The Health Care Plan: What do you not like about it?

Yesterday we heard a variety of voices on what is to be liked about the new health care plan. Today we want to hear what you don’t like about it. But because of yesterday I’m going to create a few rules, and the rules are words that can’t be used. 

Avoid apocalyptic pronouncements such as “this is socialism [if you think this is socialism you don't know what socialism is], or this marks the “end of our country.” Let’s avoid predictions and apocalyptic pronouncements.
Instead: think of concrete things about this bill or plan you don’t like.
So, our question:
What concrete elements do you not like about the new health care plan?
Or,
What do you see as its hidden dangers?
Where do you think it is going wrong?
About Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author of more than forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.

  • http://mythreecents-cb.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-wrong-with-obamacare-redux.html ChrisB

    (This is a brief summary of my opposition to ObamaCare. I have written thousands of words over the last year on this topic; on my blog (link above), I have a version of this with links to articles (mine or others’) with more detail for the interested.)
    First and foremost, opposing ObamaCare does not mean I’m happy with the status quo. There are very few who don’t want to reform our health care system. But ObamaCare isn’t the way to do it. Setting aside the fact that most of it is unconstitutional and rips away many of our freedoms, it simply won’t work.
    It will not rein in health care costs.
    The biggest problem we have is that costs are rising at an incredible rate. The biggest culprit is that health care costs are invisible to the patient. We appear to be spending someone else’s money.
    It will only improve access to medical care in a few years and then only for a little while.
    When the benefits kick in (four years after the taxes start), people who didn’t have insurance — or good insurance — will be able to go see a doctor when they want or need to. But there aren’t enough doctors. And people tend to over-use “free” services. So it will be hard to get an appointment. Fees will go up (supply and demand). Then the government will step in and limit fees. And, like now with Medicare and Medicaid, providers will stop seeing people on these plans.
    We can’t afford it.
    It’s “cost savings” is based on accounting gimmicks. Every government program ends up costing more than promised. In the end, the government will have to increase taxes (which we can’t afford), borrow money (which we can’t afford), or cut services.
    It’s designed to lead us to single-payer.
    Mr. Obama and just about every other major Democrat has said publicly this is supposed to be a first step toward a single-payer system. They can slowly push the system that direction. But the current bill also seems to be designed to fail in that direction — for instance, when doctor’s start rejecting people on these subsidized plans because they don’t pay enough, the Dems can call this a flaw in the private insurance market that is best fixed by putting everyone into one system.
    Everything proposed has been tried somewhere else and failed.
    What has been passed and what will be proposed next, it’s all been done — whether in a state or another country. It doesn’t work.
    What will work?
    The only thing left is to reconsider the whole concept of health insurance. Why isn’t it more like auto insurance — catastrophic coverage? If we ask health insurance to cover less, premiums go down. That savings can be used to pay cash for health care. Patients will be more aware of costs, and providers will have to keep costs in check. It works in eye care. It will work here. And if we still need to subsidize some people’s care, we can, but that’s in a system that is pushing health care costs down rather than driving them up.

  • Richard

    I don’t like that it doesn’t include a public option and that concerns me because insurance companies are still able to be run as for-profit businesses at that point.

  • sean leroy

    I’ve got to you thru it in more detail…but the increased role of the gov’t is enough to make me up-chuck in and of itself.

  • nlswitz

    I don’t like that it doesn’t have a public option. I also don’t like that it will take until 2014 to be fully implemented.

  • Rick Gibson

    I don’t like requirement to carry insurance or pay a fine.
    Also I don’t think it will really make much difference for many people. Twenty years ago, I worked for a company that provided very inexpensive health insurance that I could afford to carry even at $7/hr. I had it ‘just in case’ but never used it because the $20 co-pay (plus any prescription co-pays) was a lot of money for me when I was only bringing home $200/wk. I think this will add a lot of people to the insurance company’s roles that will be pure profit for them because the people still won’t be able to afford to go to the doctor.

  • Dave Corder

    I am one of the people to whom the president’s promise that you keep a plan that you like does not apply. I have a high (very) deductable plan tied to an HSA. I could pay the deductable if I had to, so everybody is protected. The HSA is tax-sheltered, but my premiums come from pre-tax dollars, so the government gets its share. But, under the new law, the plan is illegal. The tax payers will end up subsidizing me so I can have the kind of coverage the government thinks I should have.
    Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how banning my plan will help the uninsured. It seems comparable to not only requiring us to buy car insurance, but forcing us to get insurance that covers oil changes and tire rotations.

  • Fish

    I don’t like that it’s not single-payer, because that means insurance companies will continue to retain 30% of our health care dollars rather than the benchmark of 5%-10% other systems see.
    Failing that, I don’t like the absence of a public option, meaning consumers who want to buy insurance are forced to pay profit to insurance companies over and above what it costs for them to ration care.

  • JHM

    Off the top of my head:
    * I think it’s likely to cost a whole lot more than what Obama and the Congressional leadership suggest. Here in MA where we have a mini version of this started by Mitt Romney, the cost to the state is 10x what it was projected and health care premiums have gone up at increasing rates rather than going down as we would like.
    * centralizes “welfare” instead of allowing local government, charities, churches, etc. meet the needs of those who are in need. I personally would much rather see Christians and the Church step up then send more taxes to beaurocracy. To me this is almost an abdication of the Church from it’s social responsibilities.
    * treats symptoms rather than root causes. The debate at least, has all been around insurance reform, not healthcare reform. I would like to see more done on what actually causes healthcare cost to be so high.
    * it’s almost 3,000 pages long! It seems enormously complex, not a lot of people seem to know what all is really in there. A lot of the language sounds vague. It sounds like there is going to be a lot of fixing to do. I think it passed before the vast majority of Congress, independent agencies, etc. could really figure out the impact, etc.
    * the partisanship surrounding the whole thing was disappointing. Lots of blame to go around for that but overall I would liked to have seen Congress work together on common ground first (health care cost) before tackling divisive issues (single payer, public option).

  • Dan

    Reasons to oppose.
    It is paid for by calculating six years of benefit paid for with 10 years of taxes. It does not account for the reality that Doctors are refusing medicaid patients because they are reimbursed less money than the cost of the treatments. The cost to fix that is estimated at $371 billion, not included in the cost of this massive bill. 160 new government agencies will be created at a cost of $500 billion. That is all in addition to adding 30 million people to the numbers covered. Those who say this will reduce the deficit are not being honest.
    Even if it is a good idea we can’t afford it at the present time. The already ballooning Bush deficit has tripled under Obama. Our economy is in a long recession. States like California and Illinois are broke. Small businesses who will be most impacted by the mandates of this bill will forego hiring, leading to a longer recession and continued unemployment that is officially just below 9% but is in reality in the high teens. Corporations will avoid the ever increasing tax burden by relocating, further harming the economy. The unfunded mandate on cash strapped states is leading to multiple states preparing lawsuits to invalidate the bill. Many believe the attempt to force individuals to buy insurance at risk of fine or penalty is unconstitutional.
    It hands over medical care to the IRS, which will hire 17,000 new agents at a cost of 10 billion dollars to make sure we are all buying a health care program acceptable to the federal government. Because of the financial crisis we are in and which will get worse as a result of this bill, the only way to control costs will be to control who gets what kinds of treatment. Rationing of healthcare will occur and treatment will be “authorized” by the federal government. Today in the US, a 90% of seniors who need a hip replacement get it within six months. In England it is 15%. In the US under the current system, 65% of cancer patients survive for at least five years after diagnosis, in England it is 46%. In the US there are 71 MRI scanners per million people. In England there are 14. The only way to control costs is by rationing. Healthcare quality will diminish. The cheif actuary of Midicare/Medicaid says that the bill will cause healthcare costs to go up, not down as the Democrats claim.
    In spite of President Obama’s executive order to keep funding of abortion out, an executive order does not override the written law and as far as I’m concerned a signature from the most pro-abortion politician in history (record, not rhetoric) is worthless anyway.
    Finally, the method used to pass this debacle is troubling. With the majority of the public opposed and not a single Republican in favor, Democrats had to use every trick in the book to ram this thing through. No taxation without representation was the motto of the original tea party – clearly this bill was not representative of the will of most Americans.
    Those who oppose this bill are not opposed to reforming healthcare. There are ways to address the problems without creating more massive government agencies and expanding the power of the state.

  • Larry

    I really dislike the way it forces you into the tender arms of the insurance companies. They’re a big part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with. In fact, I can’t understand why insurance companies dislike this bill so, unless their protests are of the “don’t throw me into that briar patch” variety. I also dislike the fines for not having insurance, it makes little sense to fine someone who can’t afford insurance.

  • David P Himes

    1. it’s economically impossible to add 32 million people to the insurance roles and lower cost.
    2. the only way to accomplish lowering cost is to ration care, especially likely to be effected are seniors.
    3. the bill includes too many pay off’s to secure votes
    4. the requirement that someone must buy health insurance is likely and should be unconstitutional.
    5. every major entitlement program from the federal government has exceeded cost projections. it’s unreasonable to expect this to be the exception.
    6. it eliminates the high deductible plans with health care savings accounts — which is among the lowest cost form of health care coverage currently available.
    7. this particular bill includes a federal take over of student loans — which is extraneous to the health care discussion and should have been addressed separately.
    and these are simply the most obvious objections

  • Dan

    This will probably get deleted, but the comment “if you think this is socialism you don’t know what socialism is” is condescending.
    The Wikipedia entry on socialism includes this line: “Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”
    I do think, objectively, that the second phrase in that statement is descriptive of many on the political and religious left in America and the current President in particular. At least that is the concern of many. The banking bailout, the auto bailout and aspects of the health care bill do suggest to me “state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.” To ban that subject from discussion seems to me to unfairly limit the topic.

  • Kyle J

    I don’t know if this will help the discussion or not, but here’s the best fairly concise description I’ve seen on what’s the final legislation does:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-20/what-are-we-about-to-pass/?cid=hp:mostpopular1
    I have to take issue with item #5 on David’s list above. The CBO projections on the cost of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit were actually higher than the actual costs turned out to be. The problem was that, unlike this legislation, that legislation was funded on a deficit-spending basis from the beginning.
    I’d also seriously question the first item on JMH’s list. The information I’ve seen indicates that premium costs have gone down in Massachusetts since their reform plan was enacted.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/massachusetts_provides_evidenc.html
    When people are citing negative aspects of the legislation, I’d think they should have to cite evidence that their claims are based on fact. The claim that state costs have been 10 times higher than expected in Massachusetts strikes me as pure hyperbole.

  • Kyle J

    My own take on what I don’t like in the legislation: I wish Congress had done more to limit the current tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance (equivalent to the “excise tax” in the final legislation). That’s something experts agree will help “bend the curve” by reducing the disconnect we have right now between consumers and the cost of their health insurance. People don’t see the true cost of health insurance because their employers pay for it; companies don’t see the true cost because it’s tax-exempt.
    The (relatively modest) tax increases for the wealthy work in terms of making the legislation deficit neutral/positive, but ultimately everyone’s taxes are going to have go up, along with entitlement reform, as part of deficit reduction efforts in the next few years–so the tax increases would have been better saved for that.

  • Andy Holt

    I don’t like it for many of the reasons stated above, but mostly because it does nothing to address the absurd costs of health care. No tort reform. No removal of the ridiculous interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies. The system was and is broken, but I don’t see how this bill does anything to fix what is actually wrong. If the bus is broken down you don’t invite 30 million more people to hop on board.
    I also don’t like having my compassion/desire for justice called into question because I don’t think it’s every person’s right to have health insurance. (Not that this is part of the bill, of course.) What’s so “Christian” about health insurance, anyhow? The whole concept of insurance feels seedy, like a massive ponzi scheme that we’re now required to buy into because we’ve been convinced that this is somehow a fundamental right of humanity.

  • http://thisisamess.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-wesley-and-healthcare.html Andy

    Check out my post on Methodists and Healthcare…
    http://thisisamess.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-wesley-and-healthcare.html

  • Jack

    Many doctors had already stopped taking medicaid patients, so adding more people to medicaid will only increase the number of doctors that turn medicaid patients away. And since they now want to lower the amounts paid to doctors by medicare, it will cause doctors to stop taking medicare patients now also. Insurance with no doctors is useless and still expensive and places lives in danger. Cost will not come down if you read the fine print. Rates will continue to increase and taper off gradually, which they would have done even without this bill. If you do research you will find that most of the big increases happen during a time when Obama was threatening insurance companies. They naturally went into survival mode and started increasing rates to compensate for what his future plans would cost them. Sure there were smaller increases before, but the increases became huge and more frequent as soon as Obama started talking about this during his bid for election. And in this bill there will be NO rollbacks. Even if there were rollbacks, they could not be large enough to offset the increases that Obama has caused in his short time in office. And the government should not be able to tell you that you MUST BUY anything. They use this as a means to START taking complete control of your life. This is not communisum yet, but it is the first step to becomming just that!

  • http://azspot.net Naum

    It doesn’t go far enough, and still leaves some to fall through the cracks, and worse, primarily provides corporate subsidies to monopolistic interests (insurance companies), for which some may argue is really the root of the problem…
    Also, it’s like evidence of a bizarro world where Democrats pass a Republican plan (is not much different than the Massachusetts RomenyCare deal…), yet not a single (R) voted for it… …a true liberal/progressive plan would be a single payer plan…

  • Andy Holt

    I also don’t like that the abortion clause was removed (or not included, or whatever happened in the hallway between the House and the Senate). I know the President said he would sign an Executive Order, but…really?

  • PDBURS

    Here’s where I’m concerned. “Stupak: I know. And you’re right, Megyn, there is nothing that would stop this President from a month from now, a year from now, 10 years from now, [from] repealing this executive order.” Jim, are you comfortable with this? Republican or Democrat I simply don’t like executive orders. It seems to me they place too much power within the executive branch.

  • T. Webb

    I’m surprised that abortion has only been mentioned by a couple of posters… from what I understand, President Obama’s federal order about abortion funding is virtually meaningless and can be rescinded at any time (but correct me, please, if I’m wrong). If so, this is an incredible victory for those who are pro-abortion as far as government funding. But I’m not sure if Christians have a view on abortion anymore, so I’m not sure what to think.
    My mother and mother-in-law work for large health insurance companies, and I agree that the status quo is broken. But pardon me, I can’t believe that the government is going to help it get better. I just received my yearly Social Security statement last week, which says that the SSA will start paying more than it receives in 2017. God willing, if I live for a long time I may be paying into it for 30+ more years… and I won’t get a dime of it back!!!!!!!!

  • Blaine

    I got sick of the health insurance industry long ago and began using a high deductible plan for my family in 2003. In this way I felt in more control of my healthcare, because I paid for everything, and the insurance would only kick in for catastrophic occasions – of which we have had none. The addition of Health Savings Accounts just made this option even more attractive. I have enjoyed shoppiing around for better prices, such as when my son split his head open on the trampoline, I drove 2 hours away to an all night/weekend discount urgent care ($45), instead of going to the local emergency room ($500). All he needed was stitches, life threatening situations are different. When individuals make decisions based on cost, the whole system runs more efficiently. Government programs have always run on the basis of consumption with somebody else paying the bill. In other words, decisoins are not based on true costs. More consumption does not necessarily increase your bill and therefore there is no incentive to be efficient or to consume less. Comprehensive insurance has the same problem, hence the rising costs – nobody really seems to know the cost of individual services – let alone make decisions based on those costs. This bill pulls me back into a comprehensive plan. I have read both the senate bill and the reconcilliation ammendments, they put a maximum deductible at $4000 for a family. It is no longer a true high deductible plan. Insurance plans control costs by setting prices for services – the bigger they are the more clout they have to artificially drive down prices. Whatever happened to individual consumers making informed decisions? I feel like this bill puts me back where I was before – at the mercy of the insurance companies and their weak administrative controls to try to artificially regulate the prices for services and I will end up paying for all the people who feel they need to go to the doctor everytime they get the flu or a cold and go to the emergency room when all they need is stitches.

  • DRT

    1. It is anti-women in abortion. The way it was, the governement gave tax breaks to companies for health insurance. Therefore there was a subsidy for abortion (which 80% of plans covered). Now, the same people who had that benfit will not get any subsidy (that I can see). Stupak even said that this subsidy used to be there and is not anymore. The issue for him was whether they actually pay for them or give a break on taxes for them. To me that is immaterial.
    2. It does not do enough to bend the cost curve that I can see.
    3. It is creating so much hate in the country because of ignorance and grandstanding.
    4. Government representatives are further making the lawmaking system absurd.
    5. The religious right are making Christians seem like a bunch of uneducated, lying immoralists. This is so bad that my son will not be a Christian because he does not want to be associated with them.
    Dave

  • Lived in Wien!

    I agree with Dan in #12. I lived in 2 countries that have almost identical system to what has been legislated. I believe it is the same. Feel free to disagree. Why do people from all over the world, especially from countries that have this new identical system, come to the USA for health care? They come to the US because we had care that is much more timely as well as it being quality care.

  • Joyce

    This is a sad day for American Democracy. Big govt. will take over life and death decisions. Abortion and Euthanasia will be in their hands. Not a good time to increase taxes. Funny the doctors and nurses aren’t speaking out against this very loudly.

  • Peggy

    Thanks to many comments previously submitted, I do not need to repeat them! So I will offer some of the things that I don’t like that have not yet been mentioned:
    * I am really tired of government employees living by different rules than the rest of us. The first step should be to require all citizens to live by the same laws. That would be one step toward folks really understanding the consequences to their actions.
    * Increasing government jobs is not the way to help make health care reform solvent … while our economy is still struggling. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve thought of the Goose that laid the Golden Egg in recent months. The President and the Progressives need to ponder some of those bits of wisdom.
    * And even though we were supposed to talk about the details of the bill, Scot, there was a terrible miscarriage of democracy in this republic over the way this was shoved through.
    * Finally, institutions (generally) and government institutions (particularly) tend to foster dependence and immaturity because they do not require persons to grow up and act maturely and take personal responsibility for themselves. Somewhere, there is a huge disconnect when I am doing my very best to help my boys grow up to be responsible, caring men who will contribute to the betterment of society … when I am fighting an uphill battle against an ever-increasing entitlement mentality. I work hard to make sure they understand how much things cost — and that if the money is not there, we can’t buy it. Yet everywhere around them they are deluged with the deceitfulness of false “needs” and huge blind spots where fiscal responsibility are involved.
    I believe, as others have stated, that there is a difference between health insurance and health care. The former is for catastrophic illnesses or accidents and the latter should be for minor illness or accidents.
    I am not up for the government telling me what kind of treatments I can get — much less what I cannot get. It is too intrusive.
    When it comes to helping the poor, there has to be a better way. Fix what is broken first — Tort reform would be a good start and might stem the flow of doctors leaving life-long professions because they can no longer afford to stay in practice.
    …sigh….

  • Andy Holt

    Peggy, I think your first point is well taken. If this is so great, then why are the lawmakers and their senior aides opting out? And, frankly, why should we let them?

  • Larry

    Why do people from all over the world, especially from countries that have this new identical system, come to the USA for health care?
    Because they are rich. The US has the best health care in the world, if you are rich. If you’re not rich, well, then, not so much. One only need look at life expectancies and infant mortality rates vs. money spent to determine that.

  • johnfouadhanna

    In terms of specifics, the previous commenters I think cover the terrain pretty well.
    More generally, the accrual of substantial power and wealth by the federal government, along with a strict separation of church and state, eviscerates the free exercise clause. This is obviously a broad point, but I think it applies to the category of healthcare. The point is not to dispute church-state separation (which properly understood is supportable, even if the word “separation” is problematic), but federal expansion coupled with a legally mandated reductionistic view of reality.
    It is not a good idea for a centralized federal bureaucracy to manage the healthcare of 300 million people living in 50 states. This measure does not at all follow from the realities of underprivilege.
    This imposes a one-size fits all state-coerced view on a cultural diverse nation. This heightens the rhetoric and increases the stakes on our already highly contentious social issues – abortion, contraception, euthanasia, sex reassignment, etc.
    I realize there are contentions to the contrary, but this federally funds abortion. Most pro-lifers draw this conclusion and the fact that the pro-choicers – NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. – were happy with it is a pretty telling clue.
    The process by which the legislation was enacted is an argument against it. That those in power exercised any and all available means to achieve their desired outcome is a good reason not to want to give them power over the healthcare of the entire populous.

  • Rusty

    My brother-in-law has MS and couldn’t get insurance for years because of his pre-existing condition and I hated that. But how do you suddenly take thousands like him and insure them knowing the pay out cost with out raising rates?

  • DRT

    Larry #28
    That is right, if you are rich then it is good. The fact that no one seems to want to face is that the US is more facist than anything at this point. Those who have the money are fine. There is a small political elite who decide what happens.
    Dave

  • http://theoreflec.blogspot.com Pat

    There is nothing about the bill that I am vehemently against, however a few things do give me pause.
    1) Kids staying on their parents’ insurance until age 26. With so many boomerang babies that come back home and essentially just live off mom and dad without putting forth energy to finding work, I wonder if this provision will enable that behavior.
    2) Penalizing those who don’t get coverage. While I’m glad that everyone will have access to healthcare, I just wondering about requiring it and penalizing those who don’t get it. States do require auto insurance and people are penalized if they’re found without it, so I guess there’s not much difference. It might also be an indirect way of protecting those of us with insurance because now there are people who need to get medical care but put it off because they don’t have it. Thus, they spread their germs in their workplaces, homes, schools, churches, etc. If they had coverage, this wouldn’t happen, but I’m just not sure about requiring it to the level of putting a penalty on people. ‘Course there will be those stalwart holdouts I suppose who in defiance of the bill will not get healthcare and pay the penalty as their form of protest.
    3) The other thing I wonder about is will this bill enable those who are prone to using the system. What incentive will there be for them to get out and work and earn their benefits? This is where the rest of the country has to be pick up the slack and provide quality job training programs and other such programs enabling people towards good things like becoming viable citizens and not towards bad things like living off of Uncle Sam.

  • Seriously

    1. I believe in freedom. We should be able to choose.
    2. We simply can’t afford it. Look at the math people, there simply isn’t enough money.
    3. The old and tired class warfare argument is a fallacy. That if we just continue to redistribute wealth, eventually we will all live like the rich. Yes the rich may have better health care, but you are still better off to be poor in America than to live in many (if not all) other countries.
    4. There will be tremendous waste. I’d like to see one reasonable argument for the Government doing stuff right without loads of wasted bureaucracy.
    5. Its unconstitutional. There are reams of valid arguments here, read the state’s lawsuits against this bill for the details…
    6. My budget. I’m just a middle class flunkie but this is gonna cost me A LOT more than my current plan, which has served me well for the past 10 years.
    7. There no real reform. Where’s the tort reform? Where’s the clause to put the consumer in charge? Its like being forced to join a huge awful HMO that everybody hates. How is that good again?
    8. Competition seems to have won out as a positive way of allocating resources, this is a huge step backwards for mankind.
    9. The underhanded way in which the bill was passed. Why not do it the right way and get something a larger majority of the people agreed on.
    10. It will cause our economy to collapse. We do not have the luxury of Canada and the other socialist European countries to be propped up by the US economy. This is very likely to cause our economy to fold in on itself.
    Whats to like about this again?

  • Luke

    I have noticed in the past that when people make a comment such as “if you think this is socialism you don’t know what socialism is” they generally have a rather limited understanding of it as well but like to pretend they do. That aside, I would agree that this is not socialism, in fact it is much closer to corporate fascism. It was comically to see our representatives touting how this bill was going to put insurance companies in their place when it actually is going to FORCE everyone to buy insurance from these companies. I am now conflicted as to which legislation is worse; The Patriot Act or Obamacare. As to apocalyptic pronouncements there is no need to prophecies because the facts speak for themselves. Fact one: We as a nation are broke. Fact two: this is just another nail in the coffin of our economic death. Now to the question.
    “What concrete elements do you not like about the new health care plan?”
    Lets start with the blatant violation of the 5th and 6th amendments to the constitution. How about the violation of the 4th amendment and the right to privacy, which would need to be violated in order to violate the 4th and 5th in this case.

  • ROSE BURTON

    I guess if you have to twist the arms and make deals to get this signed into law, then it did not stand on its own merits, first clue
    it wasn’t a good bill,also I think if a person is in school then maybe to be insured by your parents is ok,but just lazy don’t think so
    I would like more data on who is the 32 million and what are they doing, working I hope.More of the same penalize the working and give to the none working.
    And if all employeers have to buy insurance for employees, I just don’t see convenient stores and car washes and the service industry
    able to do this so more unemployed.
    Medicaid users will tell you it is hard to find a doctor now so it will only increase what next mandate to the doctors they have to take medicaid pt as well as medicare.

  • Michael A

    If I were to rob you at gunpoint and take money from you to pay for my healthcare, I would be imprisoned, and rightfully so. If I hire a politician to do it for me, I’m now entitled.
    I don’t care if it’s more cost effective (It won’t be). I don’t care if it’s more efficient (It won’t be).
    The church has gotten way too comfortable handing over its responsibility for charity to government, and government has turned charity from something that involved care and concern into something that involves cold machinery and power plays.

  • http://thinkingaloud99.blogspot.com STJ

    The problem is it is not the Canadian single payer system, the place where people are healthy and happy, in spite of the cold! I speak from four years experience living in that wonderful country.
    Arguments for a single payer plan are very well presented by Physicians For a National Health Program at their web site http://www.pnhp.org. I would urge all who oppose such a plan to read their arguments and digest them thoroughly before coming to final conclusions.

  • ChrisB

    Larry #28,
    I work in a hospital. I’ve treated a number of people from countries with socialized medicine. Their hospital sent them here because they could’t treat them. In most cases it is simply because they can’t keep up with our technology. But Canada does it all the time just because they don’t have enough doctors, beds, or ORs.
    Our wicked evil for-profit system has given us the best health care in the world. The rest of the planet leeches off us. Once they can’t do that, we’re all screwed.
    (BTW, infant mortality, like many others metrics, doesn’t compare well between countries. There are simply too many factors.)

  • Ryan

    Scot,
    You said “if you think this is socialism you don’t know what socialism is.” How are you defining socialism?
    ~Ryan

  • http://markthearrow.blogspot.com/ Bruce Schultes

    Cost:
    People are losing their houses for the kind of money management the government is currently practicing. Monetary easing doesn’t work and when it all blows up we the people are going to suffer.
    Privacy: Trust
    I don’t want the government owning my medical records. Too Brave New World and I don’t trust them – - who knows what may end up in a black budget project.
    Trust: Privacy
    The IRS as a collection agent – - its enough I have to bend over and clench my teeth for my doctor. The IRS is creepy already as agencies go. And the idea that they can do an “audit” which basically means they can look at our health records and decide if we have enough coverage … will I have to step on the scale for the IRS?
    Not that I trust the private sector as structured but at least they don’t have any guns.

  • Richard

    “Funny the doctors and nurses aren’t speaking out against this very loudly.”
    Maybe the majority of them like it… The ones I’ve seen and talked to seem to like it, even imperfectly.
    “I realize there are contentions to the contrary, but this federally funds abortion. Most pro-lifers draw this conclusion and the fact that the pro-choicers – NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. – were happy with it is a pretty telling clue”
    Actually, Planned Parenthood and NOW both denounced the last minute negotiations regarding Abortion. The same negotiations that swayed Stupack and the pro-life Dems to vote in support of it.
    “Yes the rich may have better health care, but you are still better off to be poor in America than to live in many (if not all) other countries”
    The homeless woman living with my wife and I would disagree to the effect of, it sucks being poor and having no voice, period. It’s dehumanizing.
    “Our wicked evil for-profit system has given us the best health care in the world. The rest of the planet leeches off us. Once they can’t do that, we’re all screwed. ”
    I wonder if the rest of the planet agrees with your assessment of them leeching off of us?
    “BTW, infant mortality, like many others metrics, doesn’t compare well between countries. There are simply too many factors”
    Can you explain how that works? Seems like the other contributing factors would be a larger factor in other nations. Would it be because we have fewer children born annually so deaths are more significant?
    As for the comments questioning Scot’s assessment of this not being socialism, how can you complain that this is forcing us to private insurers AND the government is taking over health care? These are mutually exclusive. If the government was taking over, as in a socialized single payer system that would be centralized, there wouldn’t be private insurers anymore, right? If we’re being forced to buy from the private insurers, that sounds more like the free market we already have.
    BTW, insurance is not required under the new legislation. Coverage is. Christian Healthcare Ministries, which is not insurance, is one example of a coverage group that will be allowed under the new legislation.

  • JD

    What don’t I like?
    That it spends a trillion dollars and increases the total cost and cost per person, as it will cause more people to obtain more care without paying for it (since it further divorces the payer from the orderer).
    That it raises costs for most to subsidize a few.
    That it permanently establishes an entitlement to insurance for everyone. It institutionalizes the idea that expensive medical procedures are a right.
    But most of all by far, that it doesn’t fund this new “right”. We will spend the coming years complaining about that, and the result will be turmoil and the authorization of new spending to “fill in the gaps”. As it will never be “good enough”, we will keep expanding it until the apocalypse we’re not supposed to talk about happens. Precedent is a powerful force in politics, and we’ve just established a precedent that says if the technology exists to improve a person’s health, we must do it regardless of cost. That’s foolish.

  • Jjoe

    Just quoting from wikipedia on medical tourism. For every person who comes here for health care, 10 people travel OUT of the US. It’s a huge industry. Which makes sense — we pay more for less care than any country in the world, according to National Geographic, that well-known communist magazine. The idea that we have the best system is based on pride, not fact.
    “Although much attention has been given to the growing trend of uninsured Americans traveling to foreign countries, a McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[62] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[63]”

  • Bill Trip

    Entitlement programs are bankrupting states (see CA). Our two biggest federal entitlements, social security and medicare, are going bankrupt.
    What do we do? Create a new federal entitlement program.
    I don’t like it because it is financially reckless, unconstitutional,
    philosophically and morally dangerous. It grows the power of the
    State and diminishes the freedom, liberty and personal responsibility
    of the citizen. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
    of happiness and not the guarantee of life, liberty and happiness.
    If health care is a right, then a job is a right, a car is a right,
    food is a right and so on. It’s a slippery sloap.
    Let’s rob Peter to pay Paul. Government programs that our created
    to promote equality typically end up lowering standards and raise one
    group up while demoting another. The great society programs of LBJ
    created the inner city (see Harlem, Detroit, Chicago, Watts, lower
    ninth ward-New Orleans).
    There aren’t enough of the rich to tax so eventually the middle class
    and lower class will foot the bill thus further insuring generational
    theft by the higher taxes future generations will pay.
    I’m not too worried about this because a Republican landslide is coming in November and Obama has insured his place in history as a
    one term President. If none of the above happens, the supreme court
    will throw this out on the grounds of it’s unconstitutionality in
    mandating Americans purchase a product or service through coercive
    force.

  • http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/22/obama__pelosis_agenda_of_spreading_dependency_104865.html Bill Trip
  • Richard

    @ 44 Bill
    White flight had more to do with the decline of the inner city than Great Society policies.

  • Jeremy

    That it exposed the ideological self-centeredness rampant in Christian circles. Whether or not the bill itself is the right answer, I may vomit if I hear one more person assert that other people only have a right to proper medical attention if it doesn’t cost them anything.

  • Chuck

    1. It requires even more government involvement in health care – not a good thing.
    2. The Bill is not written to simply address the specific problems of our current system but seems to begin the process of dismantling it – also not a good thing.
    3. The Bill is loaded with very, very expensive favors and concessions traded for votes that you and I pay for – once again, not a good thing.

  • LBurton

    I’m concerned about the abortion issue, just think how it will increase if it’s covered by insurance and I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I don’t believe we need another for the poor, I believe people should be able to buy into medicare or medicaid for insurance. I believe the govt is too incompetent to run anything. And for those of you who don’t believe it, I saw the interview with my own eyes, sorry I can’t remember program or date Obama believes in helping people die when they’ve passed their usefulness. I believe the goal is complete take over of health care, they simply start it with must have insurance because it’s easier to sell than the outright takeover of medical care – more people will accept it as a good thing.This bill (right now) is for big business – if I’m an insurance company I’m very happy – YOU HAVE TO BUY MY PRODUCT. I am

  • JDM

    Amtrak, the post office, the DMV.
    What’s that? Oh, of course it will be different this time.

  • LBurton

    I’m concerned about the abortion issue, just think how it will increase if it’s covered by insurance and I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I don’t believe we need another entitlement for the poor, I believe people should be able to buy into medicare or medicaid for insurance. I believe the govt is too incompetent to run anything. And for those of you who don’t believe it, I saw the interview with my own eyes, sorry I can’t remember program or date Obama believes in helping people die when they’ve passed their usefulness. I believe the goal is complete take over of health care, they simply start it with must have insurance because it’s easier to sell than the outright takeover of medical care – more people will accept it as a good thing.This bill (right now) is for big business – if I’m an insurance company I’m very happy – YOU HAVE TO BUY MY PRODUCT. To the gentleman who thinks Christians want to keep healthcare from the poor. That’s not the case, but a program created through bribes is not the answer. This is a big issue, something needs to be done – the right something. The poor have insurance, it’s the “working poor” that don’t have insurance – I’ve worked for Welfare and I will tell you free services sucks the life out of people on welfare – they are intelligent wonderful people holding onto a pitiful life when they can have so much more, because people like you keep telling them they deserve half a life. What I want for all people on Welfare is what happened with some of my clients – “I just bought my first car.” “For the first time I was able to buy my baby more than one pair of shoes for the school year” I truly believe people like you are enablers. You don’t care about those people or you would insist that they get off welfare and find employment – because they are good and capable people and their children and their children’s children will thank them. But you in your need to assuage your guilt, help them to stay in decrepit lives in crime ridden neighborhoods.

  • http://www.walkingincircles.org phill

    I think for me it is that I dont know everything that is in the bill. I keep hearing about fines and other things that will happen if we dont have or carry the insurance. Plus I heard some people who support these bills say they dont think it would be such a bad thing to tax people 70-80% to pay for rights of all people in the American clan..>Crazy

  • Tom

    I dislike the health care reform plan because $500 billion of its financing will come from Medicare payments to hospitals, hospices, nursing homes. $200 billion will come from Medicare Advantage subsidies, which have saved my family thousands of dollars.
    Gutting Medicare just when seniors need it most is simply not acceptable.

  • Napman

    Here are some things I don’t like:
    The most efficient mechanism to control costs is to make the consumer confront the true cost of care. This bill does not do that but instead more deeply embeds the government in a broken system. The cost constraint of last resort will be the government telling insurers what to cover and not cover. IMHO it is much more just and efficient for consumers to self-ration than the government to ration for us. As written, Warren Buffet ( a supporter of Obama and health care reform) and the Dean of the Harvard Medical School both see little in the bill to control costs.
    I don’t think the government can efficiently manage a health system in a country as large and as large and diverse as ours. Setting abstract rules with limited data far removed from the patients and doctors who are required to follow them is not a recipe for just and efficient health care. I fear care and treatments will rapidly become less available and decline in quality as resources are starved in a system burdened by debt. Patient outcomes will suffer as practices are homogenized to contain costs without accounting for the needs of the patient under treatment.
    The medicare and social security systems are rapidly approaching insolvency. Yet without adequate funding, and despite front loading taxes years before the benefits begin, even CBO scoring says it will add to the deficit after ten years once Congress rescinds the scheduled cuts to doctors treating Medicare patients as they always do. Other analysts believe that Obamacare will cause far greater deficits. But in keeping with the pattern of leaders from both parties, Obama has left the long-term funding problems ’till another day. I can’t wait to see the fiscal problems facing us when Social Security, Obamacare and Medicare are all in deep insolvency at the same time. What kind of pain will we be feeling then?
    Finally the cost to innovation is hard to calculate. The US is the leader in bringing healing to cancer and heart patients while health systems under government control lag behind. The profits our private companies make in our current system provide the funding needed for researching many of the new medicines and treatments which make continued innovations possible. As government policy makers continue to wring profit from the system to control costs I believe much of this research will of economic necessity be curtailed.
    This is not a defense of the status quo which stood in desperate need of reform, but a brief account of why I lament the passing of this bill. There were alternative proposals that may have more readily earned bipartisan support. I doubt this will be a boon to the poor and I fear it will lead to a less efficient, less capable system at a higher cost. Mr, Buffet was correct to say that the best thing for the Congress to do was to start over,

  • http://communityofjesus.wordpress.com/ Ted M. Gossard

    We don’t have the political will or values as a nation, but I don’t think the bill does what really needs to be done. And I don’t believe in a welfare state, or helping those who are unwilling to work, except to try to help them become willing. But I think we need something like the Canadian health care system. This will mean better health care for the vast majority of Americans.
    When I say we don’t have the values, I mean the idea held by many good Christians that decent health care is not a right. I don’t understand such thinking. Nor do I believe that healthcare should be driven and rationed by companies who are concerned about making money and lots of it. I’d prefer this to be hammered out, yes in Washington, and through “we the people.”

  • jen

    What I see is a concern with most is the fine well as I see it all that is doing is giving the government more of our money to pick and choose how they are going to control us. What we all need to be concerned about is the fact that if we are not careful our government will be able to start controling every aspect of our lives in other words tell us when we can spend our money,how,and on what. I can see the future of my children being controled by a so-called leader this concerns me what type of life are they going to be able to live if they have to follow what someone else beleives and lives like and I think everyone needs to take a stand cuz its bad enough that they take from the poor and middle classes to give back to the rich as it stands.

  • Christine

    Am not going to repeat the litany of things that others have already stated, but want to add this:
    Now that the details are coming out, it’s easy to see that those of us who are lower-middle-class folks are losing something that helped many of us, and that’s the FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT. Until now, it was up to employers to offer it and they could set the limits as to how much could be put into the account.
    NOW, the government says the limit is $2,500/year (most companies according to the New York Times today allow $4,000 – $5,000). These are dollars that are taken out of one’s paycheck PRE-TAX so it is a real benefit and a way to pay for out-of-pocket medical/dental costs. So many of us are losing 50% of this benefit – thank you, Barack Obama. Oh yeah, he’s not going to tax the middle class – technically, true, but we now will have to come up with more $$ post-tax.
    And for those of us who need pain medication or arthritis medication or allergy medication that isn’t prescribed, we can no longer use FSA dollars for those very real out-of-pocket costs either. Does it matter? Oh, in our family it matters big time and made such a difference!

  • Christine

    Am not going to repeat the litany of things that others have already stated, but want to add this:
    Now that the details are coming out, it’s easy to see that those of us who are lower-middle-class folks are losing something that helped many of us, and that’s the FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT. Until now, it was up to employers to offer it and they could set the limits as to how much could be put into the account.
    NOW, the government says the limit is $2,500/year (most companies according to the New York Times today allow $4,000 – $5,000). These are dollars that are taken out of one’s paycheck PRE-TAX so it is a real benefit and a way to pay for out-of-pocket medical/dental costs. So many of us are losing 50% of this benefit – thank you, Barack Obama. Oh yeah, he’s not going to tax the middle class – technically, true, but we now will have to come up with more $$ post-tax.
    And for those of us who need pain medication or arthritis medication or allergy medication that isn’t prescribed, we can no longer use FSA dollars for those very real out-of-pocket costs either. FSA has helped our family SO much, and this is going to be a heavy hit.

  • Christine

    Sorry for double-posts above.
    The other concern I have is the taxing of so-called Cadillac plans. Many employers today offer their employees a choice of an HMO and a “traditional” (I.e., Cadillac) plan. Kiss those good-bye with tax hits up to 40% for insurance companies who offer them. You can trust that those costs will be passed on.
    End result? My prediction? Well, companies will stop offering them. Not today, but in a few years when the plan is fully-implemented.
    So, take heart, those of you who want a single payer system in the U.S. We’re headed that way, and this is a step in that direction.
    Sadly enough.

  • Mike M

    Father God: please let our government take over our religious life, too. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.

  • Malvinia

    Oh ye of little faith! How can you say in one instance that your brand of government is the greatest in the world, and then because a few of you don’t get your way, cry foul.” This is government at its worst.” We live in a great nation that for a long time has come to the aid of others. We have funded illegal wars and conflicts. Why do we complain so much about taxes when you know like the poor , taxes we have always. At least the $ will be spent for something tangible! Some child’s, the elderly, some single parent, some one working on a job that does not provide health benefits will benefit. That helps us all, when all of our citizens are healthy. Let’s cut down on the $ spent to study “mating habits of underground cave dwelling snails”. There is nothing that I really don’t like about this Universal Health Plan that can’t be eventually modified. Come on America, don’t be selfish. The # of complaints show how blessed we are. Those who are complaining the most probably have some type of health benefits. I just wish that there was more altruism.Please think of others before you complain that you can’t buy that extra cup of overpriced coffee, or designer whatever!

  • http://www.jesustheradicalpastor.com John W Frye

    It is evident from Monday’s (what I like) comments and yesterday’s (what I don’t like) comments, that Jesus Creeders listen attentively to the ones who are in power (the politicians of both parties and the news media: left-leaning and right). I heard a fiscally conservative Democrat, not a radical right-winger, call the Senate Health Care Bill another step toward socialism. This is not just an extremist scare tactic. I think, Scot, more Jesus Creeders know more about socialism than you assume. As we’ve heard from both sides (Hey, what’s wrong with socialism? or This is another step away from a representative republic toward a socialist system), this Health Care Plan is NOT about Health Care, it is about slicing the balony thinly, but steadily until this country is unrecognizable from what it was founded to be. Am I saying ‘Love it or leave it’? No. As one who is a part Native American, I know we have sinned and sin as a nation, so let’s not believe that those in power *always* have the best interests of the country in mind. I for one don’t think the current administration is as honorable as many think.

  • :mic

    Of all the things I could point to that are problematic with this bill, let me dwell on one . . .
    The most disturbing part of this bill is not what is in it, but how it was passed through Congress. We have seen moral bankruptcy on full display, Congressmen/women who have sold their souls for its passage, and a lack of regard for those who expressed their concerns with it. It was voted on a Sunday, not just because this administration shows no signs of respect for the church (which is problematic for those who think that this is a great moment for Christian principles), but that they did not want these members of Congress to make it home and hear from Main Street before the vote.
    And I am more outraged that those who continue to support it refuse to answer this reality. In a piece of legislation that is (falsely) touted as one of the most moral bills that Congress has passed, why is nobody questioning the immoral means to get it passed? It seems that we have witnessed ‘the-ends-justify-the-means’ at work, and too many in the church have willingly applauded it.
    This is not Jesus Creed behavior, and communities built on Christ’s words should not be lauding it.
    But in the end, this generation will certainly come to realize what many previous generations have seen: that lasting change does not come through legislation or judicial fiat. These come and go, and give us the clearest indication of why Jesus did not seek political reform . . . but the only true and lasting and significant change and hope of a renewed heart and mind.

  • Peggy

    Well, I thought I was finished, but I guess not….
    I am gratified to see so many comments after mine (at #26) that resonate with what I was trying to communicate. Let me highlight just a few of them:
    @54 Napman: Right on, man, about folks needing to confront the cost of their health care and make decisions accordingly. When I’m spending my own money, I think carefully. We, however, are also very aware of being good stewards of our insurance (my husband works a for big insurance company that is actually a non-profit) so as not to be wasteful and drive up their costs unnecessarily. I think that the church has been complicit in some of this by not having a very good “doctrine” concerning health and sickness … but that will be a can of worms today, so I’m not going to open it.
    @ 55 Ted: I had a conversation with my teenage son last night about the difference between insurance and wellness care. Insurance is to offset the risk of catastrophic illness or injury. Wellness care is to take care of so-called “acute” illness or injury — things that are usually self-limiting.
    (Much of this is overused because, as a society, we are unwilling to allow our bodies time to rest and recover when they are busy fighting infection or healing from injury. We take painkillers for our headaches rather than deal with the root cause of them … sorry, I punched a hole in that can in an earlier paragraph and one of the worms wiggled out…)
    Anyway, I’ve heard so many talk about car insurance, as if it’s apples and apples. This is the deal: I have car insurance so that if it is involved in an accident, I can have it repaired or replaced without having to cover the entire cost — and I am driving carefully so as to prevent that incident. I also have uninsured driver insurance in the case that some driver hits me and does not have insurance (this was the case in the original accident that has seen me spent the better part of the past 10 years in a very weakened state). We also have insurance to cover damage to property and persons.
    I don’t have any insurance, however, that covers regular maintenance to my car and to breakdowns. I have to find a way to keep things is good condition and deal with breakdowns the best I can. There are some vehicles coming with better warranties to cover maintenance, but that comes from the car manufacturer usually. It is not insurance. Those who try to sell you insurance for maintenance and repair are seen as scammers by most….
    I think that we need to provide a way for folks to be covered against catastrophic illness / injury so that these events don’t bankrupt families or result in avoidable deaths.
    Worm escape alert!
    I also believe that there is an opportunity for lovers of God and followers of Jesus to look their mortality in the face and ponder the real impact (emotionally and spiritually as well as financially) of dealing with catastrophies with trust in God and a willingness to let go of this life and embrace the next. Yes, God will actively work to redeem every circumstance in which we find ourselves … but I think we can make some different choices about life and death situations. And I mean that we get to make those choices, not some doctor or politician or other member of the government that presumes to tell me what is best for me and mine.
    And I believe that there needs to be assistance for pregnant women and small children, because preventative health care is so very important during these most vulnerable of times.
    But these really are two different questions and shouldn’t be grouped together haphazardly….
    @57 Christine: YES! The loss in our FSA will be significant. We use it to pay for glasses and for braces (which were not just cosmetically required for two of our sons, but structurally corrective to significant problems) and for some of our alternative health care choices that are not covered by our insurance.
    @59 Christine, continued ;^) : We chose to pay higher premiums and other costs precisely because we don’t want to go back to HMO! I have been involved in two HMOs and, while I think they do a fine job with some things, they are not right for my family. The very reason we have our “Cadillac” coverage, with it’s high deductibles, is so that we can choose to be part of a medical practice that respects our requests for alternative health care alternatives while still being a preferred provider with MDs and RNs and primary care nurse practitioners.
    Finally @63 :mic: Exactly — just as we are not interested in the far right trying to legislate their view of morality on the rest of the country, I am not interested in those who want to legislate morality in this instance either — especially when the means are far from moral. The Jesus Creed is about loving God and loving others. There is no place for the bullying and lording-it-over kinds of power. Our power is not to be coersive … and when Christians grasp for coersive power, it is a sad day.
    Just as our faith is a free gift of grace to be received, our freedom in this country is a gift of grace to us from our Founders to be received respectfully — and guarded and defended with eyes wide open.
    Let the Holy Spirit call each to repentance and to vigilance for how to best live at ambassadors of the Kingdom and citizens of this United States of America. Let our hearts be pricked with mercy toward those in need. But let’s do it with humility and honesty and respect and integrity. Please.

  • Peggy

    …and, by the way, Michael and Denise are a wonderful example of what I call doing it the right way.
    I grieve with them as he nears the end of his time, but I rejoice in their faith and am grateful for the choices they are being able make for themselves.
    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-update

  • Peggy

    …and, by the way, Michael and Denise are a wonderful example of what I call doing it the right way.
    I grieve with them as he nears the end of his time, but I rejoice in their faith and am grateful for the choices they are being able make for themselves.
    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-update

  • http://thinkingaloud99.blogspot.com STJ

    JDM wrote at no. 50: “Amtrak, the post office, the DMV.
    What’s that? Oh, of course it will be different this time.”
    Pardon me, but what is wrong with the Post Office? The Post Office performs amazingly IMHO.

  • STJ

    We should have done the obvious, which is study what has worked in the countries where people of all income levels are receiving better care than us, and pattern after them. Canada, Taiwan are my picks. Strangely, really recklessly, people are shooting off without even caring to learn from precedents in other countries. It makes no sense at all. We are an arrogant, stiff-necked people.

  • Napman

    STJ #67
    Nothing is wrong with the post office that a couple hundred million dollar subsidy from the governemnt every year can’t solve. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have similar solvency problems as does Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare–is there a pattern here?

  • http://thinkingaloud99.blogspot.com STJ

    Re Napman #69:
    Really? Less than a dollar per person per year?

  • Christine

    STJ #68 – Canada? Really? Check out the stats about the number of Canadians who cross the border to have surgery in the US because the waiting lines are so long in their country. Check out how many Canadian doctors do the same. And yes, I know some Americans cross into Canada as well, but it’s not ’cause there are long, long, long queues to have surgery done. Or check-out my own Canadian cousin who has not been given optimal care for his heart condition due to his age.

  • Your Name

    Well, it looks like it’s all been said. I haven’t wanted to come to JesusCreed after being put off by the tone in Monday’s comments, but here I am again anyway with one small observation. I work in an emergency room and oversee physicians-in-training. Often it will happen that a caregiver will observe that someone is seriously ill. Response? Do something BIG! It is not always necessary to “do something big,” and whatever we do should be appropriate to that patient’s needs. Make sense? If our patient (the method for delivery of health care in the US) is seriously ill, how is this response (which no one would argue is not “something big!) related to the patient’s needs? Smaller incremental steps would be more appropriate and safer, giving us the opportunity to observe the patient for signs of response to our interventions. It is never a good idea to respond to an emergency with emotion-driven response, but calmly, with focus and a plan. I’m not sure we’re doing that.

  • Peter

    Sorry – that’s me in #72

  • Peggy

    Thanks, Peter…this is wisdom, it seems to me. A kind of common sense that is too often neglected in the breakneck speed of life in our society. I have said all along that when someone says something — anything — has to happen NOW, it is a red flag to stop and consider: WHY must it happen NOW?
    Glad you came back….


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X