Carol,

Take a look at this website that lists the compensation of physicians in different areas of practice:

http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_ph...

One example - Ophthalmology: $325,000

Now tell them they have to take a pay cut.

I do not understand why Medicare for All Citizens is not supported by President Obama, the Senate, and the House. The CBO says it will save the most money and help lower the deficit that is terrifying everyone. It will cover all citizens equally, not just some more than others. It could begin to be implemented immediately rather than waiting until 2014. With the time schedules in the Senate bill, I'm afraid that everyone who is not paying for healthcare now and must begin paying 2 years before they see any benefit will vote with the Republicans who will then repeal the entire bill. People need healthcare NOW not in 2014. People need price reduction, or at least no more increases in the cost of healthcare, drugs, and insurance. I have insurance and every year the price goes up, the copays go up, and the benefits go down. Still I'm lucky. Even if I only have $39 left out of my pension by the time I pay my premium at least I have some coverage. Everyone on Medicare is thrilled to have it. Spreading the risk and negotiating drug prices would make it viable.
I keep hearing Democrats in Washington say, "I'm for a public option" but they don't vote that way or they turn it into a welfare program. Social Security and Medicare are so popular precisely because they are not welfare and they do cover everyone equally. It makes me want to shake them until their teeth rattle!

Healthcare reform IS about jobs. Moving to Single-Payer would reduce annual expenditures for healthcare by $800 billion to $1 trillion ANNUALLY. Instead of the money going to paper pushers and overpaid health insurance executives, it would go to schools, roads, telecommunications and other infrastructure. Stop blowing smoke. It's not working anymore.

It's hard to take the Obama Administration seriously on healthcare when Ms. Nancy-Ann Deparle is the reputed "Healthcare Czar." This is from Wikipedia:

"DeParle has drawn criticism for her lucrative service on corporate boards after her tenure in the Clinton administration. Msnbc.com reported that she was paid more than $6 million, and served as a director of half a dozen companies that faced federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions. Many of these companies have a stake in the health care reform that she is leading.

She served as a director of Accredo Health Inc., Boston Scientific, Cerner Corp., DaVita, Guidant, Medco Health Solutions, Speciality Laboratories, and Triad Hospitals. She was a managing director of CCMP Capital."

From the MSNBC article Wikipedia references:

“This woman owes her fortune to the corporations that she is making decisions about,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

“She cashed in really big on her previous role in government and made millions and millions of dollars. Then she divests and all of a sudden she’s Snow White. It’s ridiculous.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31566399/ns/health-...

If everyone is entitled to healthcare, then they are also entitled to clothing, housing and food. If the government would simply take everything over and provide everyone with what they need then we would have no more problems, don't you agree???

Democrats want what's due them: Single-payer healthcare, otherwise known as Medicare for All.

What to know when a Quisling Democrat is lying about healthcare reform? When the sentence begins something like this: "Facing the need to maintain a tenuous 60-vote coalition in the Senate ..."

Of course, giving $700 billion to Wall Street Republicans didn't require 60 votes, only healthcare reform requires 60 votes.

A new newspaper has been created called "The Quisling Democratic Times." Its motto is "All the Quisling News Fit to Print."

Here are some of the headlines:

- Quisling Senate Democrats say they need 60 votes to pass healthcare reform.
- Quisling House Democrats say they're willing to cave to Quisling Senate Democrats on Public Option
- Quisling Congressional Democrats say healthcare for Americans second priority to throwing cash at Republicans on Wall Street.
- Quisling Senate Democrats say raising healthcare standards while cutting costs unachievable. They say Canadian, British, French and German systems unrealistic.

Quisling Democrats say: "You can't afford healthcare? Too bad for you!"

Quisling Democrats say: "You're paying double for healthcare what the Canadians, British, French, Dutch and Germans pay? Get used to it!"

Quisling Democrats say: "Your policy was rescinded after years paying your premiums? Too bad, sucker!"

Obama would have signed single-payer into law if Congress had sent it to him, so I don't blame Obama. Obama is just not very good at political arm-twisting.

The real culprits are the Democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate Democrats, who, like The New York Times, are quislings masquerading as progressive Democrats.

President Obama encouraged Congress to disregard the wishes of constituents and pass so-called "healthcare reform" legislation. They have done so, and as a result America can no longer claim government as being "of the people, by the people and for the people". All those who hated America and what it stood for may now thank Mr. Obama and Congress for destroying what was once a great nation. Goodbye America, you will be sorely missed.

The Senate Democrats are claiming victory, no doubt for the health insurance and drug companies.

But it gets better. Senator Barbara Boxer of California who stated she supported the public option because it was necessary to contain costs now has changed her mind. The following link is to an interview where she stated her support for the public option. It occurs at 1:18

http://vodpod.com/watch/1979716-sen-boxer-talks...

I thought having women in the Senate was going to get rid of corruption in politics and pandering to special interests. Maybe not. Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Has Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and the Fox Network, bought the esteemed New York Times?

The title of the New York Times editorial on the Senate "healthcare" Bill: A Bill Well Worth Passing

Was the end game ever in doubt? If the Senate Democrats think they have hoodwinked the American people, they're mistaken. The healthcare issue is not going away, no matter how much special interest money may convince them otherwise.

If the Senate Democrats could have only gotten Lieberman's 60th vote. Too bad.

The Democratic Party tells Americans not to worry, healthcare reform will happen in the next 100 years. If you don't see healthcare reform in your lifetime, your children or grandchildren will.

Mark ... you're back again ... I think what your posts show is an intolerance for other people and their opinions ... This is Senator Sanders website so I cannot speak for him, but I believe it would be only appropriate for him to delete your last post. You have abused the privilege of posting here.

I see that your tolerance for expressions of opinion that are opposed to your own has led you to accuse me of abuse. Perhaps you can tell me how my view against the health issue is abussive, and why your view in favor is not? I believe that you would love to see any opposing views deleted from this site, and any others you post on, but unfortunately for you Mr. Sanders is interested in all views, whether he agrees with them or not. It is clear in reading your posts that you have one interest, and one only, and that is to put forth your views and attempt to belittle those who oppose them. My posts are statements of fact and opinion, and are as valid as any other posts here, and suggesting that they be deleted clearly shows who is tolerant and who is not. This is one reason why Mr. Sanders is the author of this site, and you are not.

Whatever comes out of congress with the label "healthcare reform" will be anything but. Forcing everyone to pay into a system of insurance they may not want or have a use for, and then deciding what will and will not be covered, can hardly be considered a productive and positive course of action. The medicare program is a glaring example of what we can expect from government run healthcare. Who is Congress supposed to answer to? Only those from their own party? How about ALL the people in their home district that they swore to represent when they took office? I wonder how many of them have ever read, let alone understand, the purpose given their office by the U.S. Constitution. The common activity has generally been to "interpret" the document in a way that suits their own agenda. America is not the free and dynamic nation it once was, having been twisted and weakened by power seekers and liberals who wish to play Robin Hood, claiming it's unfair for one to have more than another, regadless of what they did to earn it. An ever growing number of Americans are lazy, poorly educated, and misinformed about almost every aspect of what America is supposed to be about. America is supposed to be a federal republic founded on Constitutional principles, not a socialist democracy in which the majority dictates to evryone else. Healthcare reform starts with each individual, and no amount of insurance is going to make any difference in anyones health, because the medical system itself will remain the same, little more than an outlet for dangerous drugs and largely ineffective procedures that attempt to cover up the symptoms of sickness while doing nothing to find and eliminate the cause. Most of the illnesses in America are caused by a lack of appropriate self care. That means eating real and wholesome food, getting enough exercise to keep your body from breaking down, and educating yourself as to why these things are important. Unfortunately, most Americans are content to accept the lie that doctors and drugs are the best way to deal with their health, or lack of it. But I know the retort perfectly well, America is sicker and spending more on healthcare than the rest of the world because they don't have insurance, and if we can insure everyone then they will all become healthy and we will spend alot less. If you believe that, then please explain to me how that works so I can be enlightened. I doubt anyone can do that.

I understand that many Americans (about 34% http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf) are suffering from the health effects of obesity, but that leaves 66% of Americans, the vast majority, whose health problems cannot be blamed on obesity. I am not overweight, I do not lack appropriate self-care, I eat real wholesome food, and I still need regular medical attention. So please explain to me why other people being obese means I should not get medical care?

I did not say that anyone should not get medical care. But I will say there is no reason why I should be forced to help pay for someone elses medical care, or to buy medical insurance that I do not want. I will also say that America is becoming a nation of people who are dependent on government, and that is what is destroying the nation. When it finally becomes clear that the government will make your decisions for you, and that there is little allowance for independent thought and decision making in your life, then you will realize the price you paid for medical care, and whatever else you get from the government. On that day, remember that you have what you wanted, and that someone told you it would not be free.

I really doubt you would be forced to help pay for someone else's medical care since that burden will most likely fall on those in the highest income bracket. (People in the highest income bracket usually don't spend their time arguing on blogs on the internet.) I'd rather see a single-payer system subsidized by a tax on corporate income than one where individuals foot the bill. The government providing health care would eliminate the number one cause of bankruptcy--medical bills, making society more stable, families more stable.

I found out the government made decisions for me years ago and it didn't have a thing to do with healthcare or insurance. Maybe 150 years ago my ancestors settled on a farm in Arizona. They built their own house, built a barn, dug a well, and felled trees. Can I do any of these? My parents own farmland, can I begin felling trees and build my own house from them? Not without mountains of government red tape, fees, permits, etc. Permits alone cost over $80,000 here. Can I build my own home without installing wires and electricity? No. What about one that has it's own water source instead of being hooked up to city water? No. And if I build a house anyway, the city can declare it a nuisance and tear it down.

This new healthcare system isn't perfect, but it's far less evil than basing whether someone lives or dies on how much money they can pay.

Who has died because they could not pay the doctor? Nobody. Who is going to pay for this new health insurance law? According to Congress, EVERYONE will be required to PURCHASE health insurance. If there is something in the bill that is actually going to help anyone, please enlighten us. Judging by what you have said already, I suspect that, just like most congressmen, you haven't even bothered to read it.

Many, many thousands die every year from lack of healthcare. A simple google search uncovered that. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/...

As I stated before, the current bill is not enough, we need a single-payer system.

OK. Many, many MORE thousands die each year BECAUSE of healthcare. A simple google search also uncovered that. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/errback.htm

As many of us have stated before, we don't want the government forcing us into a system we don't want, and that is what single payer does. Of course, we know that those who favor such ideas couldn't care less about individual rights to choose. According to the drug companies and hospitals, there is only one proper way to care for ones health. Here is another link to help explain the real value of our healthcare system: http://www.gao.gov/cghome/2004/hccrisis/img40.html

I suggest that we fix the system first, and then start sending people to the doctors for treatment.

Only 25,000 people a year die from lack of medical care because the vast majority of people aren't hiding from medical care. A lot of those 25,000 people are dying of preventable, treatable diseases. The amount of care and cost it takes to save some of these lives is so small.

I'm not saying the medical system is perfect, I have met too many bad doctors to believe this, BUT I think seeking traditional medical care is the least likely option to kill me. Doing nothing, (the system you're promoting, the one where I don't have care because I can't afford it) WILL KILL ME just like it kills tens of thousands of americans a year.

Nothing is ever going to force you to go to the doctor when you don't feel like it. If the government were to chose to offer free care under single payer, you would be free to chose to go to no doctor at all if you wished, or free to seek out a faith healer, or to pass yourself off as someone without coverage and pay out of pocket. But if all this fails and you still want to pay whenever you see the doctor, I'm sure someone in the doctor's office will take your $80 if you ask nicely enough. What are you afraid of?

Where do you get the 25,000 figure? The article you referenced says over 18,000. It needs to be noted that the study the article is about was done by UnitedHealth Group, which is a huge insurance seller. The insurance companies, as you are probably aware, are doing all they can to see this healthcare legislation passed, out of their deep concern for everyones health I'm sure.

you suggest these 25,000 are hiding from medical care, can you elaborate?

I will remind you that the governments original reason for wanting to "reform" healthcare was that it costs an unreasonably large amount of money every year. Now the reason is that not everyone can afford access to the system. The probable truth is that they will give any reason that appears to garner more support for their socialist agenda, regardless of whether or not it's true. Why else straddle the country with another trillion or more of debt just to give people more access to a broken and corrupt medical system? So, how did "healthcare reform" suddenly become "insurance reform"?

I suspect that you, or someone you know, have a medical need you cannot afford treatment for, thus your focus on simply getting a single payer plan started, but can we look at this from a broader view? This is about alot more than whether or not people can afford to go to the doctor. It's about a government that wants more control, more power, over you and me. A government that will lie and hide facts in order to accomplish that goal, and a president who tells his political friends in congress to ignore the wishes of their constituents, to forget about the political consequences (ie: not being re-elected) and do it anyway. In case you forgot, or didn't know, that is the definition of tyranny.

I want everyone to have access to medical services, but this is not the way to do it. To do it right will require more than universal coverage. It will require time, talent, and for the most part the exclusion of political influence. Anything less will lead to losses and no gains.

Principle without courage is just cynicism. The idea the Senate Democrats are willing to drop the public option from a Bill that already is so watered down makes a mockery of the words "healthcare reform." The public option is in the 2008 Democratic Platform. If the Senate Democrats are unwilling to stand by and stand up for their own Party's positions, then they should just resign. It's time for the Senate Democrats to take a stand, one way or another, but they shouldn't be allowed to claim victory if they have only betrayed it.

Healthcare reform as it's being devised in congress now is not about serving the American people, it is about developing a system that serves the wishes of the corporate healthcare industries that are paying congress many millions of dollars for. Healthy people don't need the drug therapies they sell, and this reform package will make sure that real health is not realized for those who choose to depend on the system as it exists. Forcing everyone to buy insurance will never change the fact that our healthcare industry does nothing to make people healthy, it only peddles pills potions and surgeries that perpetuate sickness.

Who's fooling who? A Democratic Congress wrote a $700 billion check for Wall Street in a week and after 6 months a Democratic Congress still hasn't passed healthcare reform? They must think the American people are turkeys. How long do the Democrats think the American people are going to swallow this 60 vote rule in the Senate?

The free healthcare mongers cry: "it's not MY fault I'm fat and sick, they made me eat burgers and pop and sit on my butt all day, so they owe me healthcare to fix what they did to me." The health mongers cry: "I can take care of myself, avoiding the bad habits and foods that CAUSE cronic disease and obesity, therefore I have no need of the inefective and expensive healthcare that the socialists are trying to shove down my throat."

If you want to feel at home somewhere, I suggest you post at the New York Times because it is just as much a supporter of the current system as you are. You should fit in perfectly.

I must be winning this debate because you keep coming back.

We now know Corporate America's healthcare plan for Americans: fight providing preventive care, encourage Americans to eat as many burgers and fries at fast food restaurants as possible, treat them for chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, castigate them for being overweight and then say they're not deserving of quality, affordable healthcare.

Face it, healthcare is about taking care of yourself more than anything else. If you learn what foods are unhealthy and avoid them, if you refuse to sit on your butt and do little or nothing, if you find out what drinks are unhealthy and refuse to drink them, then you will maintain great health and be unlikely to spend much time or money at a doctors office trying to fix the damage done by an unhealthy lifestyle. That is an established and accepted fact of healthcare, and there is no argument against this statement. If you are fat and lazy, it's your own fault, and I have no pity for you and nobody owes you a dime for healthcare in any case, so get off the couch and take responsibility for your life and your health, and stop whining to the taxpayers that you cant afford to pay your own way. If you want a free lunch, try runnung for Congress.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

In one of my earlier posts I gave a link to a survey of different countries healthcare systems, Japan included. Going through the different country surveys should be helpful. If you're too lazy to do that, then nobody can help you.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

One of the things that is overlooked in the healthcare debate is how American companies that export are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their foreign competitors. There are 2 reasons for this. First, American companies have to provide healthcare to their employees while their foreign competitors don't since their employees are usually covered by the government at much lower cost on a per capita basis. Second, American companies subsidize their foreign competitor's healthcare when they sell into their competitor's market because usually the foreign country they're selling into has a sales tax called VAT. Part of the revenues generated by VAT are used by the government to provide healthcare to its residents who include, of course, the foreign company's employees.

Only Americans would do this to themselves.

The cost of healthcare has more to do with the way it is used, and the cost of paying for it with insurance, than the cost of the insurance itself. It costs a great deal to process insurance claims, and it also costs alot for a doctor to protect himself from possible lawsuits. It also costs alot to care for a population who have a lifestyle that promotes disease and obesity, and who run to the doctor every time they get a cough or want another xanax. What the rest of the world does is irrelevant to this issue. Americans don't need more government to take care of them, they need to learn what real health is and then start living in a manner that will keep them out of the hospital and off the drugs, period. Until that happens healthcare will remain what it is, a service thats does little more than cover up symptoms of disease, and does practically nothing to eliminate the cause, pumping ever more resources into the abyss. Why is it so hard to admit these facts?

You essentially have the right idea excepting "more government" and "doesn't matter what the rest of the world does." Isn't that naive? Did you know that the lead based cosmetics that are manufactured by the US cosmetics companies are banned in Europe? That is because while the US mfrs don't give a hoot about women's health European governments do. Not only because they have to foot the bill, but also the "government of the people, by the people for the people" is a reality. Unless you are a rich multi-millionaire, and I hope for your sake you are, you objection just shows how brainwashed you are with the extreme conservative media, ads by special interests and the politicians bought by the big money. Grow up, Mark. NJohari

My statement that it doesn't matter what other countries do means we should not be dealing with healthcare hear by saying "the UK has it, Canada has it" and so forth. If you think that more government is the answer, then I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you. I also need to point out that saying things like "grow up, Mark" indicate a real need on your part to do some growing up.

My apology, Mark. I must have touched a sensitive nerve by saying, "Grow up, Mark." Probably something your mommy dearest used to say. Of course, when you say: "I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you", you have shown a remarkable maturity! Oops, I forgot. We being "the Greatest Country" in the world, MUST NOT IMITATE other countries; we HAVE to be leader to the rest of the world. Pizza anyone. Oh, that is Italian!

You are similar to Andrew, do you guys go to the same school? It's obvious neither of you are adults. Please find a forum appropriate to your age group.

You said: "f you think that more government is the answer, then I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you."

Maybe you should be the one moving, at least as it relates to healthcare.

Umm, you Andrew, not me, are the one seeking government run healthcare. Is this issue too complex for you to keep track? Your responses are rather childlike, how old are you?

Mark, maybe you can explain to everyone here why you are here. You are against healthcare reform. OK, we know that. You believe healthcare reform won't change Americans health for the better. OK, we know that. Now you're engaging in personal attacks. Why the hostility?

I simply made a logical observation and asked a question, there is no hostility implied. Anyone reading your comments would wonder if you are under 18 years old, sorry if this is an unexpected revelation for you, but it is the truth. Njohari is very similar to you in this respect, and I really don't intend to waste any more time discussing this issue with children.

It's been my experience that most people who are against healthcare reform (ie., single-payer) fall into 2 groups. Either: 1) they make money off of the current system, whether they be health insurance companies or politicians who receive contributions from the healthcare industry; or 2) they are ignorant of the facts. When people who are unfamiliar with the facts are exposed to an honest explanation of the deficiencies of the American healthcare system, they become fast converts to single-payer. Rarely in light of the facts are there people who still support the current system. They exist but usually are ideologues.

Some people have an agenda and are not interested in the facts. Other people are just ignorant of the facts. I'll assume for debate's sake you're in the latter group rather than the former. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) performs a survey of the healthcare systems of its member countries. I suggest people look at the survey of the USA and compare it to others. They are available at http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_2649_...

Thank you Andrew for assuming that I am only ignorant, as opposed to having an agenda. The OECD report, however, supports my contention that poor lifestyle choices are a major factor in U.S. healthcare costs. It is lifestyle choices that have given America the lead in obesity, degenerative diseases, and a life expectancy well below what it should be for a developed country. It is ignorance and a lack of personal responsibility that has brought the U.S. to this condition, and healthcare expenditures are as huge as they are for this reason. No amount of insurance reform is going to change the situation. The only real answer is to get Americans to stop making themselves sick with a lifestyle that involves little physical activity, soft drinks and garbage food filled with little or no nutrition, and a belief that all can be taken care of with a doctor and a couple bottles of overpriced pills. I would imagine that many who favor the plan being considered in Congress are discussing it over a cheeseburger and fries, washing it down with some yummy soda pop. Cheers!

Obesity is a problem in the US. However, it is in part a symptom of the lack of prevention care in the US. Why is prevention care so low in the US? Because there is a lot more money in heart surgery.

There is also a problem with your thesis that higher healthcare costs in the US are due to obesity. The US has 30.6% obesity while Britain has 23%. While US obesity is 30% higher than Britain's, US healthcare costs are double Britain's on a per capita basis.

It would be very interesting, Andrew, if you would explain what role preventive medicine would play in reducing obesity. Perhaps some nice drugs would do the trick.
There are many health problems other than obesity at work in America, most of which could be avoided without medical intervention. Most people however would rather turn it over to a doctor than take responsibility for their own health.
It cannot be reasonably denied that the poor health of Americans in general is due too lousy self maintenance, again due to poor lifestyle choices. If you disagree, please reply.

Poor Health is a very important issue. You can not in good faith claim it is only up to an individual as many illnesses are now proven to be caused by exposure to toxins brought to us by; "Big Business and "Profit At All Cost" Corporations. And who gets to foot those medical bills? The Taxpayers. All the while the Businesses of America rape and pillage our land and now our HEALTH, without being held accountable. With the Republican mantra that some Democrats supported; "DEREGULATION", our E.P.A./F.D.A. no longer are in the position (as they were set up to do), represent WE THE PEOPLE, not the Corporations. If you have big Corporations lobbying our Representatives, you need Big Government to represent "WE THE PEOPLE" and rein in their greed . That is the price we all have to pay for the unethical deregulation. Funny how both economic depressions came about during a "Republican" Administration. Greed is a powerful thing when you have no morals.

It is a fact that there are toxins which can harm your health. It is also a fact that you have the choice to avoid those toxins, and take care of your health in spite of it. If it were not so, I would be sick and miserable, like those who are desperate for the government to take responsibility for their health so they don't need to. I correspond with my representatives in government regularly, and that is what people must do if they seek change. Listening to CNN and pointing fingers at opposing political groups is just another way of being irresponsible, which is what the democratic socialists are depending on.

You said: "If you disagree, please reply."

Clever.

You are unable to explain how preventive healthcare can cure obesity as you claim, probably because you don't really care about the truth, you are only interested in getting free healthcare from the taxpayers who are likely already supporting you.

The Senate and House should start over. Single-payer NOW!

Count me as a supporter, Andrew.

By the time the major provisions of the Bill go into effect in 2013, the situation will be so much worse, the Bill will be too timid, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

Dbc2000: Your post reads like a Republican Party position paper. Nice try throwing in the only Republican, Dick Cheney, at the end to make it look otherwise.

Interesting. You are completely wrong, of course, since Mark Foley is a Republican. And I'm a libertarian. So I suppose I should parrot you by saying "nice try"?

And no one responds to these questions when I post them. Ever.

As to your comment, if the major provisions of the bill don't go into effect until after the next presidential election, we could have an entirely different government running our health care. Why not just look at the solutions we can make now that will work no matter who is in office? I don't get why you or the White House won't even discuss breaking the ties between employment and insurance.

Take a look at this list of health insurance companies by state: http://www.usa-healthinsurance.com/insurance-co...

Clearly, selection is not a problem for most States. As for State standards, you're right, they're meaningless. What's the point of having standards if an insurance company can terminate your policy when it sees fit.

You say you're a Libertarian. Alright. The US has a healthcare system that most closely approximates a free market in the entire world and yet the US has the most expensive system in the world that provides mediocre outcomes. I believe it's reasonable to say the free market has failed.

Again, states require you to purchase insurance you do not need. If there are a million insurance companies in your state but the government has mandated that they all have to cover these procedures, then prices will not go down. Neither will malpractice insurance if we don't inject better medical science into our courtrooms.

The health care system is this country is not a free market system. I don't have any idea why you would think that.

Do you support sending people to jail if they don't buy health insurance?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

The appropriateness of State standards are in the eye of the beholder. To you, they may seem unnecessary, to someone else, quite otherwise. As for malpractice, the evidence to date shows that tort reform would be of marginal benefit to the healthcare system. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, only that people shouldn't have grandiose expectations of its benefits.

I didn't say the healthcare system is a free market system. I said it most closely approximates one in the entire world.

The healthcare reform Bill passed by the House is seriously flawed because it had to compromise with special interests. In an ideal world I would have preferred a single-payer system.

My right to dissent with my dollar is as important as my right to dissent with my speech. Who are you to decide for me that I have to buy medical care from government? If I do not support the practices of a hospital or an insurance company in a free market system, I stop paying them and move to support another company. If I am taxed to support government programs, how do I stop supporting them? You are taking my rights.

You are not only taking away my right to dissent, you are installing as a moral authority a party now heading by a man who opposes the right of gay people to be married. In other words, someone whose views I find so morally repugnant that I would not allow them in my home. Why do you think that you have the right to do that to another person?

We are all for the same thing -- health care for everyone, a safety net for everyone -- but our methodology is what differs.

This is whom you implied, maybe "Intellect Delinquency". You support a "free market" system and yet it is the Corporations that only have a voice. "Free market" means the health and welfare of the people take second, and I don't know about you, but we as a nation can not proceed without the very backbone of "We the People". So yes I did address one of your questions and still wasted your time. You have a right for dissent but so does everyone whom replies to your dissent. I would rather use my taxpayer dollars to pay for medical costs than having my monies go to "For Profit" Corporations as we, the taxpayers, subsidize those "For Profit", "free market" industries. What is "free market" about that? What is "free market" when you rob the Americans by taking out jobs out of this Country to exploit cheap labor and in turn losing that tax base to keep America strong? There is not one "Free" thing about this. Tax dollars used to support "For Profit" businesses should be a crime. We all have suffer economic disaster with this "free market" guise.
Who are you to tell me, a consumer, that I can not chose to pay a "regulated" Health system, but I have to pay a "unregulated" Insurance company that take premiums to use against a persons own best interests. Sounds to me that you are happy with your insurance and bully to you, as we should all be as lucky.
An important point Is when I said, supposed "Christian Nation" I am noting the blurring of the line to our Constitution between separation of "Church and State". Remember the "Christian right" brought to us by a "right" wing agenda along with the "free market system", the "trickle down" theory and "deregulations" at all costs? All these decisions were based on the best interests of business, not you or I. They just sold you and many others that bag of goodies. Our President's morals should not be an issue, as we vote in our states representatives to represent our dissent. If that was not the case Our President would now have a single-payer health care system.

I can't make sense of your extremely poor writing, much less what point you're trying to make. There are so many logical fallacies and so much religious thinking here that it hurts my head to read.

Maybe you just don't want to hear another point of view. Poor writing does not take away from facts. Let me try to make this as simple as I can. We taxpayers subsidize these so called "free markets" (insurance companies), but we can not afford to make a regulated/ affordable "HealthCare for All" (like medicare) available to the American taxpayer? Don't let your head hurt, go to your Doctor. Fallacies are only fallacies when they are proven to be fallacies. Make your point!

You did not respond to the questions I asked in my original post a week ago. I already made my point. You ignored it. You look at this as a silly, religious, good vs. evil battle, and ignore all of the evils that government perpetrates on its citizenry when blindly granted moral authority.

I'm done responding to meaningless postings from you. Have a nice life.

What government subsidies apply to insurance companies? I think you are confused and misinformed.

Mark, when you open your mind to media beyond hannity, o'reilly, beck and limbough you inform yourself with lot of things, but I think I am expecting too much. I got something out of Wikepedia for you, about Stupidpak-Pitts Amendment that prohibits a private insurance company underwriting a subsidized customers being allowed to murder a woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupak-Pitts_Amend...
"The amendment prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, which is being interpreted to mean abortions not included in the exceptions may not be covered in the public option or in any of the exchange's private plans that take subsidized customers. The exceptions are similar to those included in the Hyde Amendment; it also specifically allows individuals to purchase supplementary insurance that covers other abortions. The House of Representatives included the amendment in the Act as passed on November 7, 2009."
See, they take subsidies.

correction: I mean they are allowed to murder. (not prohibited to allow.)

And THAT, my friend, is exactly where so-called Libertarians get it wrong.

NO--your right to protest with, or even have a dollar is NOT equal to your right to speak. (most people are born with an ability to speak, but not everyone is born with a silver spoon)A corporation is not a person. Money is not speech. Until you understand that, we will be a corporatist state and a fringe party.

You are just plain wrong and any regular person on the street knows it.

"silver spoon" "so-called Libertarians"

Who has a silver spoon in this discussion? Why did you use the words "so-called"? Please attempt to better articulate your thoughts so I have some understanding of what's going on in your mind.

A person express their views every time they are freely allowed to spend their money. Every time you decide where to buy food, where to shop for clothes, where to pay for gas, et cetera, you make choices based at the very least on prices and other basic consumer preferences. If you're a vegetarian, for instance, shopping at a health food store or dining at a vegetarian restaurant is a direct expression of your ethical views. If we were all forced to eat only where our employers decided to buy a dining plan, we would lose our important right and ability to make those ethical expressions. You offer no argument otherwise.

Corporatism only comes about by government's intervention. And I never said I was a member of the Libertarian Party, so I'm not sure what party you're referring to as being mine. I assume you felt you had to link me to a political party in order to best serve your views. I vote for the people who best uphold libertarian principles.

I was only referring to the livbrtarian insistence on money as speech, and corporations as persons. I also think that your anger everytime someone disagrees is always evident.

I have to spend money to survive...what if I dont want to. Shouldnt I be free to survive without having to make money? We could go around and around about that, but the main point , is, I feel, that money is not speech. If everyone had the same amount,from birth, it might be, possibly. Thats all. I am not going to go into my entire philsophy about life here. Too boring. The markets are created by people, so , if you believe in them, you believe in a certain philosophy of laissez fare. I think its crap. Any evidence Im wrong? YOu first advanced the point.

I'm not aware of libertarians considering corporations as "persons", only that the formation of a corporation by a group of people does not suddenly grant the government special permission to violate the basic civil rights of those people. Again, you call me angry, you say things are so just because they're your opinion, you call a philosophy "crap", but you offer no real argument. I'm sorry if it's boring for you to delve into why you think the way you do, but don't expect me to respect an empty, name-calling attack just because you own a keyboard.

Maybe its just the SCOTUS, since the 1800's....Ive spent the last year trying to find things in common with "those who think libertarin" (wouldnt want to pigeon hole you!) and I cant do it. You guys will think up something that impresses me and then --BOOM!_ you just start talking crap.

I agree that you shouldnt be forced to subsidize a private corporation (if they should exist at all) and then you say that money is speech and health care is a product...the entire civilized world would disagree.

If you want to know my philosophy so badly (ie money isnt speech) try wsws.org. I am done arguing with "those that admire Ron Paul". I was so tired of Obama, but, youre certainly not an alternative for most Independents.

I dont think that a "group of people" has civil rights, that they do not have as individuals. Thats just saying that corporations are people with a different twist. I dont care is you respect me or not. I dont even know you . But I know alot like you and I am not going to waste time arguing with you.

You're too bored to argue with me, even though you responded to a post I made days ago? Okay. Cool. I find you boring, too.

I dont hang around on the internet everyday. You can ignore it. I dont give a rat's ass.

What I am angry about is that I am looking for an alternative to the duopoly and so-called libertarians, pretent that they are offering something different but they are not. I am bored with ideology and jingoism. I cant be bored with you or not. I dont know you. Its not personal, you know...I didnt call you silver spoon, etc. I was commenting about (what seemed to be you)politics.

I just said that money is not speech. And its not. If it is in the US corporatocracy, it is immoral and should not be. It kills people. And I think that that is wrong and, in the end, will ruin the country and we will eventually pay the price. The underprivileged and disabled are paying it now.

Capitalism doesnt work and it kills people. Thats enough for me to be against it.

The current US healthcare system is unacceptable. Why? Because it has become predatory. In other words, it is leveraging the necessity of medical care to extract higher and higher prices from patients.

You said: "If I do not support the practices of a hospital or an insurance company in a free market system, I stop paying them and move to support another company."

There is only one problem with this view. Most participants in the US healthcare system are engaging in this predatory behavior. So moving from one provider to another is not going to solve your problem. I won't say there is collusion going on among healthcare providers, but pretty close.

Now, there are only 2 solutions to this problem. Either health insurance is entirely abolished and people pay cash out of pocket at the time of illness, or the country moves to a single-payer system. The first option is unrealistic because it would bankrupt the healthcare system. That leaves only the second.

You said: "We are all for the same thing -- health care for everyone, a safety net for everyone -- but our methodology is what differs."

The free market methodology has failed, not because of any intrinsic problem with a free market, but because many providers are willing to sacrifice their patient's health for profit.

Every business profits off of the needs of its customers. The beauty of the free market is that you are free to start your own insurance company with moral practices and put the immoral companies out of business. With the amount of wealthy people in this country (including celebrities who make hundreds of millions of dollars each year) who renounce the practices of health insurance companies, you could easily finance a new company if we had a free market system. There would be no need to have a government-run plan.

If people don't say what you like, do you throw out free speech?

Free speech doesn't kill. Unscrupulous health insurance companies and healthcare providers do.

As opposed to government? Wow. You have your religion.

Judge not lest you be judged.

This all sounds great but how does it get implemented when even the President doesn't support it? Since the government seems to be getting nowhere on this issue, why not support a referendum? What about it Bernie? We love you, but we need to know how to make progress.

Why can't we just buy insurance over state lines? This would open up competition.

Why can't we do away with state regulations that require us to pay for unnecessary and unwanted procedures like gastric bypass surgery or hair transplants?

Why can't individuals receive the same tax benefits that employers receive, thus breaking the ties to employer-based insurance? This would end the fear of losing your insurance if you wanted to move to a new employer.

Why does the AMA limit the amount of medical schools or doctors who can go there? How can they be allowed to do this in a free market? The same question goes for dentistry.

Why, in a time where health care is so expensive and unemployment is so high, do we have a nursing shortage?

Why should I as a citizen give that kind of power and moral authority over to a government populated with individuals like William Jefferson, John Edwards, Mark Foley, Elliot Spitzer, Dick Cheney...?

The Government is "We The People". Right now the only representation that have that power, is Corporations. We as "Americans" are obligated to fix this broken Government, as it was intended to represent; "We The People". Healthcare must be addressed as a "right" not a paid for privilege, and with the mantra of "Profit At All Costs" even over the health and welfare of it's people, has becomes a moral issue that even our "supposed", " Christian Nation", should rightfully hang our heads in shame.

If healthcare is a right, then also is food and shelter and clothing. Perhaps we need a bill that says the government will now provide for all basic needs because they are rights. Of course anyone who knows anything is aware that this has been tried before and it's not possible to make it work. Personal responsibility is paramount in a society that wishes to be free. If you wish the government to take care of all your needs, please make use of one of our nice secure penitentiarys, it's as close as your going to get.

Why are you replying to my post by answering none of my questions? Why are you wasting my time? It might make some people think you are intellectually bankrupt.

I'm not sure what a "Christian Nation" has to do with this discussion. I do know that in modern times, human beings have made "moral arguments" for pretty disgusting things such as slavery, internment camps, segregation, and governments have backed them up. Morality comes from the people, not from government, and to give government moral ownership over your health care is, at best, shortsighted and historically ignorant.

The Democratic party, with a president that opposes gay marriage, is no different than the Republicans at their worst.

I replied and wasted your time on your post because I can. You tout your rights, but chastise mine.
Right now those unregulated "free market" insurance companies are responsible for many deaths/medical bankruptcies in this country. That is what makes this a moral issue. As taxpayers, we subsidize for "Profit" Industries, but people object to funding a basic human right to "healthcare"? As a taxpayer I have a moral and ethical right to object to blatant misuse of my monies going to "For Profit" companies, that claim to be "Free Market". Absolutely nothing "Free" about that. I want the chance to buy into a "regulated" HealthCare company that cares about me and my families, not the all mighty dollar, (i.e. profit). We are human therefore prone to illness. If you can proclaim Democrats are worse than Republican due to a stance of Our Presidents' moral issue, you have yet to read the History books.

Having a conversation with you is like speaking to a child. All companies want to help you in order to make a profit. If a company treats you badly, you take your business elsewhere. If a company treats others badly, you don't sign up with them in the first place. That's how the free market works. We do not have a free market system now because of the government regulation that allows these companies to do what they do and bar competitors from entering the marketplace and providing better business. Are you telling me that there are billions upon billions of dollars to be made from a "moral" health care business and yet none of the millionaires in this country who support government-run health care would want to invest in a new, privately-owned company that could operate under those moral principles they espouse and still make money? If so, you are not a rational person. You are someone who believes what is comfortable to you, who will swallow any narrative that a politician will sell you for a vote. And that is sad.

Putting your words in quotes and/or capitalizing them for no reason makes your writing incoherent.