Comments on: The Note: Divided and Conquered: Dems Set Diminished Goals in Health Care Push

By: Jackie

Jackie — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:06:09 +0000

What an interesting caveat on the Swededish health care system-”good medical success in relation to investments”. Sounds like equivocating; it’s “good” compared to nothing?
The “entire population has equal access to health care”-I guess their congress didn’t specifically exempt themselves from the socialized health care like our congress did.
By the way, I wonder if as many people go to Sweden for health care as those coming to America.

By: JustACitizen49

JustACitizen49 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:43:13 +0000

All this talk about skyrocketing healthcare costs… Isn’t it interesting that no one is talking about tort reform. Could it be that many in congress made their millions through lawsuit representation? I believe the attorneys have a big hand in the cost of everything medical. With healthcare reform, the taxpayer will probably get to pay off the lawyers for frivolous judgements and awards. Thanks again congress for another kick in the teeth. I say vote every incumbent out of office and start over.

By: clever bob

clever bob — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:59:55 +0000

Rick, You mentioned “divide and conquer” as methods the non-thinkers utilize but you left out the “FEAR” factor which has effectively spooked the herd successfully in the past. That method will not work in these times because Americans have come to realize how Bush/Chaney & Co. deceived us for eight very long years, and we fully comprehend how much this history of malevolence will continue to cost us for years to come. The yellow rabbits/blue dogs are a complete mystery as they make absolutely no sense at all. We’re at a loss!

By: craig johnson

craig johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:02:05 +0000

The ripple effect of this sweeping legislation is really frightening. Consider the following:
All illegal aliens will be covdered by the plan at tax payers expense- quite a perk for stealing into the country.
All abortions will be mandated – even at Catholic hospitals – at tax payer expense.
The most sensible way to control health cost, limiting malpractice suits, and thus the horribly expensive defensive medicine being practiced today is entirely overlooked as a solution or part of the solution.
If the “gov’t plan” is offered at 10-15% less premium than the public sector’s because it is tax payer subsidized, why wouldn’t all elgible smaller employers switch to it – thus effectively killing the private health insurance industry?
Will the government plan limit coverage for smokers? for drinkers? for dangerous hobbies? for sugar consumption? for the elderly who need care but statistically have few years to live.
Obama plans to drastically reduce Medicare spending to help fund this plan. If we cut Medicare, what happens to the care the elderly will receive?? This sector has paid for this coverage in payroll taxes and Part B premium. No one has explained how cutting Medicare is going to help these recipients?? Almost all Medicare beneficiaries have been forced to buy supplemental coverage because there are so many holes in this Government insurance plan. A retired couple often spends $400/month for this extra coverage. Thats on top of the almost $200 the spend per month for Part B of Medicare.
I would never want a plan until these questions are resolved.

By: Cary Vanley

Cary Vanley — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:05:48 +0000

1st Question, when has our Government every administrated ANYTHING better than the Private sector?
2nd Question, when has there ever been a TIME in our Nations History that 1 MAN has tried to control so much, so quickly, and so completely?
3rd Question, why have we allowed our Great Country to deteriorate to that like the Government in “V For Vendetta”, watch the movie and replace the dictator with Obama, V with Rush Limbaugh and the girl with Sarah Palin…it’s all there, can anyone argue this point?

By: Cary Vanley

Cary Vanley — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:01:17 +0000

1st Question, when has the Government ever had more success than the Private sector in running ANYTHING?
2nd Question, aren’t we in this mess because the government put pressure on lending institutions to lend money to those who would eventually default?
3rd and Final Question, how did we ALLOW our Government to become like the government in “V for Vendetta”? It’s there NOW…go watch the movie, just replace the dictator with Obama, V with Rush Limbaugh, and the girl with Sarah Palin….it’s all there. Can anyone argue this point?

By: alanthe great

alanthe great — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:16:39 +0000

take from those who work and give to those who don’t, the mantra of the democratic party

By: Mike_C

Mike_C — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:03:36 +0000

Success of other countries with one-payor system?
Sweden’s entire population has equal access to health care services. The Swedish health care system is government-funded and heavily decentralized. Compared with other countries at a similar development level, the system performs well, with good medical success in relation to investments and despite cost restrictions. According to the Swedish health and medical care policy, every county council must provide residents with good-quality health services and medical care and work toward promoting good health in the entire population.
Costs for health and medical care amount to approximately 9 percent of Sweden’s gross domestic product (GDP), a figure that has remained fairly stable since the early 1980s.
————————————–
gus amaral ,
Sweden has a population of LESS than 10 million people!
if you just 3% of the US population needing highly expensive treatments for end of life care or cancer…etc….
That would be just about equal to the entire country of Sweden requiring all that VERY expensive care!
No one brings up the obvious about all this. We have more people to spread out the cost, BUT we also have a larger population that will require those expensive treatments!
In 2005, the estimate was over 10 MILLION Peopple in this country alone with cancer!. You still think Sweden’s system would work if everyone in the country had cancer?
The idea that this thing will not balloon is a pipe-dream. We have a huge portion of our population headed toward expensive end-of-life care. To not grasp that cost is going to escalate for next 30 years or so is simply foolish.
Throw in million with cancer treatment needs and the idea that Obama tossed out about saying “I mean it” when it comes to not one dime added to the deficit, is just a fantasy.

By: maybe

maybe — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:56:09 +0000

Why do they need a new strategy? Pelosi has repeatedly said the Dems have the votes to pass this bill. So schedule the vote already and be done with it.

By: reaganfan

reaganfan — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:36:39 +0000

rightbehind:
The “Public Option” is DOA!
Any reform of the system must come
without the public option.
You can’t force a majority of
the American People onto a single
payer public plan to provide coverage
for the 30-40 million who are without
coverage!
Why not expand Medicare coverage to
the people without coverage?
Drop the age limitation for those
people and don’t meddle with the
majority’s coverage.
Make sure people are not denied
coverage for pre-existing conditions
and institute tort reform to prevent
frivolous lawsuits and lower
mal-practice insurance costs to
doctors.