Heathcare Reform

ignorant wrote:

joey48442 wrote: I'd sure as E36 M3 take the VA over what Ive got now. (nothing) And it's not like I'm lazy. The wife and I work 50 hours a week each, during the summer, and whatever we can in the winter. Joey

The sad part of this whole debate is that the voices of folks like joey are getting drowned out by folks yelling about "no death panels"

I feel like the death panel idiots are just making it easy for everyone who is for national health insurance to just assume everyone who isn't is crazy. The question about how the plan is going to deal with end of life expenses is a valid one. Screaming about boogeymen is counterproductive.

P71 wrote: Look, you all *really* need to pay attention to this. The Gubment already has a Socialized health care system. It's called THE VA. Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Are you a VA patient? I have and I am. I will tell you all with absolute honesty that my primary goal in employment is to get PRIVATE medical so I *don't* have to use my military benefits. I was *medically retired* from the Coast Guard with a *Service-Connected* problem. That means the military wrote me a letter saying, "yes, we messed up, our bad, here's some medical insurance for the rest of your life" and it took the VA 14 MONTHS to start coverage. No investigation, no courts or decisions, the military TOLD them to cover me and it took OVER A YEAR. I personally think the care we give our Veteran's is absolute crap and THE *most* important issue that needs to be fixed. If we can't take care of our Veteran's how in the hell are we supposed to care for everybody? Trust me, you don't want government health care, *ever*.

There's a difference between what you fear and what I want.

The VA is a service provider that does a questionable job. Not sure where they get their funding, but I'd hedge a bet that it's through the defense funding- since that's where your retirement money would come from.

We have hundreds of hospitals and thousands of doctors out there already who provide a service. While we should at least attempt to clean up their act, they are the ones who do the real work, and should maintain. Arguably, they are WHY we have decent care in the US, even if it's not available to everyone.

What DOES need to go are the for profit insurance companies. The ones who tell you that they are more efficient than Medicare since their administrative costs are 3-5% vs. Medicare's 5%, but then turn around and take ANOTHER 10% for high wages at the top plus to pay shareholders. What do they do? Handle my money- that's it. Why does this industry make more profit than companies who make and build stuff is beyond me, and how we stand up and justify it is mind numbing.

Here's the deal- take all of the "insurance companies"- keep the people who properly process the paperwork, eliminate the jobs where "no" is the only answer, keep proper proportion of managers to keep tabs, and then put them on a government based salary structure. If they, then, stayed "private", I could deal with that. That, in essesnce, is what I would like to see. THAT is where the first order waste of our money is, where is we pooled all of the private insurance funds and eliminated ALL of the extra cost over Medicare, it would pretty much cover everyone in the country.

Then, I would ask doctors to really examine their processes, and see if they can work together better.

BTW, Duke- you mention protecting our rights- Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yadda, yadda- one can easily argue that medical coverage for the country is part of national security. Especially if you look at how many people have died in the US by preventable issues in the last year vs. how many people have died from people who wish harm on the US. Much better way to spend our collective socalistic $$.

Eric

I would wager that most prevalent "preventable" disease comes from the average Americans lifestyle vs our "sucky" healthcare. A nation of sedentary overeaters.

And didn't the CBO just release numbers that the money spent on administering "preventative" healthcare outweighs the spending that would have happened if the people who were going to get the disease anyway.

I know how to fix all of this. Ban heathcare in all its forms. The stronger, smarter people who will still be alive in 10yrs will come up with a plan.

alfadriver wrote:

P71 wrote: Look, you all *really* need to pay attention to this. The Gubment already has a Socialized health care system. It's called THE VA. Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Are you a VA patient? I have and I am. I will tell you all with absolute honesty that my primary goal in employment is to get PRIVATE medical so I *don't* have to use my military benefits. I was *medically retired* from the Coast Guard with a *Service-Connected* problem. That means the military wrote me a letter saying, "yes, we messed up, our bad, here's some medical insurance for the rest of your life" and it took the VA 14 MONTHS to start coverage. No investigation, no courts or decisions, the military TOLD them to cover me and it took OVER A YEAR. I personally think the care we give our Veteran's is absolute crap and THE *most* important issue that needs to be fixed. If we can't take care of our Veteran's how in the hell are we supposed to care for everybody? Trust me, you don't want government health care, *ever*.

There's a difference between what you fear and what I want. The VA is a service provider that does a questionable job. Not sure where they get their funding, but I'd hedge a bet that it's through the defense funding- since that's where your retirement money would come from. We have hundreds of hospitals and thousands of doctors out there already who provide a service. While we should at least attempt to clean up their act, they are the ones who do the real work, and should maintain. Arguably, they are WHY we have decent care in the US, even if it's not available to everyone. What DOES need to go are the for profit insurance companies. The ones who tell you that they are more efficient than Medicare since their administrative costs are 3-5% vs. Medicare's 5%, but then turn around and take ANOTHER 10% for high wages at the top plus to pay shareholders. What do they do? Handle my money- that's it. Why does this industry make more profit than companies who make and build stuff is beyond me, and how we stand up and justify it is mind numbing. Here's the deal- take all of the "insurance companies"- keep the people who properly process the paperwork, eliminate the jobs where "no" is the only answer, keep proper proportion of managers to keep tabs, and then put them on a government based salary structure. If they, then, stayed "private", I could deal with that. That, in essesnce, is what I would like to see. THAT is where the first order waste of our money is, where is we pooled all of the private insurance funds and eliminated ALL of the extra cost over Medicare, it would pretty much cover everyone in the country. Then, I would ask doctors to really examine their processes, and see if they can work together better. BTW, Duke- you mention protecting our rights- Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yadda, yadda- one can easily argue that medical coverage for the country is part of national security. Especially if you look at how many people have died in the US by preventable issues in the last year vs. how many people have died from people who wish harm on the US. Much better way to spend our collective socalistic $$. Eric

Eric, here's a link to an article that expands on the co-op alternative:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457112/ns/politics-washington_post/

Read the entire article and you'll see valid points on why co-ops may not be the panacea you believe.

BTW, arguing more citizens die from disease than at the hands of those who want us dead , therefore the funds must be diverted, is weak.

While there are those who want to kill "us", the ultimate goal is to subvert and ultimately destroy the socio-economic structure. I prefer the slow road to hell we're travelling now, over opening the door to those who's goal is to do worse and more quickly.

alfadriver said: What do they do? Handle my money- that's it. Why does this industry make more profit than companies who make and build stuff is beyond me, and how we stand up and justify it is mind numbing.

+5835438368735438136981487432587369/837694769846976 + 956289 x 89234758923659786123890789045

16vCorey wrote:

alfadriver said: What do they do? Handle my money- that's it. Why does this industry make more profit than companies who make and build stuff is beyond me, and how we stand up and justify it is mind numbing.

+5835438368735438136981487432587369/837694769846976 + 956289 x 89234758923659786123890789045

Keep your arguments in mind when a flood, hurricane, fire or earthquake destroys companies that make and build stuff, and the insurance industry doesn't have the liquid capital to pay the claims that allow said companies to rebuild.

That would be the unintended consequence of allowing emotions to over-ride logic.

alfa,

I see your point on insurance and I can even agree with most of it. What I'm saying is there is no berkleying way I want the Federal Government to be running the program. Change the law to make insurance companies non-profit, make plans open to everybody and start a price war via car insurance, all of that is cool with me. Even some sort of subsidized care for the people with no insurance/health care plan is OK. What's not gravy is letting the Government become the head administrator as that will guarantee killing most of us through bureaucracy and indifference.

The VA, as a separate cabinet than Defense, gets it's own paltry budget. Using them as an example of Government success is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my life. Do people NOT remember what happened at Walter Reed? That's the nicest VA Hospital, right in D.C., and even it was a National travesty. You should see the Portland VA center. The doctors and nurses try their hardest every day with lower and lower budgets, ancient failing equipment, and a constant financial oversight that doesn't allow them freedom to perform proper tests.

I have to schedule check-ups months in advance and any kind of urgent care (nasty cold, blister, whatever) is better handled by the local ER than waiting 2-3 weeks for an appointment or using the VA ER. I was stuck in the VA ER for 8 hours the one time I went in Intake. I was already in the system, had my VA Card, and had a VA Primary Care Doc. And it took them EIGHT HOURS to shuffle my papers before the over-worked and under-payed doctor could see me.

Toyman01 wrote: Pretty good article by John Stossel http://www.reason.com/news/show/134553.html

John Stossel is not a healthcare expert in my opinion. I don't view him as a reliable and knowledgeable commentator. I view anyone taking money from the healthcare industry the same way. That includes politicians on both sides of the aisle. We're getting screwed by people who stand to make truck loads of money off of us and some people are ok with that. For what reason I have no idea.

Toyman01 wrote: I don't want to tell people how to live their lives, but I also don't want them to tell me how to live mine either.

I'm a left leaning Libertarian. Offering people a health insurance option that is non-profit is not "telling me how to live."

What's wrong with a choice?

Hal wrote: After this was all over we thought we would have some fun comparing bills. On identical services(detemined by using their billing codes) provided by the same person/organization the initial cahrge was the same but his insurance company paid 5% to 20% more than mine. And neither of us had to make up the difference. Doesn't make sense to me!

Transparency in billing, I see, is a big problem. What other industry is allowed to conceal their billing to the same extent as the health industry?

A friend had to get rabies shots for his family, 2 adults and an infant. This required 3 visits to the emergency room as his insurance would only pay for those shots via the emergency room even though his primary doctor was able and willing to perform the procedure. Each visit to the ER was billed in an entirely different manner. Each bill was a different amount. Each bill had different procedures performed. Each time he visited the dr's and nurses in the ER performed the same exact procedures on his wife and child. WTF?!

MrJoshua wrote: Its been less than 50 years since people had babies and stayed in the hospital for more than a week, Without Insurance! The problem isn't lack of insurance, it's cost. Fix the real problems, don't tax us to pay for a broken system.

You're right. Cost is the issue. So lop off the profits to stock holders and over payed ins. company CEO's. That savings would be significant.

That or inject competition into the system by offering customers a choice. Public or private coverage. But that entails hyperbolic conversations that for some reason well paid CEO's and their bought/sold politicians would rather not have.

Again, what's wrong with having a choice? If it is not needed the choice will rapidly go away.

The truth is Medical ins. companies are deathly afraid of competition. They know how shoddy their product is. They know the amount of profit they make from denying patients coverage.

Also, shouldn't we have the same coverage as the Congressman and Senators debating this bill? Why are they treated like royalty and we are left? Aren't we all equal?

I'm not saying that what is on the table is what we need, but the system definitely needs to be reformed. It is totally berkeleyed as it stands. Here's an example: In December, my girlfriend was sitting at a stop light and was rear ended. The insurance company of the guy who hit her was really good about handing over the money for the car and said to keep them posted about any medical bills. They have already said they will take care of all the bills, and haven't lied to us yet. Anyway, her back is messed up from the wreck, and she's been doing physical therapy for six months to no avail. The doctors have told her from the get go that she'd probably need surgery, but she's trying to avoid it at all costs. So they've pretty much tried everything and it looks like she's going to have to have surgery. Herein lies the catch 22. She can't settle with the insurance company until the surgery is done, but she can't get the surgery until she settles with the insurance company! Even though the insurance company has already agreed to pay all the bills, no doctor will perform surgery on her because she doesn't have health insurance. So now she's had to retain a lawyer, which she's been trying to avoid from the get go, just so he can try to convince a doctor to treat her, and talk the hospitals into not taking her into collections or suing her for unpaid bills. So now an otherwise healthy (and totally hot) 30 y/o woman can't work, can't stand up for more than 10 minutes at a time, walks with a cane, and can't get treatment, because our health care system is broken. It should be very simple. Doctor talks to insurance company, insurance company agrees to pay, doctors treat patient. I know that insurance companies aren't always that willing to pay, but that's an argument for another time, as it's not the case here. They have agreed 100% to take care of all the bills, but she still can't get treatment without her own insurance and retaining a lawyer. The system is berkeleyed.

The system is berkeleyed, no doubt about it. I just don't see how the Feds will make it better.

I'd like to see them handle tort reform in an intelligent manner first. All this "we are going to sink into the ocean and never recover from our economic crisis because of healthcare" is berkeleying non-sense.

ignorant wrote: Total conjecture here.. but.. I'll bet those who are completely against the government plan have never had a close loved one have a severe illness. My friends and coworkers who have had relatives have cancer or a TBI are 100% for it.

Let's see:

Father, dead of cardiopulmonary/lymphatic cancer with multiple long hospitalizations, surgeries, chemo, and terminal care: CHECK.

Mother, 7-year survivor of 40mm brain tumor removal with multiple surgeries, PT, chemo, and hospitalizations, now dead of multiple, repeating strokes following knee replacement surgery with long-term therapy, hospitalization, increasing levels of nursing care, complete invalid status for the last year of her life: CHECK.

Sister, age 56, 20-year sufferer of multiple sclerosis with permanent vision, sensation, and balance issues; has to be carried upstairs to bed every night by her 58-year-old husband because they can't afford to sell their little 2-story house to buy a rancher, and there's no spare room on the ground floor: CHECK.

Against socialized medicine: CHECK.

SUCK IT, shiny happy person.

Toyman01 wrote: My wife broke her leg a week and a half ago. Between the $2k deductible and my 20 % I figure my share of the bill will be $5-7000. I will pay that happily rather than receive government health care. The initial visit took less than 2 hours, surgery happened the following morning at 7am. She had shattered her tibia in about 10 pieces. The stitches came out today in an office visit that lasted less than 45 minutes. In Canada if you need a CT scan the wait time is about a month. Unless you are a dog not on government health care, then you are in the next day.

$5-$7k for a broken leg, with insurance, and you're happy with that? I just don't get that. The service you received is very similar to what I would expect, here in Canada. I had a ct scan scheduled a few weeks ago. Since it was not an emergency, or serious injury, it was 3 days. If it were an emergency, you would get it immediately, assuming that it's physically possible.

My son had leukemia when he was young. 2 years of (excellent, topnotch, and immediate) treatment, and 5 years of followup probably would have bankrupt me outside Canada. I would have it no other way.

suprf1y wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: My wife broke her leg a week and a half ago. Between the $2k deductible and my 20 % I figure my share of the bill will be $5-7000. I will pay that happily rather than receive government health care. The initial visit took less than 2 hours, surgery happened the following morning at 7am. She had shattered her tibia in about 10 pieces. The stitches came out today in an office visit that lasted less than 45 minutes. In Canada if you need a CT scan the wait time is about a month. Unless you are a dog not on government health care, then you are in the next day.

$5-$7k for a broken leg, with insurance, and you're happy with that? I just don't get that. The service you received is very similar to what I would expect, here in Canada. I had a ct scan scheduled a few weeks ago. Since it was not an emergency, or serious injury, it was 3 days. If it were an emergency, you would get it immediately, assuming that it's physically possible. My son had leukemia when he was young. 2 years of (excellent, topnotch, and immediate) treatment, and 5 years of followup probably would have bankrupt me outside Canada. I would have it no other way.

Commie!

Colour me red

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote: The sad part of this whole debate is that the voices of folks like joey are getting drowned out by folks yelling about "no death panels"

I feel like the death panel idiots are just making it easy for everyone who is for national health insurance to just assume everyone who isn't is crazy. The question about how the plan is going to deal with end of life expenses is a valid one. Screaming about boogeymen is counterproductive.

agreed. there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, but nonsense like this is where the would-be conversation is headed. the only ones who benefit from that are those who are benefitting from the status quo.

"How Insurance Firms Drive the Debate"...by a former ins PR manager:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

Duke wrote: SUCK IT, shiny happy person.

You're out of line here. You might want to dial back the aggression. Everyone has bad days so I understand getting a bit carried away.

Buzz Killington wrote: agreed. there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, but nonsense like this is where the would-be conversation is headed. the only ones who benefit from that are those who are benefitting from the status quo. "How Insurance Firms Drive the Debate"...by a former ins PR manager: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

Excellent article Buzz.

Xceler8x wrote:

Duke wrote: SUCK IT, shiny happy person.

You're out of line here. You need to dial back the aggression. This was a civil conversation until you chipped in your two cents. Don't be That Guy.

Buzz Killington wrote: agreed. there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, but nonsense like this is where the would-be conversation is headed. the only ones who benefit from that are those who are benefitting from the status quo. "How Insurance Firms Drive the Debate"...by a former ins PR manager: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

Excellent article Buzz.

Yes, it is an interesting opinion piece.

But, as a counterpoint, here's an article reporting that at least one portion of the vaunted Canadian system is a money-losing proposition.:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

BTW, they're looking at cutting services in response to a budget shortfall.

suprf1y wrote: Colour me red

That would be most ironic if you lived and received medical treatment in BC.

See the above link^

oldsaw wrote: But, as a counterpoint, here's an article reporting that at least one portion of the vaunted Canadian system is a money-losing proposition.: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor BTW, they're looking at cutting services in response to a budget shortfall.

There is a difference in cutting back services and not being able to get medical attention because you, personally, cannot afford it. At least there is an effort on the BC government's part to offer the service for the good of it's citizenry. While here we seem to think that if you can't afford thousands of dollars, or even tens of thousands of dollars, of medical then you must be watching too much cable TV.

The truth is good people who work hard still cannot afford health care. It would seem a good portion of you are ok with this as "Hey! I've got mine! Them commies must be watching too much cable or eating out too much."

I'd put a smiley face here but if you can't see the humor in that you watch too much Fox news.

I'm not saying Obama has it right but our healthcare system is failing. We have to get a handle on costs. Leaving it up to capitalism isn't working. It hasn't worked since healthcare became an issue and it isn't going to start working in the future just because we want it to so very, very badly.

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

joey48442 wrote: I'd sure as E36 M3 take the VA over what Ive got now. (nothing) And it's not like I'm lazy. The wife and I work 50 hours a week each, during the summer, and whatever we can in the winter. Joey

The sad part of this whole debate is that the voices of folks like joey are getting drowned out by folks yelling about "no death panels"

I feel like the death panel idiots are just making it easy for everyone who is for national health insurance to just assume everyone who isn't is crazy. The question about how the plan is going to deal with end of life expenses is a valid one. Screaming about boogeymen is counterproductive.

BIG +1. The quickest way to lose an argument is to overstate it.

I could post a gazillion reasons why I don't want HR 3200 to pass, but I suppose most of those reasons have been covered. I will say this:

• I'm uninsured. I smoke and I drink. If I quit smoking and drinking, I could afford insurance. It's my own dumb-ass fault for smoking and drinking. It is it not my neighbor's responsibility to pay for the results of my bad habits. Also, I don't want my right NOT to have insurance taken away!!! As with EVERY other government program, the actual cost will be greater than projected cost, and the budget will increase exponentially every year. The penalty tax for NOT having insurance will likely go up every few years as well.

• We have a "public healthcare option" It's called Medicare/Medicaid. A huge chunk of the money the fed. steals from you as a taxpayer already goes to Medicare/Medicaid, and SS. That's obviously not enough. How much more are you willing to spend? 50% of your income?

• Here's the big one for me: When did we get a right to live forever (hint: we didn't.) So if we don't have a right to live forever, how long do we have a right to live for? I'm not screaming "OBAMA LIES, GRANNY DIES!" What I'm saying is, at what is your neighbor's life not worth your tax dollars? If your 90 year old neighbor needs $200,000 worth of surgeries to keep his unproductive ass alive for another year, should the government be able to steal that money from you, the young, healthy taxpayer? (seriously, I'm just curious.)

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I will say this:

Until recently, my wife and I had a ~$250 / month, catastrophic policy, and a Health Savings Acct. the catastrophic thing covered hospitalization for accidents, cancer, yada yada yada.

If I got sick, and called to set up an appointment with the doctor, I always asked "What's the CASH price?" A doctor visit was $60. Antibiotics are $4.00. Yes. FOUR DOLLARS.

I had to have two minor outpatient surgeries last year. Cost with insurance? $1,200 CASH price? $100. Again, more $4.00 antibiotics were needed.

Just food for thought.

poopshovel wrote: * I'm uninsured. I smoke and I drink. If I quit smoking and drinking, I could afford insurance. It's my own dumb-ass fault for smoking and drinking. It is it not my neighbor's responsibility to pay for the results of my bad habits. --snip-- If I got sick, and called to set up an appointment with the doctor, I always asked "What's the CASH price?" A doctor visit was $60. Antibiotics are $4.00. Yes. FOUR DOLLARS. I had to have two minor outpatient surgeries last year. Cost with insurance? $1,200 CASH price? $100. Again, more $4.00 antibiotics were needed. Just food for thought.

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care. At least if we threw everybody in the same pool we could attempt to make the distribution of costs a bit more fair, with the side benefit of making everyone generally healthier and not letting people go bankrupt because they had the audacity to get sick or fall down the stairs.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: But, as a counterpoint, here's an article reporting that at least one portion of the vaunted Canadian system is a money-losing proposition.: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor BTW, they're looking at cutting services in response to a budget shortfall.

There is a difference in cutting back services and not being able to get medical attention because you, personally, cannot afford it. At least there is an effort on the BC government's part to offer the service for the good of it's citizenry. While here we seem to think that if you can't afford thousands of dollars, or even tens of thousands of dollars, of medical then you must be watching too much cable TV. The truth is good people who work hard still cannot afford health care. It would seem a good portion of you are ok with this as "Hey! I've got mine! Them commies must be watching too much cable or eating out too much." I'd put a smiley face here but if you can't see the humor in that you watch too much Fox news. I'm not saying Obama has it right but our healthcare system is failing. We have to get a handle on costs. Leaving it up to capitalism isn't working. It hasn't worked since healthcare became an issue and it isn't going to start working in the future just because we want it to so very, very badly.

So allow me to re-state the point so that those who watch Fox or NBC, or read the Huffington Post or Newmax can understand -

Even the Canadian-run has problems and it limits services based on budgetary concerns. Yes, everyone has access, but when supply is limited everyone has to wait and waiting too long for a procedure or even a check-up can kill people.

Yes, the US healthcare system needs an overhaul. But a single-payer system as originally targeted by Obama (and others) puts a woefully inadequate government in charge. That's the part that gets folks riled-up.

The current system will only change (for the better) when special interests and governmental demagogues get out of the berkelying process. It's their intrusion(s) that helped make things what they are now and few trust they have the integrity to fix the problem.

And that's another part that gets people riled-up.

BTW, everyone in the US has access to medical attention, whether or not they have insurance coverage. It's a prime reason why ER's are crowded and too many hospitals operate at a loss, even though those losses are covered via the tax burden.

No one can deny there is a problem. But the President has painfully underestimated his salesmanship in his hurried efforts to change the system. He hasn't earned and is not earning the necessary trust from the people who put him in office.

poopshovel wrote: * Here's the big one for me: When did we get a right to live forever (hint: we didn't.) So if we don't have a right to live forever, how long do we have a right to live for? I'm not screaming "OBAMA LIES, GRANNY DIES!" What I'm saying is, at what is your neighbor's life not worth your tax dollars? If your 90 year old neighbor needs $200,000 worth of surgeries to keep his unproductive ass alive for another year, should the government be able to steal that money from you, the young, healthy taxpayer? (seriously, I'm just curious.)

That is a good point. At which point is enough enough to keep someone alive. Does a 90 yr old man benefit society more with a quadruple bypass or is his time just up?

Someone will have to make those decisions. As of now it's left up to insurance companies. That's how you hear about little girls dying of failed kidney's because insurance wouldn't cover the procedure. I'm sure the flip side of that is the Canadian medical program taking too long to get the old guy on the table.

I had to have two minor outpatient surgeries last year. Cost with insurance? $1,200 CASH price? $100. Again, more $4.00 antibiotics were needed. Just food for thought.

Where are you going for care? You couldn't get a seat in the doctor's office here for $100. Richmond, Va FYI.

oldsaw wrote: Even the Canadian-run has problems and it limits services based on budgetary concerns. Yes, everyone has access, but when supply is limited everyone has to wait and waiting too long for a procedure or even a check-up can kill people.

Agreed. As I stated previous, right now we have guys who stand to benefit from denying service making decisions on medical care. Maybe a guy who gets a bonus for saving his company money shouldn't decide if you deserve medical attention.

Yes, the US healthcare system needs an overhaul. But a single-payer system as originally targeted by Obama (and others) puts a woefully inadequate government in charge. That's the part that gets folks riled-up. The current system will only change (for the better) when special interests and governmental demagogues get out of the berkelying process. It's their intrusion(s) that helped make things what they are now and few trust they have the integrity to fix the problem. And that's another part that gets people riled-up.

Seems we have a devil's bargain here. Let insurance companies decide on healthcare or the government? Insurance companies are $$ motivated while government is politically motivated.

I agree completely that neither can be trusted 100%. I can say, that personally, I trust people motivated strictly by money the least. Therefore my belief that capitalism can't fix this problem.

Medicine exists to help people first and foremost. When you attempt to impose a profit motive into the medical system you put two goals at odds with each other. Those goals are providing help to people which is expensive. The other goal being to make a profit which requires cost savings which usually equates into not helping people.

He hasn't earned and is not earning the necessary trust from the people who put him in office.

Well. I don't know about that. Seems the people who are complaining the most were McCain supporters.

I'm oversimplifying to make a joke.

As you may or may not be able to see, your neighbor ALREADY IS paying for your health care

I make money. I use the money I make to pay the doctor. How the hell is my neighbor paying for my health care? Please ess-plain.