certainly, legitimately charitable undertakings will involve wasteful and ineffective expenditures. It's the nature of imperfect knowledge as well as the hell of all "good intentions."

          But as I've observed, private voluntary charitable efforts contain within their methods and operations much more responsive negative feedback mechanisms than do politically-ordained "entitlement" programs, which become little bureaucratic empires that are as hard as cockroaches to kill.

          And much more damaging, not to mention filthier and more disease-raddled.

          Private charities which fail to "do good" in the eyes of their donors will - and do - die. They go out of existence.

          Government programs?

          Nope. The worse they fail, it always seems, the more funding they receive from the politicians. Isn't it always so?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        8. JohnZappatos

          I was saying to Tori, I don't want a way to pay taxes to be with a charitable contribution. I'm not sure where you were going...

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. lucky85

      "Hospitals might be in the best position to play the role of insuring their members as well as promoting health by providing free/mandatory wellness care.

      "

      This has proven to be false, as in the case of Humana Inc., who found that running both an insurance company and owning hospitals was a conflict of interest. They ended up splitting the company in two, one for the insurance, and one for the hospitals.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    3. JohnZappatos

      @ToriAlexander This needs to be looked at more closely (co-ops). We also need to educate our citizens about end of life. With today's technology we can basically keep anybody hooked up to a machine indefinitely. So when is the end? Does a 92 year old man need a pace maker? Does a 90 year old person need cancer treatment? Does a 40yr old person complaining of anal itch need a colonoscocopy? I've seen all of these done and I truly believe one major problem is most doctors didn't get into medicine to help people but for the money.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  30. lucky85

    Tucci78 is a bitter old man that (maybe) was a doctor who claims to know everything, and obviously knows little. I worked in health care for years both for insurance companies and hospitals, and know how both operate. We need to get the "profit" out healthcare to have any chance of creating a viable healthcare system, because the profit motive(don't pay for any more than you have to) goes counter to good healthcare, where more may be needed.

    If tucci wants to back his fello Ahole who hasn't got a chance in hell of getting the nomination , let him play in his little insane asylum.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @lucky85 - Now we've got this lying psychotic piece of shit claiming to have "...worked in health care for years both for insurance companies and hospitals, and know how both operate."

      Yet another unsupported assertion on the part of "lucky," and yet another completely unreasoning excuse for argument on a subject under discussion in this forum.

      First and foremost, even were "lucky" to be in some impossible fashion as well-educated and experienced as he manifestly is not, these completely yanked-out-of-his-ass claims of authoritative expertise would afford him no credibility. There's truth to the old cartoon caption that "On the Internet, nobody can tell you're a dog."

      All a disputant has in his presentations on a Web board such as this one is an intrinsically sound statement of his position supported by factual information which can be verified by the readers here, in many cases with active URL references or the mention of otherwise published back-up. This kind of support (as I've mentioned) this "lucky" son of a bitch has never yet provided.

      It's a pretty reliable characteristic of such flaming idiots in their online conduct.

      Second, the obvious hostility of "lucky" to the concept of profit is gibbering insanity. As I've observed, the conduct of productive activity in a division of labor society requires a feedback mechanism that informs producers about whether or not what they're doing is really needed by other human beings. Profit is the most efficient and effective mode of feedback, not only functioning as an incentive but serving an objectively measurable indication of the degree to which the particular activity is valuable relative to other activities in terms of the utilization of time, energy, capital, and other resources.

      Again, the laws of economics at work.

      I submit that no person could ever have gained a Masters' degree in business administration (MBA) without the sort of lucid understanding of these laws of economics, nor would such a person fail to express that understanding in exchanges such as these.

      Therefore "lucky" here is neither truthful about his own personal past history and qualifications to speak nor is he offering reasonable or reasoned contention on these subjects.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Public Postings

        @Tucci78@lucky85 "Profit is the most efficient and effective mode of feedback, not only functioning as an incentive but serving an objectively measurable indication of the degree to which the particular activity is valuable relative to other activities in terms of the utilization of time, energy, capital, and other resources." Good point. But that doesn't mean charging $500 for a months supply of medication is reasonable. It places undue hardship on those needing the medication.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        1. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@lucky85 I also understand that the more competition there is in the market the better the options and lesser the cost to consumers. Is this correct?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "But that doesn't mean charging $500 for a months supply of medication is reasonable."

          I would tend heartily to agree. It's for this reason that I was taught in medical school and in clinical training (and have continued to learn in clinical practice) to "squeeze the eagle 'til it screams" by keeping my eye on such pharmacotherapeutic costs and the best possible lower-priced alternatives.

          Part of the reason for these extremely high prices charges for on-patent "innovator" medicines is that pharmaceuticals manufacturers are compelled by FDA regulations to suffer enormous costs in both drug development and the process of getting prior approval from the federal government to put their products on the market for ANY clinical purpose.

          The history of the FDA - especially since the thalidomide kerfluffle half a century ago - has to be studied in detail to understand how safety testing can be completed quickly and inexpensively and very effectively but the government's imposition of EFFICACY testing requirements makes getting FDA marketing approval incredibly costly and unspeakably prolonged (remember, "time IS money" especially when it comes to drug testing).

          It's also generally acknowledged to be clinically useless, but I keep getting told that I go on at too much length already.

          Getting rid of efficacy testing as a requirement for marketing approval would impose no risk on the American people while enabling pharma manufacturers to cut their prices enormously.

          We can get rid of the FDA altogether later. THIS, however, we could do tomorrow.

          Why not?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        3. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "I also understand that the more competition there is in the market the better the options and lesser the cost to consumers. Is this correct?"

          You betcha. It's one of the reasons why the American Medical Association (institutionally speaking, not the majority of the few remaining American physicians and surgeons who belong to the Association) hate Dr. Paul's ever-living guts.

          He does keep pointing out that fact, doesn't he?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        4. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@lucky85 I concur - what about the 10 year patent that companies have for a name brand drug that prevents a generic from being created until then? Where does this regulation come from?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "what about the 10 year patent that companies have for a name brand drug that prevents a generic from being created until then? Where does this regulation come from?"

          The protection of patents - intellectual property (IP) rights - is specifically written into the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8). Prior to 1995, the duration of patent protection was 17 (seventeen) years, not 10 (ten).

          The Uruguay round agreements were the basis of revision in 1995, extending patent protection from 17 to 20 (twenty) years.

          The idea behind patent rights protections has always been to ensure that innovators will be accorded an incentive not only to devise new technologies but also to open those technologies to public regard. In pharmacology, this is EXTREMELY important inasmuch as keeping such advantages secret (the only prior means of protecting innovation from copycat emulation) imposes tremendously increased risks from adverse effects such as congener sensitivities, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, etc.

          As it is, the FDA and EMEA marking approvals processes make excruciatingly thorough exposition of not only the drug substances and formulation methods matters of public knowledge but also the details of manufacturing (under the aegis of current good manufacturing processes [cGMP]).

          This enables generics manufacturers (India's Dr. Reddy has long been notorious for this) to reformulate pharmaceuticals still under patent protection in these United States and the other Uruguay Round signatory nations, and "bootleg" them wherever they can get away with it.

          It's part of the reason why antiretroviral (ARV) drugs devised for the treatment of HIV-1 infection tend to be used in ways that facilitate the widespread development of treatment-resistant strains of the AIDS virus all over the Third World.

          If you've got a better idea to address these and other concerns for which patent protections were devised, I'd be delighted to read it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    2. Tami

      @lucky85 Ron Paul does stand a chance. Don't kid yourself on that issue. That is why the discussion of health care is so important on this forum. As far as Tucci78, I'm making no judgement. I just want to understand the proposed health care here in its entirety.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  31. JohnstonSequoia

    President Ron Paul?

    http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. lucky85

    "No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty

    .If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual."

    These are 2 of the most assinine statements I've ever seen. Do these jerks realize that we already subsidize millions of other people's healthcare through skyrocketing insurance premiums. A "Voluntary" single payor plan willl not force one to take insurance they don't want, and will cover those who cannot get insurance due to lack oif a job, or lack of money. This would save the hospitals tons of money thru not having near as much costs for ER, and would get a lot of corruption out of the system if heatlhcare were monitered, instead of being a gravy train for millionaire execs and doctors.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @lucky85 - "Do these jerks realize that we already subsidize millions of other people's healthcare through skyrocketing insurance premiums."

      Yep, long since noted. Health "insurance" long ago ceased being "insurance" in any meaningful sense, and became - to all intents and purposes - pre-paid medical care programs designed not to guard against the possibilities of catastrophic injuries or diseases but means by which the average beneficiary received ROUTINE care of commonplace medical problems.

      As in all situations where those who benefit from a particular type of goods or services become "decoupled" from the requirement to pay out-of-pocket for those goods or services, the incentive to exercise discretion is substantially removed, and the degree to which a participant in such "health care insurance" is limited chiefly by the participant's willingness to grab at everything he can get.

      Costs are simply BOUND to go up, and economies of scale and method ("health maintenance") go right to hell.

      Those dirty old laws of economics working - whether you want them to or not - and your alleged good intentions be damned.

      This faux "MBA" and his line of rancid bullshit about how any kind of "single payor plan" would (or could) "save the hospitals tons of money thru not having near as much costs for ER" (i.e., Emergency Department services) is a disconnected and arguably psychopathic fantasy borne of the most abject ignorance and stupidity imaginable.

      In fact, by reducing the market incentives to provide freestanding outpatient continuing care (health care providers simply cannot service their costs of doing business by accepting government-ordained "single payor plan" payments for the services they render, as Medicare and Medicaid have long been demonstrating), the overload on the hospital Emergency Departments can only INCREASE, causing more and more hospitals to go under.

      We've been seeing that all over America for the past twenty years and more. The incidence of such bankruptcies keeps on growing.

      This "lucky" asshole is speaking from a lack of practical experience in the health care industry and on the basis of a political animus so vicious and evil that people with an interest in the survival of the American republic would do well to treat this creature in precisely the same way one treats any other rabid animal.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. lucky85

    It's the "free market" part of healthcare now that is killing us. As has proven over and over, companies don't lower prices out of the goodness of their heart. We need to get the opposite of free-market. Current things that greatly increase costs are the redundant high-cost medical equipment and testing in the high-profit hi-tech market. Another is there is no regulation on how much health insurance can charge for premiums. Paul's stance like all repug;s, is a sad joke that will continue to milk every dollar they can out of all us in spending for healthcare. Only a single payor government sponsered syste can really compete and bring down the cost of healthcare for all.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      @lucky85 - "It's the "free market" part of healthcare now that is killing us."

      Nope. Precisely the opposite. It's the fact that government thugs aren't allowing the market to operate that's causing the increases in costs associated with health care.

      To the extent that we indulge the pure rottenness of "Liberal" fascists like this illiterate shit-for-brains, we see nothing but layer after layer of increased costs and crippling inefficiencies forced upon health care providers at every level.

      All of the costs imposed by these inefficiencies and other degradations of the market's functions have to be paid for in one way or another, either by the end consumers of health care goods and services or by others to whom these costs can be shifted by unlawful government action.

      Now, this "lucky" shit-for-brains who lies about having a Master's degree in business administration (MBA) keeps proving that he knows even less about the functions of a division-of-labor economy than he knows about the rest of factual reality. He's nothing more than a pitiful dork with delusions of competence who can't even provide a lucid discussion of how any alternative to the "free market" would - or could - function to enable real, living Americans to gain access to affordable health care.

      The cost advantages of "hi-tech" diagnostic and therapeutic modalities are utterly obliterated in this friggin' idiot's insensate fixated hatred of voluntary human action, evidence of the reliably prevailing woeful ignorance of such goons.

      Those who desire control of government's coercive power to choke the life out of the market economy in this country are reliably typified by this "lucky" son of a bitch. Indeed, this little shitwad seems to be consumed by a fantasy that HE himself will be one of the "Liberal" fascist elite with such power to rape and pillage and enslave his neighbors when his faction gets unopposed command of the nation.

      Tsk. Megalomania as well as pathological incompetence.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. lucky85

        "Lies about having a Masters"

        I certainly have an MBA with an undergrad in math. The first question I have is how someone as obtuse as you could possibly made it thru med school. I've painted the real picture of Paul as a unscientific know nothing who, like the repugs have done for the last 2 decades, will do nothing for the people if elected to office.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @lucky85 - "I certainly have an MBA with an undergrad in math."

          Unsupported, and on the basis of the obvious ignorance and idiocy in your posts utterly unbelievable.

          Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

          And nothing but a load of shit is all we've ever gotten from you, doofus.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Public Postings

          Alright, Tucci78, you are starting to make me giggle. How can you possibly be serious? You must be smirking your way through your comments.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tucci78

          @Public Postings - "How can you possibly be serious?"

          I'll admit that when dealing with raving "Liberal" fascists like this "lucky" critter, I can't help but succumb to the temptation to ridicule them. Either one treats these incendiary idiots with a bit of scornful humor or one becomes exasperated, and my personal experience in both clinical and non-clinical situations has taught me that it accomplishes nothing to get upset about them.

          These inflamed assholes just have to be considered specimens of self-directed pathology. Human cancers upon the body politic, to be cauterized or otherwise expunged whenever encountered.

          Yes, there's a profoundly rotten moral content to human vermin like "lucky." They're indisputably evil, and pose definite dangers to individual human rights and to both good civil order and social comity.

          If that regard for "lucky" amuses you, all well and good. That's not my purpose.

          Go on and "giggle" all you damned well please. The though of you doing so is entirely too reminiscent of what I've seen among patients in neuropsychiatric units, but what the heck....

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Public Postings

          @Tucci78 What kind of doctor are you? I don't recall.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Tucci78

          @Public Postings -"What kind of doctor are you? I don't recall."

          As I'd earlier mentioned, I'm a primary care grunt. We used to be called general practitioners, but the board certification now reads "Family Physician."

          While I've treated whole families on occasion (in pediculosis cases, most commonly), I actually evaluate and treat people one at a time, and so I still think of myself as a G.P.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. lucky85

        This is also the biggest bunch of idiotic lying "PSYCHO-babble" I've.ever seen. You'd better check into your local Psyche ward - and hope for a Rand Paul handout.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @lucky85 - No response is necessary when a lying sack of shit like "lucky" pukes into his computer so pointlessly.

          But why not spoil his jerk-off session anyway?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@lucky85 Funny.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Public Postings

        @Tucci78@lucky85 Agreed. From my very limited knowledge of economics I understand that any government interference with market forces screw the whole system up and causes inflation - ?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Tucci78

          @Public Postings@lucky85 - "From my very limited knowledge of economics I understand that any government interference with market forces screw the whole system up and causes inflation - ?"

          Actually, the cause of inflation - properly, it's "currency inflation," just as the weather report speaks not of "humidity" but always "relative humidity" - is always the issue of currency without some kind of IRL backing.

          There's a very powerful reason why Dr. Paul considers the Federal Reserve System an intolerable malignant force that must be destroyed as soon as can be managed, and why he advocates (at the very least) the immediate removal of statutory and regulatory barriers preventing competing currencies from circulating in these United States to fulfill the monetary functions.

          Eventually, he wants (and we NEED) the U.S. dollar to be irrevocably tied to some kind of commodity backing, preferably what's called "specie" - the coinage of precious metals like gold and silver - into circulating media of exchange.

          Inflation is not rising prices, but rather the destruction of the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, and this is caused by the Federal Reserve System simply conjuring "new" currency units called dollars effectively out of thin air.

          "Legalized" counterfeiting.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. ToriAlexander

      @lucky85 For-profit health care and insurance does sound heartless, I agree. That's why for centuries this sort of "business" was in the hands of charities and non-profits. Although today we have insurance companies that are called "non-profits," the heads of these organizations (Blue Cross, for instance) take the higher salaries than the heads of most for-profit insurance companies. That's why I think that insurance non-profit budgets should be voted on and approved by the members. Regarding single-payer, it's always dangerous to concentrate power. Decentralization is always the better way to go. I say the government's role is this is to find ways of encouraging non-profit and charity health organizations.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tucci78

        @ToriAlexander@lucky85 - "For-profit health care and insurance does sound heartless, I agree. That's why for centuries this sort of 'business' was in the hands of charities and non-profits."

        Precisely to the contrary. Ever study the wording of the Hippocratic Oath? Because it's archaic, people commonly fail to consider that in large part it's explicitly intended to preserve the practice of medicine as a lucrative (even secretive) economic activity with access limited in order to prevent more than a limited number of men from entering the profession. The term in economics is "oligopoly."

        Especially since the beginning of the Enlightenment, charitable undertakings in health care have been parasitic upon the profit-making private sector, such that medical doctors and other servitors of patients health care needs undertook charitable activities ONLY incidental to the fees they got from their paying patients.

        Mrs. Finche-Forsythe's gall bladder surgery "paid" for the tonsillectomies and herniorrhaphies needed by the folks who couldn't afford the same surgeon's usual-and-customary fees.

        Got time for a med-school level History of Medicine coursee?

        Before Medicare and Medicaid made charitable care a political entitlement (and incidentally opened the taxpayer's arteries for the politicians to bleed him in the name of "social services"), doctors and patients took costs into due consideration, and those of us with primary care practices had ENORMOUS incentives to keep the costs of health care down.

        Knowing our patients, we understood who had the wherewithal to pay and who did not, who needed the most cost-efficient management and who could pay for "Cadillac" care.

        Indeed, those who could pay almost always DEMANDED "Cadillac"-level care despite our admonitions that they'd do just as well (probably better) if we kept things battened down a bit better.

        If you think "Decentralization" is a virtue, consider that pushing the OODA loop all the way down into the patient's own personal seat on the exam table is almost certainly the best possible solution, and getting politicians out of it is absolutely required.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ToriAlexander

          @Tucci78 Charity parasitic? Wow, so you're saying that when Dr. Paul donated his services to those who couldn't afford it, he was effectively stealing from (or maybe I should use your favorite analogy "raping") his paying customers insofar as he was making them pay for other people's care? That's so messed up.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Tucci78

          @ToriAlexander - "Charity parasitic? Wow, so you're saying that when Dr. Paul donated his services to those who couldn't afford it, he was effectively stealing from (or maybe I should use your favorite analogy "raping") his paying customers insofar as he was making them pay for other people's care? That's so messed up."

          Sure, charity is parasitic upon profit-making activities. Always was, always will be. Unless people capable of economically profitable activities produce not only what they need to survive but also a surplus, they've got nothing in the way of resources with which to BE charitable.

          Are you actually stupid enough to believe (and that word's religious connotation works in here) that even a significant minority of human beings are willing voluntarily to live lives of poverty, privation, even starvation so that others can live THEIR lives in materially better condition?

          It's actually far more reliable to acknowledge that people free to gain for themselves that surplus - and thus good confidence that they and their dependents can survive in some kind of satisfactory comfort - will tend to share that surplus in charitable giving with fellow human beings in distress.

          Have you some completely idiotic notion of what the word "parasitic" means in this context?

          Even if we use it as the term is used in clinical medicine, a parasite which does NOT take its nourishment in a way that permits its host to thrive stops being a mere parasite and becomes a pathogen.

          There's a difference.

          And when Dr. Paul (and I myself) rendered charitable care to certain of our respective patients, neither of us was robbing our paying patients in the process. If anything, we were "robbing" OURSELVES, at our own discretions, for our own reasons, voluntarily, and though I don't know about Dr. Paul, I sure as hell didn't get a tax break for the services I donated in caritas over the years.

          Big difference from what you and your ilk seem to be demanding, isn't it?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Tucci78

    @ClubofRome - "It's too bad that [Dr. Paul] is so hooked on his ideologies that it gets in the way of solving what is, really, not a remarkably complex problem."

    Gawd, I do love pseudointellectual yups who treat "ideology" as if it's some kind of dirty word.

    Dr. Paul has a coherent body of intellectually consistent ideas which boils down to a very simple, straightforward concept: a respect for individual human rights.

    Pursuant to that "ideology" he views civil government as an agency in human society which functions legitimately ONLY to the extent that it provides protection of those rights - the rights to life, to liberty, and to property - by posing a credible retaliatory mechanism to deter the retail and wholesale violation of those rights.

    The allegedly "remarkably complex problem" of health care simply doesn't fit into the legitimate scope of government concerns, and there's an end of it.

    You don't like that set of "ideologies" (if use of the plural is appropriate here)?

    Jeez, that's tough. What do you conceive to be a proper alternative? A government run to VIOLATE those individual human rights?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. guest12345

    #6, First, the Government shoud do no harm!!! The Government has no right to force poison on the population!! We must take back our own bodies!! Currently, the Government is poisoning the population with mandatory vaccinations, fluoridation of water supplies, and by subsidizing Genetically Modifiied food. Before we talk about doctors, pharmaceutical corporations, or insurance companies, we must stand up and demand clean air, clean water, and clean food!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. lucky85

      If you want clean air, clear water, or clean food, don't look to the repugs.

      They will not pass any "clean-air" etc. legislation that might cost big companies, their benefactors, a few dollars off the bottom line.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Tucci78

        @lucky85 Occasionally, idiot, you stumble upon something truthful.

        I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

        Neither the Republicans nor the National Socialists (used to be called "Democrats") have any interest in the rights of the common citizen. They're all - with the conspicuous exception of Dr. Ron Paul - the bought dogs of "their benefactors," and don't take any actions which might impair the flow of graft and the perks these politicians prize.

        Inasmuch as these career politicians put no real priority on the preservation of the average American's life, liberty, or property, we simply need to quit relying on government to do this job, and recognize that it is by way of government itself that our lives, our liberties, and our property rights are chiefly violated.

        This means that we have to actively cut down the government, tearing away the "bipartisan" excrescences that make our lives poorer, shorter, and more miserable, and restoring civil authority to the individual American citizen.

        That individual may not exercise that authority as wisely as we'd like, but at least the control would be returned to the hands of the person who's got to take the consequences for his mistakes.

        Can't say that about - *cough!* Solyndra! *cough* Iraq! *cough* MF Global! - our politicians, can you?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Public Postings

          @Tucci78@lucky85 I agree.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Anthony9097

          @Tucci78@lucky85 So I hear a lot of insults and babble about how ruthless capitalism is the only way to live, but I don't hear any solutions about the uninsured or lowering costs other than to let the sick die off. What evidence do you have that the free market will level the playing field and protect the chronically ill and disabled? I seem to remember a couple of unregulated banks ruining the economy. Explain that smart guy? Where were your free market miracles?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Tucci78

          @Anthony9097@lucky85 - "So I hear a lot of insults and babble about how ruthless capitalism is the only way to live, but I don't hear any solutions about the uninsured or lowering costs other than to let the sick die off. What evidence do you have that the free market will level the playing field and protect the chronically ill and disabled? I seem to remember a couple of unregulated banks ruining the economy. Explain that smart guy? Where were your free market miracles?"

          What evidence do YOU have that politically-prioritized thuggery imposed upon voluntary productive human action is any sort of guarantee of less costly and more effective medical care?

          Hasn't been the case in any other area of human endeavor (even warfare), so what gives you such fervent religious faith in the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence of the political hacks and bureaucratic mediocrities of government?

          There are plainly people with aptitudes and desires to provide medical and other health care to people in need, for the usual mix of motivations. Some want to make a good living (or in our "Obama Downgrade" economy, any kind of living at all), some are motivated by the charitable impulse, almost all of us are driven by some mix of these two main forces.

          In the case of us medical doctors, there's also the "professional" impulse, the product of both designed and unintended conditioning imposed in the course of clinical training, which makes us feel incredibly guilty if we don't live up to the standards of the sawbones racket.

          We don't spend effectively twice as many working hours each day (and more) as most other people doing work for which we commonly don't get paid and never get a word of appreciation. We do it because we're pounded constantly by the fear that we're not doing enough.

          My wife complains that it's really because it's let me get away with spending less time with her and the kids, but I count that merely as an unintended bonus.

          And you think I'm a "smart guy," do you?

          Well, considering that you're a friggin' idiot, I'll take that assessment with a kilo more than the traditional grain of salt.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Anthony9097

          @Tucci78@lucky85 Yawnnnn, can you ever argue without ad hominem attacks? It makes you sound like an inept debater, which you are, like most libertarians. My father is a physician who is in favor of a single payer system, I called him especially for you and he said that the majority of his nurses and fellow doctors advocate my position, you appear to be in the minority my friend, at least based on my informal poll. I am also a therapist who sees insurance companies kick of people that clearly need more therapy. The evidence you ask for exist in Canada's and Europe's superior medical system. They live longer than us and work less when your beliefs predict they would live in poverty and chaos. Insurance companies are motivated by profit and charge whatever they want because they are not regulated correctly. A government is not motivated by profit. Its made of people elected to allocate funds and write laws. Any corruption that exists comes from corporations paying off republicans to vote their way. What are you advocating anyway? That we let insurance companies continue their artificial monopoly and price fixing without even trying to regulate them? That's just plain illogical

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply