right on Jose.

Like I've said before. When our elected officials sign on to the system they keep trying to cram down our throats, then I'll sign on. If it's not good enough for them, then it's not good enough for me or you.

Sam:

Can you explain this to me? I've seen it here time and again, this bit about elected officials not "signing on" to the proposed health care plan?

What does that mean? I imagine that they have some sort of medical insurance just like most employed people, so could they, even if they wanted to, "sign on" to some other plan?

RV

sam...my sentiments exactly, but clearly there are a lot of people who could care less that they are being forced to have much less quality health care than theirre overlords.

But don't judge to harshly, as it may be they are desperate for free medical insurance to help them deal with their birth defect - being born without a spine!!!

Wow! I seem to have hit the mother lode of misinformation and uninformed commentary in this article!

jose -

Under all the bills currently going forward you can buy, offer, receive whatever plan you want. There's no mandate to buy the 'public option' if it finally makes it through. In fact, Section 202 of HR3200 specifically excludes you from eligibility to purchase the 'public option' if you have another qualified benefits plan or accetable coverage under another supplier.

LMHCA -

You won't be forced into buying 'this program' if what you mean by 'this program' is the government-managed 'public option'. You will have to buy some insurance (or have it provided to you by your employer), but not the government-managed option.

The 'fine' (as you describe it) is not 10% - it's a maximum of 2.5% of your adjusted gross income. The actual 'fine' amount is capped at the amount that you would have paid for an insurance premium. It's further reduced to apply only to the fraction of the year that you were uninsured.

You say "Read the Bill!!!". Which bill? Page 114, line 22 of HR3200 simply says "under this subsection shall be effective in such time" - while talking about State-based Health Insurance Exchanges. Page 114, line 22 of S. 1679 (the HELP Committee bill) says " '(5) Premiums" - part of the proposed amended language of the current Public Health Service Act. The Baucus bill has not been printed yet, and so does not have page and line numbers.

I might add that on page 110, lines 20 & 21 it amends the PHSA by adding: "'(2) No requirement for individuals to join." - which specifically does not require individuals to participate in a community health insurance option, and specifically says that no penalty will be imposed on those chosing not to participate.

sam -

The elected officials do currently participate in the system that you describe as being 'crammed down our throats'. Federal elected officials, just like any other federal government employee (elected or not) get their insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. They have the same options (e.g., PPO, HMO, FFS plans) that you and I have. You can read about their health plan options here . Compare their options with the ones you now have. Since those are (or most likely will be) "qualified benefits plans" the federal employees will be excluded from purchasing the 'public option' - just as you and I will be. So, they are 'signed onto' the proposed system.

Also - their health benefits plans are no more "free" than your are (if you're employed). They have a portion of their premium offset by their employer - just as you do - but in their case the "employer" is the federal government.

Oh, but that is not so, sparcboy...

They (politicians) work for the same people you work for...the ones who pay them to stay employed, their campaing contributors.

If the president were to suggest to the American people that political campaigns should be publicly funded, would you support such an idea?

RV

rls8r -So when this new system (if it ever passes) is implemented, will our elected officials be required to scrap the system they now have and sign on? As I see it now, we will be required to purchase this health care plan.
Many have said that it's voluntary. It isn't. There have been previous posts that specifically address this fact. Private companies will not be able to compete with the government, and will eventually have to capitulate and opt for the government plan. That is pretty clear.
I've said this before; we can fix the problems we have right now without scraping the whole system, and starting from scratch. If as the President says, there is wholesale waste in the Medicare plan, then why aren’t we fixing that problem right now? What are we waiting for? He obviously knows where the waste is, or he wouldn’t have said it.
I’ve heard all these arguments before about how there is waste in government programs, and yet you never hear about any of them being fixed.
I want to be on the same plan as my elected officials. My company sponsored plan is pretty good, however, it’s not as good as the The Presidents, or Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., also, why are my elected officials not on The Social Security Plan? If its good enough for me then it should be good enough for them.

Read which Bill?...I just finished reading Max Baucus bill and it is down right scary...worse than scary..not only will it tax middle america for 350 Billion, It plans on cutting Medicare by 500 Billion...reimbursements to hospitals and physicians cut so drastically it could put alot of them out of business....It makes absolutely zero sense as a Health Care Reform Bill...nothing about controlling corrupt big business in medicine, controling outrageous Pharma costs..no tort..sounds like the newest HMO is going to be the US Government....eeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Again jose for the hundreth time..........if you already have insurance, there is nothing for you to worry about........nothing is being taken away from you.........man you people are so freaking parnoid.

sam -

The way the bills are written now - there will be no 'scrapping' of the system we (or they) now have. As I read it - at least two things will happen. First, the government will establish basic requirements for all plans, both government and private, to have. That's not to say that other plans cannot offer additional features, but each plan must meet minimum requirements. Second, the government will offer a 'public option' that will have those basic features. As long as your current plan meets those basic requirements, and you're happy with it, you're free to keep it. If your current plan meets the basic requirements, and you choose to keep it, you will not have to purchase the government-offered 'public option'. In fact, you will not even be eligible to purchase it.

I'm not as certain that a government option will cause the complete demise of the nation's insurance industry as some are. I think that the health insurance industry is clever enough to figure out how to stay in business. Of course, one of the tactics they may take is to reduce premiums, but how they change their internal practices (salaries, administrative perks, bonuses, dividends, etc.) will be up to them. After all - there are many government-funded schools, but there is still a vibrant private-school system as well.

Many folks talk of 'waste, fraud and abuse' as if they were the only sources of savings. I like to think in terms of 'inefficiencies'. One thing that will reduce the cost of the 'public option' is if it is given the authority to negotiate drug prices with drug manufacturers. The VA can do that, but Medicare cannot - and thus, the cost of prescription medicine under the VA is much cheaper than under Medicare. Allowing the 'public option' to purchase medical equipment through competitive bidding will also lower costs. Improving the billing and payment systems will also increase efficiency, and reduce costs.

You can have the same benefits as the President, Pelosi, et al. You just have to be willing to pay for them. Look at the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan web site . Enter your ZIP Code to bring up a list of plans that would be available to you under the federal program (which are those available to elected officials). You can also enter 20001 for a D.C. ZIP Code and see the plans that are available to the President, Pelosi, et al. Pick something like "Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan - std - Nationwide". You'll then have to answer two questions. For the first question choose "Non-U.S. Postal Service" and for the second question choose something like "monthly pay". That will give you a summary of the costs and coverages of the plan. Click the "PDF" link under the "Links to Plan Brochures" to see a detailed description of the plan. These are the plans that are available to the President, Pelosi, et al. Check them out - they are not too different (I suspect) than those your employer is offering. There is no "Cadillac" plan that the President or others have. Of course, there is one perk. They can get treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and you can't. But, that's hardly a reason to call their health plans "Cadillac", is it?

rls8r - since when has the government ever done what they say - this idiot currently in charge spent nearly a trillion dollars in his first 6 months while not allowing congress to read the bill because it was so really really important to hurry up and pass. And since he controls the dems, they did exactly what he told them to do.

And had he had his way, HR3200 would have already been law if not for the blue dogs and the republicans.

And as many of you uninformed keep INCORRECTLY stating, you will NOT be able to keep whatever plan you are on - you obviously do not understand the actual bill being negotiated.

Under the new plan EMPLOYERS will have a disincentive to continue to insure you, and will have great incentive to drop their plan and push us all into this stupid exchange, which doesn't exist, and which they claim won't exist for 4-5 years. But their are penalties, and other outrageous new government interference that will assuredly screw with the current system.

Why do you suddenly trust the president just because he says it's so. There are lists available online for you to read that prove the President is just another politician, he says whatever he wants to, and does whatever he wants to, often completely contradicting himself, or as some would say, making him a liar.

He's not that different from Bush, and has kept in place many of Bush's policies and procedures, which is a complete freakin' hoot and has to drive you losers who voted for him absolutely nuts.

You are now holding your nose just like we did with Bush - very disappointing.

Paul -

If monetary incentives/disincentives were the only things that businesses consider - tell me - why do businesses offer health insurance now? It seems to me that since (with very few exceptions as far as I'm aware) they are not required to offer health insurance to employees - the smart thing to do would be to simply stop offering health insurance to employees - think of all the money they could save. Why have they not done that?

Just a postnote-Rasmussen Polls says 78% of respondents want the same plan as congress has.
That number is pretty telling. Congress better be listening.

sam -

Thanks. Those 78% of the people can run out and purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they'll then have what they want. If you don't believe what I say about the federal workers' health plan (after all, I used to work for the federal government) - then read this as an example.

If Obama would quit sending more and more Americans to Afghanistan there would be a big savings in healthcare for the gunshot wounds, amputations, and mental health care services. His escalation of troops there is nonsensical.

rls8r,

what you are not commenting on is the fact that the government can increase subsidies for this so-called "public option". There is no incentive to for the government to contain costs. If the "public option" loses money no biggie. The government can just increase subsidies. Name one government run program that has succeeded and run in the black. The insurance companies who answer to stock holders and are required to be efficient in the delivery of healthcare do not have this luxury. They will be run out of business because they cannot compete. Eventually all you will have left is the "public option". Where will the choices be then?

Wherescongress, didn't he say that there be no taxes added to the middle class? I suppose no middle class person drinks soda?

Excellent point. No middle class person gets too little sun, or too much sun ... (where does this slippery slope end?).

Two absolutes in life: death and taxes.

Same old subversive "lies" and play on words!

Which lie doesn't apply to you? Death or taxes.

If anyone believes the President when he says it will be deficit neutral,i have a bridge for sale..It is a classic political move..Tell them what they want to hear,then do what you want...

It's not realistic to believe there won't be a massive tax hike..

any tax applied will reach the working middle class by being passed down in higher prices

It would seem that the only way to not pay taxes is to not work and get government handouts. No one working would of course end capitalism. So, taxpayers would get what they want: don't work, don't pay taxes. And democrats would REALLY get what they want: the end of capitalism.

Leave-my-health-care-alone:

You're really dumb. People on this board call each other "idiot" and "moron" all the time, but in you're case it's singularly applicable.

I suggest that you read "ris8r" above for an effective rebuttal of your quasi-arguments.

As for all of your juvenile caps, exclamation points, as well as your asinine suggestion to "Impeach Obama Now!" well, they speak for themselves, don't they?

Impeach him on what specific grounds, by the way? Because you don't like him? I don't like him either, I didn't vote for him. But can you tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Obama has committed (I really shouldn't ask, I can just imagine the response)?

I've often said that Rednecks should be stored in camps until we can find some way to dispose of them without harming the environment.

RV

Richard...I too have been reading these posts in wonderment. Who ARE these people? I commend you for even trying to talk sense...all of the facts have been explained to them ad nauseam.

People...I know you think you are the majority, but if you get past your small circle of thinking, you will find that the majority of Americans in our country want this reform. Those who actually know what it entails what a Public Option. It's what we voted for. Stop whining already. You lost the election. A black man is president. I know it's out of your comfort zone...but just try to evolve, already.

The SKY IS FALLING,THE SK....................

gemini.. be careful, your arrogance and bigotry are both showing, and it's ugly.

There are 10's of millions who disagree, and you will see the results in the 2010 election.

The sad truth is that you actually believe a politician. You may want to rethink that and evolve yourself.

Richard Vidaurri:

For your information, the term "redneck" comes from the extreme sun exposure on the necks of hardworking American farmers that have worked in fields day in and day out to grow food for your unappreciative self.

I've often said that Rednecks should be stored in camps until we can find some way to dispose of them without harming the environment.

Genocide. How nice. Richard I saw a similar post from you on another story. You must be really miserable to have so much hate bottled up inside you for an entire section of American society to the point that you suggest systematically murdering them.

I guess that would include the children of "rednecks" also. Right? If you can even give a definition ("redneck") of who you're wanting to "eliminate."

And the left calls Republicans racists. Pitiful.

gemini...which twin is talking..the sane one or the pyscho one? hope it is the pyscho one!!! you blew your arguement when you started ranting about race and the election..also you must have not been on the vine very long..otherwise you would know the highest percentage of posters all agree that we need health care reform..The arguement is in what form it is going to take...one that benefits the American people or one that bankrupts it. WE want the job done right..not necessarily fast...

one last thing..if you want your post to be compelling..it is best not to start out by calling your audience...people...like you are not one of us..but more evolved...good grief...(roll-eyes)

What's laughable is the thought that $350 billion that will be used to pay for the reform will be there. They are getting this money from a tax on insurance companies for offering these "Cadillac" plans. Easy fix for me if I'm a CEO of an insurance company. Stop offering these plans. No tax, no problem. Oooops! Where are we gonna get $350 billion? Er, um, Mr/Mrs taxpayer. Can I have a word with you?

You are right. We are taxed for everything we own, we do, we buy. Just to keep the ones in Washington free of all. They do not pay for health care never will and it is better than anything we can buy. Their big houses, heat for their houses. Cars, airplanes. Life is so good for them.

Private insurance can also be called a "PONZI SCHEME" by your definition...they pay out benefits with the premiums paid in by others. Difference is, the enormous cut they take for themselves. Oh, and also, they cancel policies on the sick, raise rates on those they "protect" against inability to pay for care, and deny payment for procedures and treatment they don't want to pay for...to maintain their profits. So, I guess the difference would be...private insurance is a PONZI scheme that makes sure the corporation keeps making more and more profits (off the investors). Social Security just tries to make sure the citizens keep getting their assistance. Use your head...medicare pays the greatest share for the medical treatment given to seniors (that is your tax dollars) while the private insurance they have earned through years of employment or private payments, throws in a small (minute) fraction of the payment for care received...as they pay CEO's. executives and board members many millions in profits.

You know KJR, you are right. I hate the fact that our society has used insurance as the method of distributing healthcare. It by nature can only work in a not-for-profit model.

The problem right now is, if you believe the President and many dem's pushing the current plans, none of them have the stones to admit this, and create a single-payer not-for-profit model.

And because or education system is so prohibitively expensive, I don;t know how you flip all of this practically, as doctors (especially specialists) have to spend a fortune just to be allowed to practice.

So when the dust settles, it really comes down to incrementally trying to fix the current system, which is impossible.

And what is worse is that the insurance companies are probably more trustworthy than any politician, so really what we all need to be related to a doctor, or pray that we stay relatively healthy.. but truly, there are millions who receive top quality care up to the end of life, so what we are really all screaming about are the edges of the industry where abuses exist.

I say that because I am almost 50, and have known many who have dealt with a variety of cancers, diabetes, heart disease, etc, lost both of my parents, and not one person I know has had trouble with their health insurance. I know it exists, I just haven't seen it myself.

Did you guys notice that Obama went on every one of his liberal news medias today, but was askek to be on Fox and refused. Wonder why. Could it be tha Fox would ask questions that need to be answered ...like how are you feeling since your community organization ACORN is in trouble? Are you going to sign the bill to cut their funding? Have you noticed that he has been all over the country "talking" and has completely ignored the ACORN issue. That is what he does, he just plays like something does not exist if it is unpleasant to him. Narcissm in rare form. He absolutely adores himself. He has made over 124 speeches since his inauguration...Bush had done only 40 and Clinton (and you know how he liked to talk) only 46. It seems that a day doesn't go by that his mug is on his three news advertisers ABC,NBC and CBS, and if his lips are moving, he is usually "not exactly" telling the truth. I am tired of looking at him and listening to him, so I still have the FREEDOM to turn off my TV. Hallejuah!! In my 62 years, I have seen many interesting things, the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the first walk on the moon, the invention of the personal computer, internet, cell phones, fax machines, but I don't think I have ever experienced anything like Obama. He is truly one of a kind...and that is not stated to be a good thing.

KJR. Once again you (read as "the left") provide no stats, no facts, no numbers. Just more generalizations and talking points

they cancel policies on the sick, Do you have stats for this?

raise rates on those they "protect" against inability to pay for care, Do you have any amounts or the frequncy this happens?

and deny payment for procedures and treatment they don't want to pay for...to maintain their profits. Do you have any information to back up this claim?

Don't bother. I already know the answer.

Colonel--Have you not been paying attention??? Lots of people have come forrth and talked about how badly insurance companies have treated them. The idiot CEOs went in front of Congress and told them that they would not change their current practices unless forced to. Get real--everyone has an equal opportunity to get screwed over by insurance companies. It just hasn't happened to you yet.

SS is out of money because they (Goverment) gives so much to non US people that hate us but just give it to them. Give them a free ride.

JF---- that is the soundest solution that I've read! ...correct the problems, one at a time, and not create a gigantic problem!

JF, you're right, he thinks he can 'talk' his way into or out of any problem---he said it himself, "I have a gift"..........yeah well, 'your gift' doesn't work on everyone---we see your far left agenda---and We The People will never accept it---period.

Isn't the best place to start, tort reform?

He is going on Letterman, big whoop. Two big egos at the same time instead of one. I Hope their ratings go south.

JF.......You have the soundest idea of anyone but BO will pass that by like a hot potato.

He doesn't want a solution, just the results that he can live with. Nameily, to be the ruler of all he can see.

This behaviour by the President just proves how bad this bill will be for the American people! Too much selling; there must be a problem!!!

Now yours is a worthy idea.

RV

hey popeyethedork,...Obama just 'hides out' from Foxnews......with his 'controlled crowd'-the lefty media ;^)

popeye.... you stated "He has the ability to communicate his ideas very well" when speaking about Obama.

That is only a true statement so long as the teleprompters are up and in good working order.

If not, he sounds like a stumbling fool with his words, um, uh, uh, um, let me be clear, um, uh.

A gift..... ROTFLMAO !!!!!!

As the parasitic lemmings chant "YES WE CAN".... Yes we can, run this country into the ground faster than anyone thought humanly possible.

And Obama wants your tax dollars to keep his friends like this man ; http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14814, he doesnt give a dam how he steals the money, from student loans, from banks, from the working people, from the treasury dept, or from his healthscam bill! Thats all it is; wealth redistribution! All wrapped in a nice blankey of socialism, disguised as "helping the poor people"! And the sheep actually believe this con game lol talk about selling matches in hell rof.

Yeah he lauched a blitz, but only on networks that very few watch. And some one said he is so brilliant. What a joke.

Obama loved to playthe race card! I also hit the "channel change" when he pops up on my TV screen!

The race card is such a smoke screen used by democrats to avoid listening to those of us who have real concerns about government takeover of health care.

By the way, Nixon was hated. Carter was hated. Reagan was hated. Both Bush's were hated. As were both Clintons. And now Obama is hated.

The common thread I see above is policy - not race.

There're only 30% of you that feel like you do.30%YOU don't speak for the majority.Maybe a s..tload louder,but not the majority.Tried to watch Fox news,had to change it.Could'nt stand hearing the crap they spew.D'ja notice how much Beck's eyes pop out?I noticed how all the rpubs look like insurance execs?I Slick.

He doesn't have to spend a dime to start his own "media" blitz...the networks loooovvvvvve him...

Chin.spud,chin.Ya got @!$%# on your chin.Wipe it off.Oh yeah,no charge.

Where the Hell you been?

I agree there are many people out there that want to catch a free ride on the backs of people who work hard for a living.

But what about the people who worked hard for a living, and are no disabled because of the work. Do they not deserve to have affordable health care? Don't they deserve to have a chance to have a surgery that may help reverse their disablity so they can get back to work?

Or should they just suck it up and live in pain, and shame, because they can not take care of themselves and they have people come into their homes and tell them how they should live?

I think that they deserve the health care... and no one will understand completely unless you are one day put into their shoes and know what it is like to live with a unprotected spinal injury, which gives you a constant pain that rates a 10 on scale everyday, for 6 1/2 years. And all you need is a back surgery to help correct it, and you could gain the full use of your legs, you will be able to have better balace, you would be able to go back to work again.

if they are disabled they can get h.c. through disability , s.s. , or even welfare if they did not work long enough. poor argument.

I don't think that many would deny that anyone who is sick should be able to get help. For most in our nation, this is so. For some, it's not.

The difficulty with the current approach is that they are trying to do way to much, again, with 1000+ page bills.

Many of us old enough to know better don't trust national government, and history has proven us right in many cases. So when they want to try and screw with 17% with one bill, it IS too much. No group can manage this amount of change, it's not only not possible, but their estimates are not to be believed.

This group, with Obama as their leader, just a few months ago told us if they passed the stimulus unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5%. Only a couple of months later Obama admitted they had no idea how big the problem was.

So they / he was either a liar, or he was incompetent to deal with a problem the size of our economy. I will go with the latter, as I don't know of anyone who is competent enough to "manage" an economy of nearly 300 million people. Seriously.

The ONLY thing that makes sense with this issue is to look at each component individually, and repair one component at a time. Trust, but verify, because all of this is theory at this point. Anything else is simply foolishness.

Wtoc,

you would be suprised at how many people will turn people away because they do not have money.

Also not everyone that is disabled can claim disability, or S.S. For the person that I take care of, she does not qualify for either one. Strange seeing how she is 100% Disabled, but by guidelines that are set in order to qualify for disability she doesnt qualify... Something wrong with that picture don't you think.

Also another thing Welfare or government insurance does not cover everything. Infact they just cut out shower equipment for people with disabilities, so if she has to replace any of her equipment she has to pay for it out of pocket. They no longer cover the food that goes along with tube feeding (invetro food... I think it is called). They will not cover a medication that she needs in order to survive. This medication is 300.00 a month for a supply of 30 pills. How is she to afford that when she only gets 1088.00 a month??? I mean she has expenses too, she has to pay rent, pay heating bills, buy food... She does not live outside of her budget... After she pays bills and buys food, she has nothing left.... nothing...

How many people do you know that can live on that a month?

Everyone has a false picture of what the government will cover for people with disablities, etc... Not as easy as people think. And trust me they do not make it easy, because they do not want to pay for it... As well as doctors don't want to see them because they wont get paid.

AGarcia,

My mother-in-law and I were just discussing this.  Obviously, the current systems are flawed!  I know of one example where the individual is receiving disability for both herself and her son (who is 9) just because she is partially blind in one eye.  She has NEVER worked a day in her life.  She also has a live-in boyfriend who constitutes as husband because of common law marriage but the Government doesn't take his income into consideration.  Together they make more than my husband and I could ever dream about.   My mother is legally blind in one eye and hasn't even entertained the idea of going on disability.  That is a true American in my eyes.  The other individual is just lazy!  I know of people who are in far worse conditions but have been denied by the Government for any assistance. 

 As far as I am concerned welfare needs it's own reforms.  Welfare at one time or another was meant as a temporary boost to those who had fallen in bad times.  Now, it's more of a way of life.  I'm tired of handing out money to those types of individuals.  I'm tired of the what the system has become!  When has handing out money ever solved anyone's problems.  If anything it encourages them to stick with a defunct system.  I applaud those who did use welfare for what it was intended for - a temporary helping hand in a time of trouble but there are too few of those now and too many that would just rather live comfortable lives at the expense of others. 

I like the name "lamestream" media, did you coin it? Very fitting.

Another way to title the lamestream media: I want what I want and I want you to pay for it and if you don't, I 'Blame' you.

Blame = be lame.

Yes Gary - and they did the same thing to Medicare and Medicaid. BO said he will fund this "new" plan by stealing $500 billion from the current Medicare fund. No wonder seniors are scared.

Garyl

Thank you. The world seems unaware that Obama was not elected by the Left Wing of the Democratic Party , but by Moderate Democrats AND Independents because he campaigned as a centrist. (There are 350 Million Americans of which Pres Obama received 105 Million votes approx.) Why is he governing to appease the Left????

Social Security was to be sacrosanct, which it was not, and the retirement age was set at 65 at a time when life expentancy was at 67! Imagine what that did to current actuarial tables.

The latest Rasmussun poll shows 43% favor Obama's plan, 24% of which strongly favor it. What is not mentioned is that a large group of those opposed to the plan are people like myself who favor a single-payer system but would settle for a public option. I did not see the numbers you quoted in their polls. The savings from Medicare come from getting the insurance companies out of the system, increasing proficiency, and eliminating wasteful paractices, not from cutting benefits. Quit trying to scare the old folks.

If we can increase proficiency and eliminate wasteful practices in Medicare, why don't we do that BEFORE doing anything else to the health care system. If those were really possibilities, why haven't they happened yet? Shouldn't those running Medicare be trying to do that without a government directive?

There is not a chance any bill at this point could be cost neutral.

I think both sides of the aisle need to calm down. This debate is/should be about the role of the federal government. I have a hard time believing most republicans want to keep the lower class down and make sure the poor are denied access to healthcare. More likely, they look at the inefficiently run government programs (current and past) and don't expect a government agency to be the solution. Those on the democrat side of the aisle are showing compassion for those left uninsured by directly trying to help them, not by a desire to make the country socialist.

My opinion as of now is that our debt loving society does not know how to adequately budget and prioritize. Yes, some hard working people can't afford what they need, but many people in my area of the country live way beyond their means (multiple vacations, brand new cars, large tv's, huge new houses), then complain about the cost of health care. Until consumer debt gets under control, health insurance costs will always feel too high. Paying for what you NEED at this point isn't as palatable as paying for what you WANT.

logog - seriously? You believe these folks?

If they can save $500 billion as you state by "getting the insurance companies out of the system, increasing proficiency, and eliminating wasteful paractices" why not do that today?

Why not, when the economy is in a tailspin, write a 10 page bill that does exactly what you claim?

Because they are lying, that's why.

logig - There are no so called Medicare savings coming to the rescue. The waste/fraud that they are supposedly going to clean up and get 500M from is not going to cover the overall cost of the bills as now introduced. I agree with Paul F, if the savings are to be had then why did the congress, which has been now controlled by the democrats for nearly three years, do nothing, nada, about getting these costs under control from day one? They could have then realized actual revenue, starting out with up front monies and had concrete numbers in that respect to adjust their accounting. They were hell bent on reforming health care all through Obama's campaign. Why wasn't this savings implemented then, or now? Any CEO knows you need a plan before you bring it to the board. It's all a political game. Look at who are writing these bills, every last one of them has had some monetary connection with the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, AMA, AARP, lobby groups, etc. Should have been recused and only congress and senators who had no ties should have been the scribes. It's not about the good of the people, it's about who's paying who for favors. What happen to conflict of interest?

Don't be naive. In an idealistic world we would have Mr. Smith going to Washington and actually fighting for legislation that is for the people, by the people. We instead had the actual people go to Washington and get totally ignored. To blindly accept that these guys are doing what is best for the country is ludicrous. Because what we have discovered is that we have been blind for many many years, not just Bush era, but prior to that too. We grew complacent and lazy. Just think if they had passed this back before August when no questions were able to be raised. Well my old folk parents are worried and rightfully so. He told George S. he wasn't going to debate the Med. Advantage today. Only saying that the insurance companies are charging 14% more than the cost so the government can take it back and do a better service. Yeah sure! If you are wheeling and dealing and have the AMA and the hospitals, insurance companies and AARP to name a few in your pocket, then how come you can't negotiate lowering the fee to the Med. Advantage companies. A percentage of something is worth more than zero percent of nothing. Bull, the older people may be old, but they are not dumb. They've been through wars, depression, recessions and inflations. They have experienced in their lifetime more than any of us could imagine.

Its worse than a give away, you will be loosing your RIGHTS and your PRIVACY!!

Amen, brother, amen!

Speaking of Pelosi: I think she set back women by 50 years with her crying 'episode' this week over violence in the 70's.

Can you imagine a man in her position of power behaving the way she did?

Well, there was one man that I remember sobbing on tv - tv evangelist Jimmy Swaggart in the 80's after a sex scandal and his "I have sinned" speech.

Can any of us really imagine anyone in any of these positions, behaving the way they are today. And even worse, a bunch of young and or naive people actually buying it?

its the dems who are giving the ceo's more money. bailout equals more 7 figure salaries at tax payer expense

Whose salary did Obama cap? I must have missed that. Did he cap the salary of the woman on tv talk shows today from ACORN? Anyone else?

I would be thrilled to know of ANYONE whose salary he capped that involve my taxes.

cardsfan - honestly? Your IIC just swindled the US taxpayers out of more than a TRILLION dollars in his first 6 months, paying off his banker and Wall St buddies. Bush was bush-league in comparison to this guy - Obama and his ilk are the new mob.

Freedom of choice...It's none of the government's business whether i have health care or not...I don't want to subsidise ,GE,Wal-Mart,GM-UAW, for their health care....

Take GE for instance..They are self insured..The spend 2 billion a year to provide health care..They will drop their plan in a second....Eight percent of 2 billion is a drop in the hat...That way the tax payers are saddled with a benefit GE should pay..

They will pay less than 200 million ,for a benifit they pay 2 billion for...What do you think they will do?

kerry lets break down what you are saying

1.you are saying its the insurance companies that are charging to much? If so is it health care insuance

2.if someone forces you to carry insurance then we become a dictatorship? How about car insurance,it seems that is forced on us

3.doctors used to just study medicine in med school now they have a class to teach them how to sell.If you regulate cost to doctors or hospitals then is goverment getting involved in business?

4 This is not something that hasnt been tried in several countries that seem to work and hasnt enslaved anyone

5.individuals are the goverment weather they are repubs or dems..they are who we elected for a very tuff job

wilk i have noticed that if you like your health care right now you can keep it,for myself i would rather have the goverment option and not have to worry about some guy sitting in an office worried about the bottom line of some insurance company

larry-292879 - what makes you think the government plan will be better? Take a long hard look at the Medicare plan and tell me those covered by that plan are not subject to "bottom line issues". A government plan will be just as bad.

no spin...seems like you have an answer to our problems and the the 20 vaccations he has taken so far...seems like you would like to see him on perinate vacation so which is it? I can see you watch fox because of the water thing in california.Do you even know who or when that situation came about?