That does hit the core of the matter. Most doctors become doctors to be healers. They are always at odds with administration, government or business. The realities of limited resources, of time, knowledge, and research constraints is a battle that they are constantly up against. There is always something more they could have to do a better job…more knowledge, more resources, a better machine, better medications with fewer side-effects, better help, better tools, better lighting, better tests. That’s because health is a battle for life against death, from the beginning to the end. No government and no agency will ever change that. They also have to battle the law, and the threat that they could be sued for not doing what they might have been able to do. And then there’s the patient, battling for life and also property.
The government need only battle for consent.
I heard that MSNBC edited out the boos he received from the doctors. Don’t know if it’s true, but it would be par for the course for those yellow “journalists”.
Posted by: paul | June 15, 2009, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
paul:”Don’t know if it’s true,”
Then why spread what you admit is an unverified, baseless slander? What are you hoping to add to the discussion? Did you also hear that Obama kills puppies – but you aren’t sure it’s true?
jhw539- if you and yours are all through figuring out how best to make the complicated operations at GM profitable, why don’t you move on to the human body? A textbook here, a textbook there, I’m sure you’ll have it all figured out in no time. Oh, that’s right, you don’t need a textbook to manage something so complicated as the human organism, you only need someone recommended to have a ‘good grasp of the economics and politics of the situation’ and ‘analysis of the fundamentals’ or however it was you put that about GM.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 16, 2009, 12:26 am 12:26 am
Each senator on the healthcare committee has ties with the health and drug industries. I’m sure they will do what is best for America and its taxpayers than give in to their wives, friends and special interests to serve the health and drug companies. It reminds me of the medicare prescription fiasco all over again. I wonder if the government will be able to get the best prices for healthcare unlike prescription drugs.
Posted by: randy | June 16, 2009, 12:40 am 12:40 am
jhw539- Oh, don’t forget. Believe it or not, every single case is very different and requires a study of its own before any sound decisions can be made.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 16, 2009, 12:52 am 12:52 am
If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too. In these countries..health care is a right for all their citizens..in America health care is a privilege..now go figure! The Republican party and the insurance companies and most of the doctors don’t want a public health insurance because it would reduce their ability to rip people off..and pay offs would be minimized (vis a vis lobbying)..sanitized term for corruption. Heaven help us all!
Posted by: Stanley | June 16, 2009, 2:26 am 2:26 am
The health insurance companies, politicians in symphony with them and the AMA are ripping off Americans..its all about money..this system affords them easy money..a lot of it..and who is Obama to try to change that! Lets boo him while the ordinary american cannot access or afford health care! Oh its socialized medicine they say to scare people..I don’t think Americans are buying that socialism talk anymore..the Republicans tried that one when Obama was campaigning. Well the coutries with the highest standard of living in the world (Scandinavian)uses “Socialized medicine” ha ha and the people are very happy with it..Do a research with the quality of health care in these countries..very accessible and affordable for EVERYONE. I know some blogger is gonna tell me to leave America and go there..typical Republican response to facts.
Posted by: Stanley | June 16, 2009, 2:34 am 2:34 am
Doctors are afraid of malpractice. That’s understandable but people have to be able to sue when there has been an obvious and egregious mistake and a life has been taken or maimed. They can put caps on it but don’t eliminate it altogether. It keeps doctors accountable.
Posted by: Bob | June 16, 2009, 8:23 am 8:23 am
“If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too.”
Hey stanley, I dont think the Scandanavian countries have a massive influx of illegal immigrants into their country. I bet that their system is for their citizens, not any and all that are there. Use American healthcare for American citizens, period.
Posted by: daniel | June 16, 2009, 8:53 am 8:53 am
If the incumbents in Congress can get this watered down enough.. they will be wallowing in healthcare PAC money.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
Any realistic and useful health care reform has to include tort reform and caps on malpractice awards. And yes, according to the AP, when the president told the AMA he does not have any plans to include that in the proposal, there were boos. Listening live, I did not hear the boos but I did hear dead silence. That part was not well-received, nor should it have been. We must work to limit “defensive doctoring.”
The president has got to stop the misdirection. He says the issue is escalating costs, then focuses instead on a move that will increase costs– universal coverage. Along with any universal coverage program, which must not include a government-controlled “public plan,” we must have realistic efforts to reign in costs by dealing with spiraling malpractice costs and the resulting over-use of tests and treatments.
Posted by: moderate | June 16, 2009, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Tort reform isn’t going anywhere.. the attorneys are too powerful in D.C.
If you threw some sort of arbitration package in for malpractice… some of the providers might bite. I have two friends from different areas that are or have sued hospitals for multimillion dollar claims. My personal healthcare costs are outrageous.. but I am still reluctant about government intervention.. they are already entrenched in healthcare.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am
“Any realistic and useful health care reform has to include tort reform and caps on malpractice awards.”
But, this isn’t about real and useful reform, this is another power grab. Notice the crisis mode talk.
Why not give people vouchers to buy private insurance? It would be cheaper than the trillion plus Obamacare plan.
I don’t want the people who are running the post office and the department of motor vehicles running my life and death decisions with regards to health care.
Posted by: RollCall | June 16, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am
It might be interesting to know.. what percentage of the uninsured could have government insurance (existing plans) if they would apply for it? There are people who won’t buy insurance – or even apply for free insurance.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Why not just go ahead and give up the pretense of any objectivity covering Obama?
Posted by: Axey | June 16, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am
Stanley wrote: “If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too.”
He later wrote: “Do a research with the quality of health care in these countries..very accessible and affordable for EVERYONE.”
Sweden–with a population of about 9 million people–is one of the most liberal welfare states. However, EVERYONE–including the poor–pay AT LEAST 31% in income taxes (state & local) AND pay the national value-added tax of 25% on almost all goods and most services. THAT’s how they are able to provide “FREE” healthcare to everyone!
Here in the United States–with a population of over 300 million people–the bottom 40% of the nation’s WAGE EARNERS pay NO Federal Income tax. According to the IRS’ latest statistics (2006), the next 10% of the nation’s wage earners account for an aggregate of just 3% of the total federal income tax revenue. YET that bottom 50%–67.8 million federal income tax returns–account for 12% of the nation’s total reported Adjusted Gross Income.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:10 am 10:10 am
“Why not give people vouchers to buy private insurance? It would be cheaper than the trillion plus Obamacare plan.”
That’s because the Left’s agenda is to force private insurance companies to fold. The Left’s agenda is a single payer system with the federal government the sole provider of healthcare in America.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
For those who may scoff about a single-payer system, just take then candidate Obama’s own words (all capitals-emphasis mine) back in January 2008:
“If I were designing a system from scratch I WOULD PROBABLY SET UP A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices…OVER TIME IT MAY BE THAT WE END UP TRANSITIONING TO SUCH A SYSTEM. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I DON’T WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT PERFECT SYSTEM…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together.”
Once the federal government becomes an option for providing healthcare, the other options–private healthcare providers–will quickly fold because they cannot compete with the federal government. That’s because the federal government is NOT in business to make a profit. And once the federal government becomes the sole payer in healthcare THEN the federal government, in the name of cutting costs through a preventative care program, will eventually dictate what products we can and cannot purchase and what foods and beverages we can and cannot eat and drink.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
Your promotion of the president’s health care is dispicable. You should change your name to A Barack Channel
Posted by: Bob | June 16, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Stanley, you wrote, “The health insurance companies, politicians in symphony with them and the AMA are ripping off Americans..its all about money..this system affords them easy money..a lot of it..and who is Obama to try to change that!” Stanley, do you personally know any physicians? I do. And with two exceptions (one of whom is now in jail), they are not raking in tons of money or motivated by greed. So for physicians, it is all about the money but for trial lawyers it is all about protecting the little guy? Puh-leeze.
Then you complain,”Lets boo him while the ordinary american cannot access or afford health care!” News reports claim that the president got booed when he talked about not capping malpractice awards, and that he got ovations at other points in the speech. And the number of “ordinary americans” who are deprived of health care through no fault of their own is too high, but not as high as most Democrats pushing the issue claim. The truly poor, for example, have Medicaid. Some of the uninsured are uninsured by choice, usually because they can afford to pay for their health care without insurance (I mean, does Bill Gates need health insurance? He may well have it, I suppose, but wealthy people can chose to “self-insure”) There are probably 10- 12 million uninsured who truly need help, as opposed to those who need to be directed to the existing government program (SCHIP, Medicaid, Medicare).
You also write, “Oh its socialized medicine they say to scare people.” Okay, so saying “if we do not do this now, America may go the way of GM” is not trying to scare people? The president is ginning up fear, as he did with the stimulus ‘debate,’ to serve his purposes. That sort of scare tactic is acceptable, but speaking of the detrimental effect of nationalized health care is not?
Posted by: moderate | June 16, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
There are enough intelligent remarks by people who see the underlying problems that clever words by the administration assure the public of divine intervention. I just want to say that ABC has come out to promote every new government intrusion that attacks us every day. Great work, comrades.
Posted by: Ric Roderick | June 16, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
Why spend years of time and money earning a “specialized” medical degree only to have the government say what my future earnings will be or who I may treat…Sound Familiar…..
And now ABC handing over their News Program to Obama, without opposition view points, so that he can push his agenda. So what makes this different from ummmm current world events/guess it just depends what side of the fence you sit on/democracy/socialist..
Posted by: Parallax View | June 16, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
James Danley, I really appreciate your thoughtful, intelligent comments here.
Candidate Obama made it clear that he would like to work toward a single-payer system, that is, government-controlled health care. I hope the American public makes it clear to their elected representatives in Congress that is a non-starter.
Vouchers for private insurance certainly seem like the best way to proceed in our bipartisan effort to provide insurance for the currently uninsured who seek coverage. And reforms that will improve the insurance system, such as portability and pools of coverage for individuals and small businesses, are certainly in order.
Tort reform is a crucial component of cost containment, however. Defensive doctoring is an expensive proposition that costs us all.
As Mr. Danley says, once there is a “public option” supported by the government, that will crowd out private coverage and lead the way to a single-payer system. That is NOT the reform we need.
Look up “Obama shortage of doctors”. England, Canada and other health care systems that we are trying to emulate are relying more and more on importing foreign doctors.
If you recall the attack on Glasgow Airport came from imported doctors and health care workers. Just a heads up to what might be coming to America. Doctor shortages and relience on locum doctors.
Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!!! No time to lose!!!
This be the greatest crisis since my last crisis!! I must do this now so this doesn’t get way out of hand!!
Do you see a pattern here American People?
Why are we rushing to do everything this ignoramus pushes? It’s almost 6 months and the “Rush to Failure Tour ’09″ is full speed ahead!! We have got to stop this Egomaniac before all is gone!!
Posted by: American Infidel | June 16, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
I am self employed, no one pays my way for anything, Health Insurance payments just about about 25% of my income, and I have been in the hospital recently…and have seen the good and the bad…
If you or your family are fortunate enough not to have had use for hospital care and all the redundant calls and paperwork involved, then your opinion is blind to reality.
Why does govt need any ownership of health coverage? Our legislators need to become involved only in the realm of fair practice legislation and regulation of the health coverage/insurance industry and tort reform. The govt needs to get out of the business of medicare and medicaid entirely. They are both corrupt beyond comprehension… and for private insurance to be allowed to follow the Medicare guidelines is a travesty. Medicare and Medicaid need to be privatized and heavily regulated. Pharma needs to have fair practice oversight of cost controls as does the rest of the medical industry. Private insurance regulations must be mandated to be written to benefit the patient in more specific ways (or to not screw the patient as they can easily do now) – and the hospital and private practice industries need to be mandated to publish pricing for the consumer to make informed decisions. Premium increases must be capped at a certain percentage based on cost of living. Shareholders must have a voice in health industry executive pay structures. Insurance must become portable. If the feds won’t enact tort reform and put limits on liability, then the states must pass it.
Once these types of reforms are hashed out and enacted, then costs should subside significantly, lowering the costs of premiums, retaining and securing the quality and choices that are superior in the US, and should make health coverage attainable and affordable for all who want it.
We need to make Obama go away with his crisis driven agendas, and force our elected legislators to hash our real reforms that won’t entirely devastate the most phenomenal health care system in the world.
Posted by: BK | June 16, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Moderate wrote: “There are probably 10- 12 million uninsured who truly need help…”
To follow up on your comment, George Will said it best in a round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” hosted by George Stephanopoulos:
“Donna (Brazile), you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to.
“Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens.”
The 11-20 million illegal immigrants are included in that “47 million uninsured” total.
Posted by: James Danley | June 17, 2009, 7:15 am 7:15 am
Email
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
That does hit the core of the matter. Most doctors become doctors to be healers. They are always at odds with administration, government or business. The realities of limited resources, of time, knowledge, and research constraints is a battle that they are constantly up against. There is always something more they could have to do a better job…more knowledge, more resources, a better machine, better medications with fewer side-effects, better help, better tools, better lighting, better tests. That’s because health is a battle for life against death, from the beginning to the end. No government and no agency will ever change that. They also have to battle the law, and the threat that they could be sued for not doing what they might have been able to do. And then there’s the patient, battling for life and also property.
The government need only battle for consent.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 15, 2009, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
I heard that MSNBC edited out the boos he received from the doctors. Don’t know if it’s true, but it would be par for the course for those yellow “journalists”.
Posted by: paul | June 15, 2009, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
paul:”Don’t know if it’s true,”
Then why spread what you admit is an unverified, baseless slander? What are you hoping to add to the discussion? Did you also hear that Obama kills puppies – but you aren’t sure it’s true?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 15, 2009, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm
jhw539- if you and yours are all through figuring out how best to make the complicated operations at GM profitable, why don’t you move on to the human body? A textbook here, a textbook there, I’m sure you’ll have it all figured out in no time. Oh, that’s right, you don’t need a textbook to manage something so complicated as the human organism, you only need someone recommended to have a ‘good grasp of the economics and politics of the situation’ and ‘analysis of the fundamentals’ or however it was you put that about GM.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 16, 2009, 12:26 am 12:26 am
Each senator on the healthcare committee has ties with the health and drug industries. I’m sure they will do what is best for America and its taxpayers than give in to their wives, friends and special interests to serve the health and drug companies. It reminds me of the medicare prescription fiasco all over again. I wonder if the government will be able to get the best prices for healthcare unlike prescription drugs.
Posted by: randy | June 16, 2009, 12:40 am 12:40 am
jhw539- Oh, don’t forget. Believe it or not, every single case is very different and requires a study of its own before any sound decisions can be made.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 16, 2009, 12:52 am 12:52 am
If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too. In these countries..health care is a right for all their citizens..in America health care is a privilege..now go figure! The Republican party and the insurance companies and most of the doctors don’t want a public health insurance because it would reduce their ability to rip people off..and pay offs would be minimized (vis a vis lobbying)..sanitized term for corruption. Heaven help us all!
Posted by: Stanley | June 16, 2009, 2:26 am 2:26 am
The health insurance companies, politicians in symphony with them and the AMA are ripping off Americans..its all about money..this system affords them easy money..a lot of it..and who is Obama to try to change that! Lets boo him while the ordinary american cannot access or afford health care! Oh its socialized medicine they say to scare people..I don’t think Americans are buying that socialism talk anymore..the Republicans tried that one when Obama was campaigning. Well the coutries with the highest standard of living in the world (Scandinavian)uses “Socialized medicine” ha ha and the people are very happy with it..Do a research with the quality of health care in these countries..very accessible and affordable for EVERYONE. I know some blogger is gonna tell me to leave America and go there..typical Republican response to facts.
Posted by: Stanley | June 16, 2009, 2:34 am 2:34 am
Doctors are afraid of malpractice. That’s understandable but people have to be able to sue when there has been an obvious and egregious mistake and a life has been taken or maimed. They can put caps on it but don’t eliminate it altogether. It keeps doctors accountable.
Posted by: Bob | June 16, 2009, 8:23 am 8:23 am
“If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too.”
Hey stanley, I dont think the Scandanavian countries have a massive influx of illegal immigrants into their country. I bet that their system is for their citizens, not any and all that are there. Use American healthcare for American citizens, period.
Posted by: daniel | June 16, 2009, 8:53 am 8:53 am
If the incumbents in Congress can get this watered down enough.. they will be wallowing in healthcare PAC money.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
Any realistic and useful health care reform has to include tort reform and caps on malpractice awards. And yes, according to the AP, when the president told the AMA he does not have any plans to include that in the proposal, there were boos. Listening live, I did not hear the boos but I did hear dead silence. That part was not well-received, nor should it have been. We must work to limit “defensive doctoring.”
The president has got to stop the misdirection. He says the issue is escalating costs, then focuses instead on a move that will increase costs– universal coverage. Along with any universal coverage program, which must not include a government-controlled “public plan,” we must have realistic efforts to reign in costs by dealing with spiraling malpractice costs and the resulting over-use of tests and treatments.
Posted by: moderate | June 16, 2009, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Tort reform isn’t going anywhere.. the attorneys are too powerful in D.C.
If you threw some sort of arbitration package in for malpractice… some of the providers might bite. I have two friends from different areas that are or have sued hospitals for multimillion dollar claims. My personal healthcare costs are outrageous.. but I am still reluctant about government intervention.. they are already entrenched in healthcare.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am
“Any realistic and useful health care reform has to include tort reform and caps on malpractice awards.”
But, this isn’t about real and useful reform, this is another power grab. Notice the crisis mode talk.
Why not give people vouchers to buy private insurance? It would be cheaper than the trillion plus Obamacare plan.
I don’t want the people who are running the post office and the department of motor vehicles running my life and death decisions with regards to health care.
Posted by: RollCall | June 16, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am
It might be interesting to know.. what percentage of the uninsured could have government insurance (existing plans) if they would apply for it? There are people who won’t buy insurance – or even apply for free insurance.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 16, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Why not just go ahead and give up the pretense of any objectivity covering Obama?
Posted by: Axey | June 16, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am
Stanley wrote: “If the Scandinavian countries which have the highest standard of living in the world can have a system of healthcare that is accessible and affordable for all of its citizenry, the United States can too.”
He later wrote: “Do a research with the quality of health care in these countries..very accessible and affordable for EVERYONE.”
Sweden–with a population of about 9 million people–is one of the most liberal welfare states. However, EVERYONE–including the poor–pay AT LEAST 31% in income taxes (state & local) AND pay the national value-added tax of 25% on almost all goods and most services. THAT’s how they are able to provide “FREE” healthcare to everyone!
Here in the United States–with a population of over 300 million people–the bottom 40% of the nation’s WAGE EARNERS pay NO Federal Income tax. According to the IRS’ latest statistics (2006), the next 10% of the nation’s wage earners account for an aggregate of just 3% of the total federal income tax revenue. YET that bottom 50%–67.8 million federal income tax returns–account for 12% of the nation’s total reported Adjusted Gross Income.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:10 am 10:10 am
“Why not give people vouchers to buy private insurance? It would be cheaper than the trillion plus Obamacare plan.”
That’s because the Left’s agenda is to force private insurance companies to fold. The Left’s agenda is a single payer system with the federal government the sole provider of healthcare in America.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
For those who may scoff about a single-payer system, just take then candidate Obama’s own words (all capitals-emphasis mine) back in January 2008:
“If I were designing a system from scratch I WOULD PROBABLY SET UP A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices…OVER TIME IT MAY BE THAT WE END UP TRANSITIONING TO SUCH A SYSTEM. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I DON’T WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT PERFECT SYSTEM…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together.”
Once the federal government becomes an option for providing healthcare, the other options–private healthcare providers–will quickly fold because they cannot compete with the federal government. That’s because the federal government is NOT in business to make a profit. And once the federal government becomes the sole payer in healthcare THEN the federal government, in the name of cutting costs through a preventative care program, will eventually dictate what products we can and cannot purchase and what foods and beverages we can and cannot eat and drink.
Posted by: James Danley | June 16, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
Your promotion of the president’s health care is dispicable. You should change your name to A Barack Channel
Posted by: Bob | June 16, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Stanley, you wrote, “The health insurance companies, politicians in symphony with them and the AMA are ripping off Americans..its all about money..this system affords them easy money..a lot of it..and who is Obama to try to change that!” Stanley, do you personally know any physicians? I do. And with two exceptions (one of whom is now in jail), they are not raking in tons of money or motivated by greed. So for physicians, it is all about the money but for trial lawyers it is all about protecting the little guy? Puh-leeze.
Then you complain,”Lets boo him while the ordinary american cannot access or afford health care!” News reports claim that the president got booed when he talked about not capping malpractice awards, and that he got ovations at other points in the speech. And the number of “ordinary americans” who are deprived of health care through no fault of their own is too high, but not as high as most Democrats pushing the issue claim. The truly poor, for example, have Medicaid. Some of the uninsured are uninsured by choice, usually because they can afford to pay for their health care without insurance (I mean, does Bill Gates need health insurance? He may well have it, I suppose, but wealthy people can chose to “self-insure”) There are probably 10- 12 million uninsured who truly need help, as opposed to those who need to be directed to the existing government program (SCHIP, Medicaid, Medicare).
You also write, “Oh its socialized medicine they say to scare people.” Okay, so saying “if we do not do this now, America may go the way of GM” is not trying to scare people? The president is ginning up fear, as he did with the stimulus ‘debate,’ to serve his purposes. That sort of scare tactic is acceptable, but speaking of the detrimental effect of nationalized health care is not?
Posted by: moderate | June 16, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
There are enough intelligent remarks by people who see the underlying problems that clever words by the administration assure the public of divine intervention. I just want to say that ABC has come out to promote every new government intrusion that attacks us every day. Great work, comrades.
Posted by: Ric Roderick | June 16, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
Why spend years of time and money earning a “specialized” medical degree only to have the government say what my future earnings will be or who I may treat…Sound Familiar…..
And now ABC handing over their News Program to Obama, without opposition view points, so that he can push his agenda. So what makes this different from ummmm current world events/guess it just depends what side of the fence you sit on/democracy/socialist..
Posted by: Parallax View | June 16, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
James Danley, I really appreciate your thoughtful, intelligent comments here.
Candidate Obama made it clear that he would like to work toward a single-payer system, that is, government-controlled health care. I hope the American public makes it clear to their elected representatives in Congress that is a non-starter.
Vouchers for private insurance certainly seem like the best way to proceed in our bipartisan effort to provide insurance for the currently uninsured who seek coverage. And reforms that will improve the insurance system, such as portability and pools of coverage for individuals and small businesses, are certainly in order.
Tort reform is a crucial component of cost containment, however. Defensive doctoring is an expensive proposition that costs us all.
As Mr. Danley says, once there is a “public option” supported by the government, that will crowd out private coverage and lead the way to a single-payer system. That is NOT the reform we need.
Posted by: moderate | June 16, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
Look up “Obama shortage of doctors”. England, Canada and other health care systems that we are trying to emulate are relying more and more on importing foreign doctors.
If you recall the attack on Glasgow Airport came from imported doctors and health care workers. Just a heads up to what might be coming to America. Doctor shortages and relience on locum doctors.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress | June 16, 2009, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
limit costs = limit healthcare services= limit funds
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 16, 2009, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!!! No time to lose!!!
This be the greatest crisis since my last crisis!! I must do this now so this doesn’t get way out of hand!!
Do you see a pattern here American People?
Why are we rushing to do everything this ignoramus pushes? It’s almost 6 months and the “Rush to Failure Tour ’09″ is full speed ahead!! We have got to stop this Egomaniac before all is gone!!
Posted by: American Infidel | June 16, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
I am self employed, no one pays my way for anything, Health Insurance payments just about about 25% of my income, and I have been in the hospital recently…and have seen the good and the bad…
If you or your family are fortunate enough not to have had use for hospital care and all the redundant calls and paperwork involved, then your opinion is blind to reality.
Posted by: Try Reality onetime | June 16, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
when your’re in the middle of some deep health issues, this abstract policy debate becomes B.S.
Posted by: Try Reality onetime | June 16, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Why does govt need any ownership of health coverage? Our legislators need to become involved only in the realm of fair practice legislation and regulation of the health coverage/insurance industry and tort reform. The govt needs to get out of the business of medicare and medicaid entirely. They are both corrupt beyond comprehension… and for private insurance to be allowed to follow the Medicare guidelines is a travesty. Medicare and Medicaid need to be privatized and heavily regulated. Pharma needs to have fair practice oversight of cost controls as does the rest of the medical industry. Private insurance regulations must be mandated to be written to benefit the patient in more specific ways (or to not screw the patient as they can easily do now) – and the hospital and private practice industries need to be mandated to publish pricing for the consumer to make informed decisions. Premium increases must be capped at a certain percentage based on cost of living. Shareholders must have a voice in health industry executive pay structures. Insurance must become portable. If the feds won’t enact tort reform and put limits on liability, then the states must pass it.
Once these types of reforms are hashed out and enacted, then costs should subside significantly, lowering the costs of premiums, retaining and securing the quality and choices that are superior in the US, and should make health coverage attainable and affordable for all who want it.
We need to make Obama go away with his crisis driven agendas, and force our elected legislators to hash our real reforms that won’t entirely devastate the most phenomenal health care system in the world.
Posted by: BK | June 16, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Moderate wrote: “There are probably 10- 12 million uninsured who truly need help…”
To follow up on your comment, George Will said it best in a round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” hosted by George Stephanopoulos:
“Donna (Brazile), you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to.
“Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens.”
The 11-20 million illegal immigrants are included in that “47 million uninsured” total.
Posted by: James Danley | June 17, 2009, 7:15 am 7:15 am