Entitlement Rip-Off
By John Stossel (Archive) · Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.

These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.

But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.

Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.

Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.

Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.

As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."

Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.

The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.

The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.

De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

Alice in Health Care

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland.


What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? "It costs too much." Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.


One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.


Back when the "single payer" was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used — and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing. Money is just one of the costs of people seeking more medical care than they would if they were paying for it with their own money. Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.


In country after country, the original estimates of government medical care costs almost always turn out to be gross under-estimates of what it ultimately turns out to cost.


Even when the estimates are done honestly, they are based on how much medical care people use when they are paying for it themselves. But having someone else pay for medical care virtually guarantees that a lot more of it will be used.


Nothing would lower costs more than having each patient pay those costs. And nothing is less likely to happen.


One of the big costs that have actually forced some hospitals to close is the federal mandate that hospitals treat everyone who comes to an emergency room, whether they pay or not. But those who talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care" are not about to repeal that mandate. Often they want to add more mandates.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




The most fundamental issue is not whether treating everyone who comes to an emergency room is a good policy or a bad policy in itself. If it is a good policy, then the federal government should pay for what it wants done, not force other institutions to pay for it. Then let the voters decide at the next election whether that is what they want their tax money spent for.


Confusion between costs and prices add to the Alice in Wonderland sense of unreality.


What is called lowering the costs is simply refusing to pay all the costs, by having the government set lower prices, whether for doctors' fees, hospital reimbursements or other charges. Surely no one believes that there will be no repercussions from refusing to pay for what we want. Some doctors are already refusing to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients because the government's reimbursement levels are so low.


Similarly, if it costs a billion dollars to create one new pharmaceutical drug, then either we are going to pay the billion dollars or we are not going to keep on getting new pharmaceutical drugs produced. There is no free lunch.


Virtually everything that is proposed by those who are talking about bringing down the costs of medical care will in fact raise those costs. Mandates on insurance companies? Why are insurance companies not already doing those things that new mandates would require? Because those things raise costs by an amount that people are unwilling to pay to get those benefits.


If not, it would be a slam dunk for the insurance companies to add those benefits to the policies and raise the premiums to cover them. What politicians want to do is look good by imposing mandates, and then let the insurance companies look bad by raising the premiums to cover the additional costs.


It is a great political game, but it does nothing to lower medical costs.


Politicians who want a government monopoly on health insurance can easily get it, just by making it impossible for private insurance companies to charge enough to cover the costs mandated by politicians. The "public option" will then be the only option — which is to say, we will no longer have any real option.

Burke and Obama

By Thomas Sowell







http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.


When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States — a man with zero experience in business — can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.


Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."


Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.


Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"


The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."


He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands— and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.


He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."


People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.


The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.


Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."


He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"— the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.


The biggest challenge to America — and to the world — today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.


Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting — not talking.

Dear Salty J,

"Arrogance is no excuse for selfishness"...? Not sure I get what you are trying to convey back to me with those words, but I'm guessing you think I'm a selfish capitalist perhaps? I look in the mirror less these days now that I'm older and my hair has pretty much disappeared. Not sure what your "mirror" thing is unless you think I'm supposed to feel guilty about something I've done or did to somebody. I work. My wife works. We work so that we can provide for our two boys. I work because it provides me an income so that I can use that money to "trade" for things I need and want. I recently wanted to see the movie "Green Zone" at the movie theatre with my oldest son. Because the movie theatre "trades" in only money, I find it a must that I keep my job so that I can continue to "trade" for those things that I want and need. The movie theatre by the way not only gives me what I want (entertainment) but it also is a provider of jobs for people in our community. It also provides job for those people who worked to make the movie "Green Zone". It also provides jobs for those people in the popcorn industry, coke industry, cheese industry, straw industry, cup industry, seat making industry, movie projector industry, carpet industry, trash can industry, uniform industry, etc.... I think you get my point? I know it kills people like you (progressives) for all this economic activity to be going on without some beauracrat from Washington D.C. commanding what people ought to be doing for the "public good". And you have the audacity to call me "selfish"...I actually contritubed to my fellow man voluntarily...what is so wrong with that? Because I thought of entertaining myself and my oldest son I'm selfish? One day you might figure it all out....

Now, let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief whodidn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What the heck could possibly go wrong?

When was the last time you looked in the mirror. While the facts you speak of may be true. Arrogance is no excuse for selfishness.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010



Is Health Care a Right?



Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Mr Sanders why have reformers that favor single-payer health care not exposed all the members
of what I call "THE WORLDS LARGEST LEGAL DRUG CARTEL".FIRST IS THE MANUFACTURES,THEN
THE GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PUSH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.doctors that have lost there moral,ethical.and professional standards! The mass media advertisers that previously saw no revenue from this area ,now have been made rich from a practice in medicineis that not allowed in any country in the world.today the largest investers in this county have fueled this
shameful way of profiteering and is a major reason why health care costs have increased!. The first ad they allowed was the Bob Dole VIAGRA commercial! Of course every HMO pays for this drug that is not available to me!I have no doctor,no health care plan,so none for me.but I get to listen to a constant ,daily reminder that my sex would be better, that you mite have this or that
wrong with you and by using there product my health will be normal.settlements for crimes by the manufacture continue tobe made by our DOJ with record fine but nobody is held accountable.ONLY IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR YOU WORK .PS YOU WILL NEVER NEED A CHIROPRACTOR WITH A BACKBONE LIKE YOURS AND MY Favorite POLITICIAN
DENNIS KECINICH, JEFF COLARD

Was about to spam your e-mail (new,mistrusting) Upon opening;--- WOW!! You have restored my
cautious trust. Your straight forward approach, REFRESHING. Will spread the word.

What action do you suggest, Senator Sanders?

Obama plans a media blitz this week (Sept. 21-25) promoting his insurance industry bailout plan.

On Sep. 17, Rep. Dennis Kucinich asked execs from six of the largest health insurance companies if denial of claims can be fatal. All six answered YES. (See 2-min. YouTube)

On Sep. 14, Chris Hedges said of Obama, “He is a socialist, although he practices socialism for corporations…. He is forcing us to buy into a health care system that will enrich corporations and expand the abuse of our for-profit medical care.”

Even if the feds reduce my tax to zero, I cannot afford health insurance premiums.

I seriously want to know what we can do - I refuse to go along with another bailout for rich people. Should we leave the country, like Icelanders are doing to forego paying IMF loans?

Please add "Fire Bernie Marcus" & "Fire Kendall Stork" from firing of CEO's list: Bernie Marcus for comment & active opposition to Employee Free Choice and Kendall Stork from CitiBank for letter to Americans, he could raise rates to 29.99% anytime he wanted to at same time getting all this bailout money from Americans. We think both of these CEO's need to be FIRED!

You complain about high health costs now what do you think will happen if Government is allowed to take over the system, the answer Social Security and Medicare are broke! Lets take free choice out of the hands of the individual and put it in the hands of the Marxist-fascist state, great idea! Government through fannie mae and freddie mac purchased all these no good mortgages that put taxpayers at risk in the first place, if you want more government move to the UK or Cuba!

Sure. And if "W" had his way, we would've privatized social security - and be in a MUCH bigger mess than we're in now!

Well Mr freedomandlibertyfor all, yes our system is BROKE because big medica, big insurance, big pharma and big chemica are making huge profits and you can thank them for abusing our system. They have raped our country and left us SICK. We're not healthy and the statistics prove it. I am evidence. I was diagnosed with MS 3 years ago after years and years of going back and forth to the doctor and spending thousands of dollars on various drugs that didn't work but disguised symptoms. Ultimately I lost my vision for 3 months and that resulted in the diagnosis of MS. The 'good' doctors recommended that I inject myself daily and for the rest of my life with a drug that costs $35,000 a year. Oh my private insurance company would pay for it but after reading the test results and side effects I was shocked they would recommend it, let alone that any intelligent person would take it. I embarked on a holistic approach.....and today I am symptom free and I know if I stay on this dietary approach that I will never have another relapse. The cost of my current treatment is minimal but it does cost me in regimentation and I must watch everything I put in my mouth but I am a true patriot as I am saving the country $35,000 a year in health care costs.

Bottom line? We are wasting money on drugs that don't work and clearly the system only works for companies as Americans are sick and getting sicker....look at all the fat, disgusting, big bellied people out there. We stuff our faces and then expect a magic pill to fix it all

You're foolish if you believe change will convert our country into a marxist state....right now we are a corporate state. A country run at the whim of big business and most of our elected officials are simply whores for big business. ...."Government for big business by the people." Shameful!

I, too, think that the ONLY impediment to the massive profits of the Insurance industry is the SINGLE PAYER option of reform and do not agree that it cannot be obtained, since the Democrats control the vote!! I want them to stop dragging their feet, get the FACTS out, and DO what we voted them in to do, irrespective of bipartisanship!! For the last eight years of the Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress, they cared not a lick about bipartisanship and systematically pushed bills through that were to the detriment of the "working class." It's time for our party to push back and do what is right for the majority of Americans, and that is- create a system that represents TRUE competition for accessing health care in this country, thus driving the costs down, so that the tax payer isn't double dipped by a Public Option, which does little to ensure lower costs, but has the government competing against the Insurance GIANTS and using our tax dollars to do it!

I'm an old member of PNHP. I'm for single payer but will settle for public option as non-negotiable

I agree. We medical professionals know that when profit is involved, quality of care is decreased. Single payer would be in all of our best interests, however for those folks who don't understand this, a system with a public option would allow them to keep paying for their for-profit insurance and allow the rest of us some real relief.

Those politicians and others who think we cannot afford health care reform should look to every measure, no matter how small, to cut costs. I don't know how much of a cost cutting measure it would amount to, but a great symbolic gesture would be for all Congressional leaders and Senators to eliminate their privileged and elitist health care plan, paid for by taxpayers, and go on Medicare. That would certainly level the playing field and reinforce the idea that we are all created equal. We could then be sure that any flaws in Medicare would soon be fixed

New Mexico is working on a single payer system within the state, much as California did with a bill that was vetoed by Schwartznegger. Theyare not calling it single payer, and they are working with conservatives who understand the economic advatages after seeing the cost analyses. There is no reason that I know of that Vermont cannot do the same.

I implore Senator Sanders not to give in to a bailout bill for the insurance industry. We in the national single payer movement ate counting in his leadership to avoid a disasterous conservative backlash to yet another bailout,as I discussed with Susan in Senator Reid's Reno office today. If he stands with Merkley, Menendez and others who say they support the single payer route, they can stop this train wreck before it happens.

We can't give up hope now, while the opposition is so disorganized and the insurance industry is overplaying its hand so badly that even the teabaggers will be able to figure it out, with our help. Obama's timeline is artificial. This problem has been with us for decades and is only beginning to be obvious to the general public. With the support of the single payer movement, leaders like Bernie can argue that we are working on the problem seriously. If we keep at it, the blame will fall on the obstructionists in 2010. If we give in to a bailout, the democrats will surely be punished.

Bravo! Go Bernie!!

Every one of us should thank and express our gratitude to Senator Sanders for stating the right approach to the future of health care and for telling the unequivocal damage the Republican representatives are doing to hinder such an important need for the help and compassion for Americans and the health of the Country. These Republicans are willing to trade lives for their need of power. This is a sickness for which a cure must be found.

The "public option" has always sounded rather nebulous. Would it be a completely new agency? If so, that will take YEARS to design and set up. IMO the easiest, simplest, most cost-effective reform would be to OPEN MEDICARE AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ALL – not MANDATORY, but OPEN to anyone who chooses to sign up. Voilá, an instant "public option." Medicare is already up and running, and running pretty well. BUT Medicare MUST BE PERMITTED TO NEGOTIATE COSTS INCLUDING DRUGS.

For the last six years I have had no health insurance, seen no doctor or dentist, had two heart-attacks, and cannot be admitted to any hospital. I have an earned doctorate from Carnegie-Mellon University, other advanced degrees from Arizona State University, University of Northern Iowa, etc. and have not had a job for 6 years (I am "overqualified" being fluent in more than ten languages), had my home foreclosed owing the last 10%, my car stolen, etc. According to Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Rush Limbaugh, and others I am "expendable" since I cannot get health coverage. Fine. My senator (Charles Grassley [R-IA]) continues to lie about pulling the plug on grandma to stop government interference with the medical profession, yet in 2003 voted to interfere with the brain-dead Teri Schavio of FL. Wish Sanders was my senator but it is a long walk to Vermont. Vermonters are indeed fortunate to have an intelligent senator.

The insurance companies have the money, we have the people. But, it takes organizers, people that can and will stand up and say there is going to be a vigil or demonstration next Saturday at the corner of 7th and Main. People feel isolated and alone with their indignation, when they see that other people feel the same way they will be emboldened and step forward themselves.

What people like you need to do is network to get the organizers on board with this issue and out on the streets.

Type your comment here. How welcome it is to hear someone of Senator Sander's stature "tell it like it is" about the current debate over health insurance! Rarely have I heard someone speak with such clarity and insight about the issues involved without resorting to diatribe and misleading statements. Thank you, Senator Sanders!

The "centrist" Democrats who are dragging their feet about supporting a PUBLIC OPTION need to be reminded about a few things: the majority of Democrats, and the public at large, support it; they will have a DIFFICULT TIME being re-elected if it does not pass, and the Republicans will use its failure to further weaken the President's influence and power. SO, tell them that if they are TRUE DEMOCRATS they must support the PUBLIC OPTION. Personally, I think they can say they are doing so to honor the memory of Senator Ted Kennedy.

You are right on. I strongly assert we need a public option plan. Without it, any reform is useless.
I am disappointed tht Obama is not fighting hard and rallying the public for this plan.
Ann Stern

Thank you Senator Sanders for your dedication and the good work you do. LL

I was a Bernie supporter for years, even had a Bernie bumper sticker, out here in Oregon. So I'm glad to be back in touch and not surprised to know we'd have a single payer health plan if he had his druthers.

Right on, Senator Sanders. Keep speaking out. WE need you.

Bernie Sanders' analysis is brilliant!!!!

Now, why hasn't Obama appointed a head of Medicare/Medicaid?

Did the mess-up with Tom Daschle, now replaced by Kathleen Sebelius, so muddy the waters that they can't get their act together yet?

A Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) czar testifying that the system could handle the Senate approach would be invaluable.

I don't understand why the voices of the uninformed have so much influence on the derailment of what is in the best interests of all of us.