Liberal Dems best take this health-care deal

Barring a sudden change of fortunes — either the taxpayers’ good fortunes or those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — liberal Democrats won’t be able to push through the radical remake of the nation’s health care system as they’d proposed.

Centrist Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs who represent states and districts where the parties are still competitive, balked. In the Senate, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are working a bill that would drop the government “insurance” option in favor of a “nonprofit cooperative” that would sell insurance.  Gone, too, is a provision that invited large companies to dump medical costs onto taxpayers, though high-dollar benefits may be taxed at 35 percent and companies will be taxed to ”reimburse the government” for the subsidies that would go to those whose income is less than 300 percent of poverty.

Insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to any applicant and they could not charge higher premiums for those with pre-existing medical conditions.

A commission, something akin the the base-closing commission used to eliminate excess military facilities, would be created to curtail future Medicare costs.

The radicals within the Democratic Party are incensed that the Blue Dogs have denied them an opportunity to overreach.  Frankly, what the six Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are proposing is considerably far-reaching.  It creates a huge new welfare entitlement and, for the most part, hides the cost.  Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions means that those higher costs are spread among other policy-holders.  The subsidies for those whose income is less than 300 percent of poverty,  $66, 150 for a family of  four,  will essentially establish a welfare base that reaches into the middle class. Everybody will be required to have insurance.

The proposal coming out of the Senate Finance Committee is the best chance liberal Dems have of getting ObamaCare this year.  When members of Congress go home and hear from constitutents who are now getting the word on the full impact of what the Pelosi Democrats are doing, support will soften even further.

Democrats don’t need any Republicans to pass the proposed monstrosity.  But I promise you that they don’t want their party’s legacy to be a complete federal takeover of health care in America.

234 comments Add your comment

yeah right

July 28th, 2009
11:40 am

What’s a progressive liberal? One of them who actually works? I think that term was invented by pollsters, and has no basis in fact. Michael Jackson is still dead. So is the kenyan’s healthcare.


July 28th, 2009
11:40 am

I am for some form of universal healthcare, just not sure how it should look or work. The question that I have are for those saying that the “government” will be making the decisions for you and the decisions will not be made by the doctor and patient. For those of us that currently have healthcare or have had it in the past, do you realize that medical procedures where not decided solely by the doctor and patient but also the INSURANCE company. If a certain procedure was deemed not necessary by your insurance company, it would not be paid for even if you and your doctor thought it was necessary.

For those that keep saying that the government will be deciding what medical procedures you have, you may be correct, I don’t know but you must also agree that this is already being done now with the insurance companies. I am all for having a debate but please let’s tell both sides of the story.


July 28th, 2009
11:41 am

Well said Kelly


July 28th, 2009
11:44 am

yeah right.. Another Ignorant poster in AJC. Did you see it was said that Obama was born in Hawaii? Festival of Ignorance today and they are all meeting in AJC


July 28th, 2009
11:45 am

whatever: I’m not relying on a study; these figures are from the federal budget.

If you mean to argue that the quality of healthcare in the USA is actually better than the UK, I’d say on the basis of personal experience that you’re mistaken.

But it’s a moot point anyway: If you live in the UK and you don’t like the NHS, you can still pay for private insurance. Private insurance available in the UK is substantially cheaper, and while you’re still paying taxes toward the NHS they don’t cost substantially more than the amount of tax you’d be paying to fund Medicare/Medicaid in the USA.

All told, an average brit with private health cover is perhaps $3000 per year better off than an American with the same cover, if you take both taxes and insurance into account.


July 28th, 2009
11:48 am

people you do not want the govt telling you where go see a dr that causes you to loose freedom of choice. i am 64 and i want drs i am use to having not someone may not know what they are doing. then have problem of long waiting periods to be seen by a dr come on people seems me we getting closer to being commies then ever

the man

July 28th, 2009
11:49 am

Lobbyist is trying to play the race card. One of you pelosi lovers help a goof out.


July 28th, 2009
11:51 am

I am a widow with 3 children (2 in college), that lost her job, my insurance per month is 800 with a 5000 dollar deductible. I had/have medical problems over the summer and it was like pulling teeth to get some of the test approved from the ins. co……I cannot afford the insurance anymore and am afraid I am going to have to drop it. I do not see any difference in private ins. and gov. ins., private will not approve things either. I was on a blog last week saying the same thing. I was hoping that at least we would have a choice. I am a Republican, but I AM TIRED of people saying you are lazy if you want a handout. I do not want a handout, I just want affordable health care.

Get Real

July 28th, 2009
11:54 am

First off, use one font. Second, it appears that you’re in favor of insurance companies denying coverage to individuals and charging them higher rates based on what time of day it is, and the positioning of the moon. Everything that you claim is so ‘radical’ about government run health care is already happening in the private sector. Private bureaucrats at insurance headquarters decide what plan of treatment individuals receive. Tort reform gives preference to doctors over patients they’ve injured or killed. Studies conducted by the National Practitioners Data Bank ( found that medical malpractice claims have fallen over the years, even though chickenhawk republicans such as yourself have claimed that ‘frivolous lawsuits’ are whats the problem with health care.

So why believe you now when you say the ‘radical’ democrats have the audacity to try and pass a health care plan that will cover most Americans. As if there is a problem with that. The cost to treat uninsured and underinsured patients are already being passed on to individuals through higher premiums. But you’d rather maintain the status quo. Why? It only serves the purpose of the insurance companies… Is that why you want to maintain the poor level of service with up to 98,000 patients killed per year due to medical errors? Even the malpractice premiums doctors pay are paid for by patients through higher costs, but you have no problem with that. Only who will receive those higher costs. Retire man, you’re out of your league now.


July 28th, 2009
12:05 pm

To Rhonda, I agree with you 100%. Just because you can’t afford health insurance people automatically assume that you want a handout when asking for some form of universal healthcare. Just like in Rhonda’s case, it could be as simple as not wanting to pay an arm and a leg just to have coverage. For others it could be the choice of doctors, pre-existing conditions, etc. What good is insurance if I can’t afford it or they won’t cover my pre-existing condition or some other special circumstance?


July 28th, 2009
12:06 pm

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about the “nonprofit cooperative” on NPR news. When you think about it, this option makes great sense. It takes the profitability away from the middle man, so that almost all the payer’s premiums are used to pay for medical costs, and does not feed the corproate profit machines that exist today. The best thing about co-ops…. at the end of the year, any money left over is given back to the payors, and not lining the pockets of some SOB exec. I don’t favor a “public” option, but “for profit” healthcare isn’t working either.


July 28th, 2009
12:14 pm

We just need to adopt the model used very successfully for decades by the other Western nations. It’s what an advanced society does for itself. The system works, and those Americans who rail against it (without any real evidence, mind you) are just spouting propaganda.

eagle scout

July 28th, 2009
12:16 pm


July 28th, 2009
11:44 am

If you were referring to my post….Read between the lines. It was satire!

ha ha

July 28th, 2009
12:24 pm

Bookmans on vacation, the libtards are lost.


July 28th, 2009
12:36 pm

Mac – That’s where we’re going. The thought was that Americans would find the denial of benefits parts very hard to take but in a few years allowing the elderly and the very ill to just die will seem quite normal.


July 28th, 2009
12:42 pm

See Jake, that’s just the dead wrong (pun intended) propaganda I was referring to. Good boy. Here’s a treat for you.


July 28th, 2009
12:44 pm

Hell I already wait 4 weeks for medication through Medco!! Who wants to take 4 week old medication that’s been floating around in the postal system?? Give me a plan that I can go back to the local pharmacy and not have to pay double co-pay which is what is is now.


July 28th, 2009
12:45 pm


I made no implication relative to everyone paying into the current system. I was merely pointing out what happens in a system that is/is not all inclusive. To further break down the analysis, if there were a single-payer system in place -socialism as many like to call it – like that of Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, well you get it, we would have a single amount paid to handle our health insurance premium.

Australians pay roughly 7% of their salaries toward their health care and everything is covered. There is no such thing is a pre-existing exclusion.

If you could find the time, please explain how my logic is flawed?


July 28th, 2009
12:46 pm

New thinking won the election. Name calling and same ole same ole loses. Parties have to change to win. “D”s did, it worked.

Better come up with something, nothing loses.


July 28th, 2009
12:49 pm

Hey Aquagirl, why would they exclude the dead people? They voted for Obozo…

Jackie, I guess you live in an alternate reality.
“Universal health care is based upon shared risk, therefore, each citizen pays $10 to cover those medical cost along with other monies required to meet the profit margins of insurance companies.”
The loser who does not pay now is not going to pay in the future so who gets stuck with the bill? Oh that’s right the government, but the government does not have any money, they steal it from us, the working poor.


July 28th, 2009
12:55 pm

Jackie your logic is flawed because when people in Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, get really sick where do they go for treatment? They come here dingbat, that is because we have the best healthcare in the world. If you think that medical care is so good there, why do they come here? By the way Canada has a 55% tax, do you really think that we would pay less than that?


July 28th, 2009
12:56 pm

@the man

When you cannot debate based on merit, use names calling and use the race card. Very sad but can be totally expected.


July 28th, 2009
12:59 pm

@ eagle scout

It was not your post..


July 28th, 2009
1:05 pm

@ Jefferson

Well said.. IF you play the same old story everytime you will lose. The republicans were saying why the healthcare reform in 45,93 and 09. So keep up the good work and become more meaningless


July 28th, 2009
1:09 pm

going back to jacksmith one more time……..two things……i think we have the BEST hospitals and doctors in the world, just MY opinion, but we are AMERICA……i don’t believe we are 37th in the world, and to prove that point, if someone you know got a serious illness and needed the best treatment in the world, and you could take them anywhere in the world, then please list for me the 36 places you would take that person before “settling” for American healthcare????


July 28th, 2009
1:11 pm


We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.

I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. A trillion dollar taxpayer funded private health insurance bailout is all you really get without a robust government-run public option available on day one. Co-OP’s ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION. They are a fraud being pushed by the GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry that is KILLING YOU!


These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!

Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it’s President Obama’s fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.

But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.

But you don’t have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.

Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will help you feel better too.

There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.

I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!

You have been AMAZING!!! my people. Don’t loose heart. You knew it wasn’t going to be easy saving the World. :-)

God Bless You

jacksmith — Working Class


Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.

* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah


July 28th, 2009
1:13 pm

JackLeg – The top rate of income tax in Canada is 29%. The top rate in the USA is 35%.

Your ‘55% tax’ is imaginary, as are all the ‘really sick’ people from the UK and Canada coming to the US for treatment. The people from the USA ordering drugs from Canadian pharmacies because they’re cheaper are quite real, however.


July 28th, 2009
1:15 pm

“to prove that point, if someone you know got a serious illness and needed the best treatment in the world, and you could take them anywhere in the world, then please list for me the 36 places you would take that person before “settling” for American healthcare????”

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica

The real issue

July 28th, 2009
1:18 pm

Again, we all know that there are problems with the system. However, a gov’t run healthcare system is not the answer. Get all agendas out of the way and figure out what will work best to address the problems the system has (Affordability , IT/PHR linking patient and doctor, pre-existing conditions, TORT Reform).


July 28th, 2009
1:23 pm

>However, a gov’t run healthcare system is not the answer.

Would you mind explaining why not? It seems to work fine for every other industrialised nation.

Personally I don’t care what the solution is as long as it works, but all of the proven systems I’m aware of are government run or some form of hybrid system like the French use.


July 28th, 2009
1:37 pm

Remember when your family doctor could tell you, in plain English, what was wrong and what they were gonna do to help you feel better and make you well.
Remember when Blue Cross/Blue Shield was a nonprofit, membership owned organization whose board of directors voted to morph into a private, forprofit to better serves it’s “members” (translation: customers). That was to help make everybody feel better.
Does it feel better today than when Harry S Truman first started talking about reforming healthcare 50 years ago? I din’t think so.
One day you might be able to say, “I remember when the U.S, government finally won the 50-year fight against a greedy healthcare industry that spent a billion dollars on Fox News and in PAC funds to support obstructionist Republicans to continually confuse the issues for people who never can seem to think for themselves.”
Maybe one day and, we hope one day soon, you’ll visit your family doctor and instead of prescribing 50 “inconclusive” but expensive tests, she’ll simply say: “You’re obese, out of shape and ugly. Take two aspirins and if your’re not feeling better, call me in the morning.”

Dunwoody Mike

July 28th, 2009
1:40 pm

Whatever Posted…okay, maybe i am confused (and that is admittedly a good possibility).

1) where is health care coverage a right?
2) where in my contract with the insurance company does it say that they have to provide me with coverage in all instances?


Ever heard about a little thing called human respect and dignity? Allowing someone to be bankrupted, evicted from their home, or worse, because they do not have access to affordable health care is an affront to human rights.

Do the Math

July 28th, 2009
2:00 pm

National Health Care Spending

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2
The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6
The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.7

Paul A

July 28th, 2009
2:02 pm

Quit blaming the “obstructionist Republicans”.

Democrats have all the votes they need to pass this junk bill.

It’s the Dems holding you weaklings up. If Pelosi and Reid had their stuff together it would already have been passes just like the other trash they’ve thrust upon those who work.

BTW… quit blogging from mommie’s basement and get a job!

Hillbilly Deluxe

July 28th, 2009
2:13 pm

Transplants reconstruction surgery and other major medical procedures will stop at age 60. Unless user pays out of pocket for those procedures.

I imagine when you hit 60 and start feeling under the weather, you’ll change your tune right quick about that.


July 28th, 2009
2:19 pm

No goverment run health it will ruin are country. NO PUBLIC HEALTH CARE!! They need to worry about jobs !! Half of MY Family is layoff!! PLease lets get smart and wake up!


July 28th, 2009
2:24 pm

The gov’t. passed laws requiring all US citizen’s to buy auto insurance, which pleased the insurance companies, but the insurance companies don’t want the gov’t. to pass laws requiring them to provide us with health insurance. Why can’t the insurance companies use the profits they make from auto insurance to offset the costs of health insurance? Or better yet pay dividends to those of us who don’t have an automobile insurance claim over the course of the year to help pay for our own health insurance?

Paul A

July 28th, 2009
2:28 pm

At the current pace, the Federal Debt will be doubled in less than eight years. It took 43 Presidents to get the debt to ten trillion dollars. Obama will double it in less than eight. The current deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars is more than the last five years of Bush’s deficits combined. And, last night in his sales pitch on health care, Obama says that this year’s deficit is inherited from President Bush. Who is he kidding?

Click the link…. I dare you.

The real issue

July 28th, 2009
2:29 pm

Jack, I disagree that the gov’t options around the world have actually been sucessful. I like you want something that works but it would not come from a program run by the gov’t. What have they ever run correctly? To get an idea of what we might be in for, please study the Massachusetts model they adopted a few years back. To put it lightly, the model was a failure. Also, Switzerland and the Netherlands have recently enacted systems that actually move away from public coverage and to health plans. We all know how our buddies to the North systems works. They all come here. If we do adopt a gov’t run system in the U.S. I’d invest directly into Medical Tourism companies.


July 28th, 2009
2:32 pm

“Social Security-Yeah, like that will be there when most of us hit retirement age”

Tray, you are correct. Social Security, AKA Reagan Security, will be gone when you reach the age President Reagan said you could start drawing. You will draw nothing if you plan on drawing past about 2020. Social Security would already be gone & all that money stolen out of your paychecks all these years would still be in your pocket if that great American conservative Ronald Reagan had not made a deal with Tip O’Neil & “saved” it. That’s why we now call it Reagan Security. Now you know who to thank.


July 28th, 2009
2:49 pm

jcon – The traitor Reagan did raise the rates allowing SS to remain solvent for a lot more years. However, he stopped short of making it permanently solvent by raising the rate eveen more, including a needs test for beneficiaries, etc.


July 28th, 2009
3:21 pm

Given the large number of Canadians in hospital in their country I doubt that they’re all coming here for health care.

Curious Observer

July 28th, 2009
3:21 pm

Raising the withholding rates for SS was one thing. However, creating a tax on half the SS income for people over certain income levels was quite another. Many wound up paying tax again on withholdings on which they’d already been taxed. It’s not as though SS contributions were tax-exempt in the first place–or even tax-deferred.


July 28th, 2009
3:31 pm

>Jack, I disagree that the gov’t options around the world have actually been sucessful. I like you want something that works but it would not come from a program run by the gov’t. What have they ever run correctly?

How about the fire department? Or the roads? Or any one of the thousands of things the government runs quietly in the background which you never notice to complain about? This idea that anything the government runs is going to be as dingy and unpleasant as the DMV is just false.

You can disagree all you like, but the evidence says that the healthcare programmes of other countries have been successful. Can you show me a country that uses a non-public healthcare system that is as effective as that of France or England?

>To get an idea of what we might be in for, please study the Massachusetts model they adopted a few years back. To put it lightly, the model was a failure.

Massachusetts doesn’t have public healthcare, it has subsidised healthcare which suffers from many of the same problems that private healthcare does – predominantly, being overpriced.

A real example of failed nationalised healthcare in the USA would be the TennCare system Tennessee adopted briefly, but that suffered from several serious problems that organisations such as the NHS have long ago solved. There was no organisation like NICE to ensure that treatments were good value for money, and there were no prescription fees, so the system was massively overutilised – it was cheaper to go to the doctor and get a prescription for cold medicine than to just go and buy it over the counter, so the state ended up covering countless unnecessary prescriptions AND doctor’s visits. On top of that it had to buy care in the same inflated market that the nation-wide private healthcare regime creates, so the money didn’t go as far as it would in Canada or the UK.

Ayn Rand was right

July 28th, 2009
3:39 pm

Good afternoon everyone.

Neutron – I am sorry about your girlfriend and her difficult situation. Given her circumstances, at least she was able to purchase insurance to keep her alive and comfortable for some time. Under a government run program, that would not be the case. Once labeled terminal, a patients care will be minimized to ensure more services for the living.

Personally, I think the very best choice would be to eliminate the middle man immediately. By out-lawing health insurance, doctors could get back to the business of doctoring, and all that money you pay into health insurance could be put in an account for YOUR health care needs. Now that is a plan that will work for those who are responsible, and for those that choose to spend their money elsewhere, they can negotiate a deal with the doctors like the old days.

Add up all the money you pay into your health insurance plan and see how much you would have to take care of a dire situation. By the way, those who currently cannot afford to pay for insurance (or choose not to do so) will be out of luck if this passes. The costs will be deducted from your paycheck. You go to JAIL for not paying your taxes. See if that does not put a crimp in your wallet.

billy bob from cobb

July 28th, 2009
3:48 pm

rd not sure you noticed but blue cross does not sell auto insurance


July 28th, 2009
3:49 pm

Paulie: I’m not blaming obstructionist Repubs, but I am explaining that they and a lot of well-paid others are confusing the issues involved with healthcare. Listen to all the well-placed buzz words used in this blog that collectively sounds like classic anarchy. This all started with the Magna Carta as a basis for government’s role in the lived of its governed. This dialogue is descending into the toilet with many harping that government owes us nothing. Au contraire, goverment has to served the needs of the governed … immediate, imagined or otherwise.


July 28th, 2009
3:58 pm


Either you watch too much television or listen to Rush with the mistaken belief that you are being told the truth, SLOW MOTION!

What your post tells me is that you are using innuendo and half-truths to prove your invalid and specious point, of which you have none!

The real issue

July 28th, 2009
4:25 pm

Jack, the French pay tons in taxes to fund their system. I’d prefer to make some other changes before giving up 40% of my income to adopt the French model. Our system is broken but to let gov’t run the operation is a recipe for disaster. Allow insurers to cross state lines providing the system with competition (Ex. Gas station A has gas for $2.00 and gas station B across the street has gas for $1.50. In order to stay in business, gas station A will have to lower its cost to compete with gas B. Therefore, bring cost under control. Why shouldn’t Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia be able to compete with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio for customers? Cost will NEVER be under control until we make people responsible for their own healthcare choices.


July 28th, 2009
4:31 pm

Because insurance is regulated on a state level and not a federal level. P and C insurance sales people lobby hard to keep it that way.