YellowLinesandArmadillos

Yeh, gotta agree it is pretty annoying, but she is pandering to the soccer moms who suck this stuff and think that they are unique.

Its New Jersey for crying out loud... Toxic Waste swamp landfill USA...

Agreed, but as soon as anyone starts saying we should cut reimbursement fees and costs the doctors and insurance cos go bananas a send out their high prices lobbyists to combat the political and pr threat till it is pummeled into the ground.

I know, I know you think that this idea is the cure all. I am not sold, you can do it right now, though notice neither the insurance cos nor doctors and anyone else is really promoting the idea. Probably because they don't make enough money off the deal. The other problem with it is that you have a hard time rolling over the money from year to year and it assumes that you make enough in a given year to cover your medical expenses this way... another words there is a short term build up issue and it won't work for those who have chronic expensive medical issues. I still like it to remain as an option though.

Yeh, except then we would have even more consolidation in the insurance and healthcare industry because no one enforces anti-trust and in quick order our choices would decrease dramatically and prices would rise even faster... though for national health insurance advocates it might not be a bad idea, because then the argument would really turn in their favor.

With or without National healthcare... I tend to agree... but then maybe we can't get rid of these middle men insurance leeches and find away to take of people's health.

Hey, I make my money off them,... trickle, I take photos of their tournaments and families for a living now.... but I digress... I then give it all back to them to treat my son...

Despite the blah, blah, blah nonsensical line, the low penalties offered is a good argument and should be debated. Any sense of where that is right now in the debate and what levels do you think would make sense.

?? I love the appointment wait time scare argument... it doesn't happen in Canada any more than it does here and how is that any different than now? I have to wait often times a month for a specialist for my son and our insurance doesn't cover the specialist best able to treat him.... And yes I have cut back eating out and entertainment and travel to pay for a lot of this. I could agree with you if health care and insurance were cheap but it is not... The reason is too many doctors spend a lot of time at the golf course and on private yachts etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the one's that but most Doctor's live in the top 1% income bracket and until they drop down to say the top 25% bracket, I am not going to worry about it.

Point well taken on the universal insurance does not equal providing universal care and I question the need to do the insurance root instead of coming up with an alternative based on care. That being said, I disagree with you on the potential for increase of demand as a result of increasing universal insurance. Demand change is going be a result of population change both overall # and demographic, but it will have little to do with providing more or less insurance. That only affects who pays for the care and how much of it is spread around to people who don't use healthcare services much. If you are single and young you should oppose any reform, if you are old or have a family with kids or some other medical problem by and large this bill would hopefully ameliorate some of the cost of your care. Hopefully is the big if and that is what should be debated.

Nice twisting they said that they died because they did not have insurance and could have been saved if they did. You are right though that they could still opt out to their own detriment... kinda like the homeless in DC who won't go inside or take their meds unless it is below freezing, but more will be saved and then it becomes a question down to the last few of the law of diminishing returns and availability. At that point the insurance and care is available, just not taken advantage of. Morally, and humanly a much better place for our society to be IMO.

You gotta explain it like he is a six year old... sorry next time be clearer and use ssiimmppllee language

OMG, LMAO... that is a riot!

My understanding is that it has become a starting point for legislation at least that is what the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN were saying this morning. Take that for what it is worth. Endorsement, no, the funding mechanism is still an issue and the public option is not in there, but Sen. Snow, Lieberman and McKaskill apparently reacted to it by stating they thought something could be worked out. If that is the case then the votes are there in the Senate and it will then depend on how hard house Dems want the public option? Snow Reaction

Oh I have an understand of not for profit in hospital terms, put myself through undergrad school working in the billing and finance depts at GW Hosp. and my wife is nurse. I have a certain amount of insight on this deal too and both the pluses and minuses of both, but I hear you. I was just thinking the 85% number was even lower say around 75% by this point.

Oh but there is, at least one that is getting serious considerations as a basis to start from: The Baucus Senate Bill is out and Click here!

Not sure if that is still the correct number, a lot have been converting over to for profit, still then that begs the question of how will we be adding to the number of patients if we insure them, you can't have it both ways...

Correct, what it would allow is those who don't have insurance to be part of and employers to do a cost benefit analysis to see if the cost increases of a private plans are less than the penalty they would have to pay for joining a public plan helping fund the plan... but lets not discuss what is seriously being considered as part of the legislation... lets just make up rhetoric.

I hear you, but the problem is as a citizen I can't afford your 2/3rds at an 8-15% growth rate. Most folks would take that in long term equities right now and yet you are getting that rate increase in a down economy... Sorry, I don't have sympathy when the system is stretching my finances....

Interesting story, and as someone who used to read and find studies, encourage studies that backed my bosses' position I am always skeptical of polling numbers and survey's. That being said, I currently have a neurologist for my son with a brain deal that doesn't accept payment from insurance cos, but will give us the paperwork to submit to our insurance co. He doesn't want to deal with the paperwork or constraints of an insurance co. Interesting tactic and to do nothing at the rate of insurance costs is not the answer. So who thinks that a public option with a penalty for Companies moving employees over to it v. still carrying their current private insurance is still a bad thing with the other option of dropping insurance all together? IMO as the cost rises, this problem gets worse in the next 10 years not better no matter what the economy does. Controlling costs has to be most important way to address this issue, Making it happen on the backs of the middle class is not and that is what the Republican's are playing too when they say no to these bills. Unless Obama et al address the out of pocket expense issue for the individual I can't believe this will fly or if it does and people feel it in their pocket book this will be a pretty short lived admin, despite Republican hypocracy and no solution to the issue.

Wisconsin should talk... the home of the John Birch society and the Communist movement in the US. Between Madison and Appleton you have California and Alabama all rolled into one.... talk about a schizoid state.

Yeh, I remember something like that except my middle brother got caught and he had to face the music. Not sure that I ever vandalized anything??? Can't remember....

Nice article... and as a former Buffalonian and one always in spirit and addiction to Buffalo Sports, I like the sentiment expressed. Positive reinforcement of McKelven is a good thing. Despite the disconnect of the money he earns, he still is a young kid and I grew up where every knew each other and neighbors took care of each other.

Agreed and even Obama stated as much while he was running, his race cannot be an excuse and yet Carter and the ultra left keep putting it out there and for that matter so does the right. It should be acknowledged and railed against, but it should be used as an opportunity to provide solutions, not to criticize and leave open ended. It does no good to come across as Carter did as a mean spirited Calvanist. I grew up with one and now I just tune her out, like we should do with Carter.

I didn't say I had a full answer, maybe use the tax dollars we all pay in for everyone in a pot and then let care be determined by Doctors. I am not sure how best to handle the administration of the thing. If there was approved procedures that this money could be used for and the rest be voluntary, folks would know ahead of time if they were approved or needed supplementary care. Kinda like an MSA, but in a fund designated and everyone pay in. I still don't like the current system and directly paying the Doctors seems like a better deal than using an intermediary that eats up dollars through absorbent administrative costs. Then if the Doctor Fs up, they should be held criminally liable... or if it is experimental or risky then a person should know ahead of time and sign a waiver for only that part of the procedure actually risky and be the waiver would could hold up in court. Mistakes or screw ups by medical staff don't count in the waiver.