Collegiate Times

Perhaps you could have done some research behind our World Health Organization ranking as "37th" for our health care system performance. That certainly falls under the category of "twisted statistics" when you take into account the way the WHO made that judgement. The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem. The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem. Additionally, while you make the claim that most who are uninsured are citizens, there are still 20% who are illegal immigrants, which you must admit greatly boosts the number of uninsured people in America

Ms. Ashley Johnson, The WHO used multiple forms of data to arrive at the rankings applied to each of the 190 countries. Not the least of which was cost per person, health status of the individuals that make up that country, fairness in economic contribution, responsiveness to health concerns, infant mortality, and yes life expectancy. As it turns out the U.S. took first place in two areas. Fist of all was cost, we spend more than every other country. Two, responsiveness. We should all applaud our countries quick action as it relates to potential pandemics (AIDS, for example). This is no small achievment. But the health status of our people ranks 72nd. To put this in perspective Iraq, who's health care system ranked 103, have a health status of 75th. I think it is telling that a country that we've nearly torn appart, bombed the crap out of and whos health care system is ranked twice as bad as ours have people just as unhealthy as us. So before you go sighting facts, maybe you should read them.

I'll overlook the false causality you offer in your last paragraph (the 'fact' that uninsured people tend to be sicker is not necessarily true; it may simply be that many sick people happen to be uninsured), and focus instead on the more important reason that federalized healthcare would be an abomination. You seem to speak of healthcare as though it were among our inalienable rights, up there with life, liberty, and property. The fact of the matter is, however, that healthcare isn't one of those things that has been around since the beginning of time (like life, liberty, and property); rather, someone along the line had a brilliant idea that it would make sense to have people bet him that they will get sick. That's really how insurance works; you bet the company that you're going to get sick, and they bet that you won't. When you 'win' the bet, the company pays some of your fees for you; when you 'lose' the bet, they get to keep the money you paid them for the protection. Just as you don't have an inalienable right to bet on racehorses as the racetrack simply because you need money, I don't believe that it follows that simply because you get sick you have an inalienable right to healthcare from your favorite doctor. Doctors, remember, are businessmen too; the cost of becoming a doctor is so high these days, and the cost of malpractice insurance protection similarly high, that doctors' fees are necessarily equally high. Then we need to consider the human side of things - why is your health a national problem? Think about it this way: an insurance company manages the risk it undertakes by screening people to keep the heavy burdens from draining too much from the public pot, and then by charging higher fees to people more likely to 'win the bet.' After all, they have to have more money than is going to be drawn out at a given time in order to follow through with their promise. The government, however, can't be so judicious; it can't raise fees for people who are more likely to get sick, it can't raise fees for people who go to their doctors more frequently than they should. A government-run program is doomed to failure because it can never promise to have enough money in its fund to help all of the people it wants to help.

The main reason health care is so expensive is because of insurance provided by employers. There is basically no competition in the market. Employers choose the insurance plan for their employees, usually offering a wide range of coverage to make it sound more appealing. When we go to the doctor, we rarely care about the cost of the visit - only what the insurance is paying. Because we have no incentive to find a cheaper doctor (the insurance covers it, so who cares), doctors can raise prices without us noticing (until our insurance costs increase, at which point we complain to the government). The best solution would be for individuals - not employers - to choose their own health insurance plans (preferably a high-deductible plan used mainly for emergencies). This way we will pay for our own minor costs (like routine visits to the doctor), and the prices will decrease because there will be more competition. Insurance costs will also decrease because less people will be using insurance every time they need a Band-Aid. As for people who still wouldn't be able to afford health insurance (even at the lower prices), that's what Medicare and Medicaid are for.

Dr. Laurent Colvin, DC, I suspect that there are other factors at play. Lifestyle choices undoubtedly contribute to health status, and while I cannot "sight" any statistics - the WHO has not yet released them - I would say that the US probably leads the world in overweight and obese citizens. Iraq, a country where so many doctors have fled (to the benefit of countries like Jordan and Syria), where scores of people are killed and injured daily at the hand of their own countrymen, where people have to make sure they select a care facility that services their own religious sect, ranks roughly the same as we. This, frankly, gives me great pause to take them seriously. I would posit that Mr. Minor's point about malpractice insurance is quite valid. The last statistics I read showed that a physician in private practice paid over half of his annual salary in malpractice insurance. Tort reform would go a long way toward reigning in costs. Doctors are people practicing an inexact science and they make mistakes. There is a difference between gross negligence and a mistake that probably causes little long-term damage, yet juries regularly mete out million-dollar awards for the latter, frequently because of "pain and suffering." A surgeon who, say, performs a wrongfootectomy should definitely have his ass sued off, but in most cases the only thing a doctor should have to do is correct the problem. I had to have the same hernia repair done twice because the surgeon botched the job the first time. It didn't occur to me to sue - I just wanted to have the problem fixed. So I had another surgery, took my bottle of Percocet and went on my (very) merry way. And incidentally, the Iraqis themselves have nearly torn their own country apart and we have hardly bombed the crap out of the country. Look at World War II for some perspective. Germany was a country we bombed the crap out of. Iraq today shows very little bomb damage - at least at our hands. So before you go "sighting" facts, maybe you should find some.

Dear Chip, You are right. There are numerous factors at play that have created our current health status of our people. Everything you site is true. There are current statistics that show that the U.S. is the fattest nation on eath, but don't worry, we're exporting our fast food lifestyle to the rest of the world, and many countries are catching up. What you say about Iraq and other middle east countries may be true, I don't know, but it is reasonable to assume that much of what you say does in deed happen, just based on the news reports we are inundatated with. As for malpractice insurance what the public doesn't generally know is that malpractice insurance is calculated based on comparative risk. For example, as a chiropractor I pay a very low malpractice fee of approximately $1,500 a year, where as an anesthesiologist pays something on the order of $100,000 a year. Anasthesiologist used to pay quite a bit more, but as the science moved forwar they have learned how to put people under with more safty and so their malpractice premiums have come down. The difference in cost for my malpractice insurance vs. other doctors is due to the fact that my practice offers very little risk. Now when something goes wrong, and that can happen to anyone, to any doctor, malpractice insurance is there to meet that need. But there are an awful lot of malpractice suits that are just unfounded, but it is sometimes cheaper to settle out of court rather than incur the even more expensive cout costs. So, as you say there is need for tort reform. A new tack being taken by progressive hospitals is to meet with the patient (if posible) and actually appologize for the malpractice incident. It is being called Total Disclosure, or words to that effect, and hospials that have adopted this attitude, vs. deny, deny, deny are finding that they have fewer cases actually going to court. Imagine that, treat the patient like a human being and they can e forgiving. After all, the doctor was trying to save their life, or limb!

I'm not sure where the figure of $12K for healthcare came from, but that's far higher than the prices I've found in pricing out insurance. I've found numerous plans offered directly by Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield for around $300-$500 a month, depending on the coverage types and limits for a family...half as much as the number cited. I agree that increased competition for health insurance is a good way to bring premiums down, as is limiting frivolous malpractice suits. Having experienced the health systems in other countries firsthand, I like our system, even with its flaw, far better. With friends in Canada who continually gripe about getting treatments in a timely manner, I really shudder to think what it will be like here when we socialize the health system. If it's anything like the military healthcare syustem, we're doomed. Walter Reed was just the tip of the iceberg on a miserable military system, and if the US Government can't even provide decent care for the couple million service men and women, how do you think they can handle care for all 300+ million citizens? It's not going to happen.

Dear John, The $12,000 dollar figure seems a bit steep, doesn't it, but as a doctor I know several families that pay that much and more. This is due to pre-existing conditions. You see, for-profit-health-insurance-providers don't deny coverage they just price you out of the market. They keep their shareholders happy at the expense of people's lives. Is this is what we call the American way? Sure it is, just consider our fire departments. When a house is on fire the fire chief cheks your policy to make sure you have coverage and then decides which part of your house to put out. Oh, wait, that would be if it was on a for-profit basis. Well then, how about our police departments. When you call nine-one-one in the middle of the night because you heard glass shatter and someone snooping around downstairs, the emergency line worker informs you that the police can't come out to your house because your house was broken into a year earlier (pre-existing condition simili). Damn, I did it again, that would be if the police operated on a for-profit basis. Well then, why should we expect medicine to operate on a for profit basis? It shouldn't!

But, Dr. Colvin, your analogy doesn't hold. My tax dollars pay the salaries of firemen and policemen, and as such I am entitled to their appropriate protections (just as the money I pay to a drycleaner entitles me to havy my clothes cleaned). What you seem to advocate is having doctors become federal employees - hardly a possible change, given the costs involved in paying for education to become a doctor, and further for the malpractice insurance you have to purchase once you are a doctor. The reason that people with pre-existing conditions have to pay more is because they put a greater strain on the system - their conditions increase the chance that they will have to draw money out. I don't argue that the government should be totally divorced from the healthcare business, and indeed, it may well my feasible for the government to provide some sort of low-cost healthcare option - I just don't want to have to pay into it. It isn't my responsibility to keep you healthy, nor is it the responsibility of the insurance company. It is your responsibility, and yours alone.

The problem with your analogy is that the police and fire departments are within the purview of the government and should be. You are comparing apples and oranges. Why should the government be responsible for your health care? Why not extend entitlements to food, shelter and clothing, too? Why should anyone pay for anything himself as long as there is this wonderful entity called the government that can provide it all? That's how this country was built, after all. In 1607, English settlers landed at Jamestown and were damned relieved to find a welfare office already set up. Oh, wait, no, that's not right. It was through hard work that they survived and started the work of building a nation. Actually, I would have thought that as a chiropractor you’d be more sympathetic. Army medicine (i.e. government-run health care) did not even recognize chiropractic treatment as legitimate until recently as a result didn’t pay for it.

Dear Mr. Kyle Minor, your right our taxes pay for both the fire department, the police as well as the public library. Imagine not having to pay a monthly premium to a health insurance company - motivated to not provide services - but instead paying a tax that is less than what you would have spent on health care. So yeah, it would be paid for out of taxes. And no, I am not advocating that doctors become federal employees, though in effect it might wind up being very similar. I see nothing wrong with that. When a doctor bills medicare is he/she a federal employee in that moment? Hardly! As for an individuals responsibility to maintain their health, right again, but when a person's health is not good and they do not have coverage their emergency room visit results in YOUR premiums going up. So while the care you receive never changes you pay more for it. This is what happens right now to take care of the uninsured people. So as for personal responsibility goes, it appears to me that you have taken it upon yourself to take care of a lot of people other than yourself. And no small fraction of your healthcare dollar is going to the shareholder too. Why? Did they actually contribute to the healthcare process? No. And to Mr. Chip, you are also righ. When our country got started they didn't have a lot of things. Benjamin Franklin was the first post master general, he also started the first police station, the first fire department and even the first insurance company (unfortunately). But guess what, we have formed even more institutions since then. Our country continues to grow and change and we strive to continue to FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION. And I am sorry, I just don't see profiting off of peoples disease as part of that.

But you act as though healthcare is some sort of inalienable right. Up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. What you seem to advocate is that I pay my 'fair share' of the public health burden, just like everyone else will, and somehow we will collectively cook the books and there will be enough money to cover everyone. Sounds nice, but it will not work that way. Some people are more inclined to get sick than others. Those people ought to pay higer premiums because they cause more strain on the system. THis fact holds true whether healthcare is privatized or federalized. Furthermore, a federalized healthcare system would require me to be much more interested in the health of everyone else in the system. I'd encourage laws prohibiting extramatiral sex, smoking, eating fatty foods, and even driving. Anything to keep the strain on the system down. Think that sounds ludicrous? Private insurance companies don't have to do that, because they control the risk by adjusting your premiums. The feds can't adjust your premium, because you wouldn't pay one. How, then, do you propose we minimize the strain on the system?

Pursuit of happiness, not property. Originally the preamble to the constitution did include property as one of the inalienable rights, but they realized that they couldn't promise every person in the country a parcel of land, so they changed it to pursuit of happiness. No, you're quite right, it is not an inalienable right, yet. That's what Amendments are for. Look, your already paying insurance premiums that are higher than what it costs to cover you. You are also paying for every emergency room visit for the uninsured. Not every employed individual has insurance, but they all pay taxes and as such they can be attached to a Universal Health Care System. How about - instead of you paying $1000 a month to cover yourself, a wife and two kids - you were to pay $800 a month in taxes and receive not only the services you currently pay for, but many you don't with the ability to see any doctor you want? Do a google search on HR-676 and read it. It's a good bill.

You’re getting your founding documents mixed up. Kyle was referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration, which is not subject to amendments (although I suppose you could give it a shot), says that these inalienable rights were bestowed upon us by the Creator. Are you suggesting at some point God will decree that health care is suddenly a divinely bestowed right? I doubt it. And, yes, we do have a whole lot more government now than we did. At some point in the middle of the last century Americans starting buying into the idea that they are entitled to free stuff from the government. And things have been going down the tubes ever since. The nation was stronger when people bought into the idea that success was a result of hard work and self reliance. You’ll notice that the Declaration of Independence says that among our inalienable rights is the PURSUIT of happiness. Nowhere does it guarantee that happiness itself be guaranteed.

Ha ha. I stand corrected Chip. "You’re getting your founding documents mixed up. Kyle was referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution." Thanks for the assist. So, you want to shrink the government, eh. What parts of it do you think we should get rid of, that will help our great nation. Do tell.

I’d start with the Social Security Administration and certain divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, replacing the latter with some modern incarnation of the Works Progress Administration or the Civilian Conservation Corps. You know, some sort of a program that would require you to work to receive a pay check from the government. It would never fly, though. Too many entrenched interests in the something-for-nothing redistribution-of-wealth government programs.

I'll answer the question for you, since you don't seem to be answering the call anymore. I think we can do without the massive waste money spent on the war in Iraq. I think we should stop subsidizing farmers. To quote Sara F. Cooper's article in the Pitsburg Tribune, December 5, 2004 "...Eliminating U.S. farm subsidies would dramatically reduce government spending, end a program that mostly benefits corporate interests and the wealthy, strengthen U.S. agriculture, give us needed leverage in international trade negotiations, and allow the United States to extricate itself from the embarrassing practice of undermining its own foreign-aid program..." There you go Chip, I'm taking your side now.

Wow, we were typing at the same time. I like what you said about a work program. I actually agree with that. There will be those who can't work, of course. Getting something for free can be a great diservice to a person. But so is denying them healthcare just because they can't afford it.

'Life, liberty, and pursuit of property' is taken straight from the Locke - it's a philosophical argument, upon which the premise of the French Revolution was founded. I pay insurance premiums higher than the cost of my own coverage because that is how insurance works. You bet against the insurance company that you are going to get sick. Sometimes, I don't get sick; I still have to pay the insurance company. But when I DO get sick, I wind up taking a net WITHDRAWL from the insurance company for that period of time. And I think a worthy question to ask at this point is the following: if I am already, through my taxes, paying for emergency room visits for people who can't otherwise afford them. . . . why does the system need to be changed? I mean, if poor people are already recieving care at my expense, what's the point of changing the law? By that standard, everyone is already covered, whether they want to be or not. At the end of the day, it is the rich who ultimately suffer the most, because they will always have to pay for their own coverage in addition to everyone else's, while the poor are free to get sick and be excused from paying because they don't have the means to do so. If that's the state of things now, why bother changing the system?

Dear Kyle, Glad your still there. Minor, but impotant correction. You are, in fact, paying for other people's emergency room visits, but not through your taxes. It's through your insurance premiums. What did you think? Kaiser was just going to take a loss when they treated the homeless that they dumped back on the street? No way! They charged all of their paying customers more. But if you're cool with that, that's fine by me. And not everyone is covered. Many people are denied treatment for lack of adequate insurance. The insurance companies like to bandy the term experimental around for treatments they don't want to pay for. It isn't that the treatments in question don't work or haven't been tried. It simply cuts too far into the profits.

And why shouldn't it be a profit-driven venture? History has shown time and time again that competition in the free market enables better products to be put forth and greater reliability of those products to be confirmed. Insurance companies don't sell insurance because it is 'the right thing to do,' just like your local supermarket doesn't sell you groceries because it is 'the right thing to do.' Insurance companies, doctors, supermarkets - all operate on the same, profit-driven principle because there is no point to operating a business if you are going to operate at a loss. That's the problem with a government-run healthcare system - the government seems never to care if a program operates in the red, because it can always just steal more money from other programs or from the people. The problem with government-run healthcare is that there isn't an appropriate distribution of the risk. I will pay the same amount as someone with all kinds of other conditions that require more extensive and costly care. It isn't my fault that they are sick, and what's more, if I work hard to keep myself healthy, why shouldn't I be rewarded as such? Auto insurance companies reward their customers by lowering their premiums. Healthcare companies do the same. But politicians tend not to want to reduce taxes, especially on people who can 'afford' to pay them. I'm just not really sure why you keep insisting that healthcare is some sort of required asset. People lived on the earth for many years without insurance. . . .

The pre-existing conditions arguement is an interesting one. My wife has several pre-existing conditions, all of which she has to obtain regular treatment for and all of which could threaten her health and life at any point. She has numerous blood tests, doctor's visits, scans, exams, and other work done just to make sure that her conditions don't degrade any. But she has not been denied healthcare since I was able to get health insurance for myself and her 3+ years ago. She wasn't denied for that, not even life insurance, so my speculation is that people are not looking hard enough to find plans that will accept them. As for the total cost of my insurance? It's in the neighborhood of $400 a month for premiums, with my wife's pre-existing conditions (that are also a major part of her family medical history as well since they are genetic) and my genetic pre-dispositions to several health problems. Now granted, we have not been faced with any major crises yet, and I understand that things could change at any moment, but we have coverage that is both affordable and pretty darn high quality...with our lengthly list of health issues. Why can't other folks seem to get the same?

That's an interesting point, John. Keep in mind that there is more than one insurance company, so there exists competition in the marketplace. People will naturally gravitate towards the coverage plan which has the most value to them - or no coverage plan, if they don't feel that the cost is appropriately balanced against the benefits. Think about it this way: when you go to the store to buy apples, there are a variety of apples to be bought. But if you come to my store and I charge $100 for a bag of apples, you likely won't buy them. Your $100 is more valuable to you than my bag of apples. Insurance, I think, ought to be treated similarly. Individuals ought to be able to balance their priorities; if I don't want to have health insurance, I should be free to do so; but I should also recognize that I will be responsible for health problems that I may have later. For people who don't have the means for such support, we have medicare and medicaid. Sounds to me like the system is already in place; I think the strain would be less if we turned away illegal immigrants from medical services, because they only drain the system (they don't put money back in the public pool). But that's a different argument. The point here to remember is that insurance is a personal choice, based upon your personal means. If you are poor, the simple answer is - take better care of yourself to limit your exposure to disease, and save your money so that you can afford your preferred insurance plan when you think you might actually need it. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit analysis for the individual. I don't trust the government with my money (look at Social Security. . . it makes me cry every time I get my paycheck and I realize that I'll never get that money back). The government has mismanaged (badly) nearly every social program it has undertaken; why would I ever want them to take MORE of my money for ANOTHER social program when we have private enterprise which effeceintly takes care of the problem?

Kyle, I'll agree completely about the pain of seeing the Medicare and Social Security taxes going out every paycheck. It's been a huge amount of money, and I laugh every time I get a Social Security benefits statement saying how much I'll qualify for when I retire, or get hurt, die, etc. It's like a slap in the face with knowing how limited of a time there is left before it goes belly up. As for the insurance, we have our health insurance because it's a fairly good price deal, and the coverages are about as good as they can be. We had dental for a while, but found that they would not pay out but about 1/3 of the premiums we paid to them, so I dropped it...it wasn't a value of any sort. $700 a year in premiums for them to make $250 a year in payments to our dentists...doesn't add up. I hope healthcare never gets to that point.

Precisely, that's just the point - you looked at the dental insurance and decided that it wasn't worth the cost. I mean, if something (God forbid) were to happen to your teeth, you'd have to pay for the procedure out of pocket. . . .but that's the risk you run. And the same should hold true for healthcare. I wouldn't mind a government run program as much (I'd still oppose it with every ounce of my soul, but I wouldn't disagree with it as much) if it were structured with choices, as an independant business would have. But the plans advocated by Hillary and Obama seem more like just extra tax hikes, across the boards. I won't get a choice as to the degree of coverage to be offered. And that's one of the fundamental problems with the whole proposal, is that it divorces the consumer from his ability to chose what is in his own best interest.

Excellent article Matt. Excellent! Health care in America is a disgrace. Whether you have insurance or not. We rank # 37 in quality of health care for all. Insured, and non-insured. You have to take the profit motive out of medical care. It's the profit motive that causes millions of Americans to be poisoned by DOCTORS with to many toxic, and unnecessary drugs. It's the profit motive that causes DOCTORS to injure, and kill millions of patients with premature deployments of unproven medical devices, and drugs. It's the profit motive that causes millions of patients to be injured, and killed with unnecessary, invasive diagnostic test, and surgery's. It's the profit motive that allows 47-89 million Americans to have no health insurance. Because it's un-affordable. It's the profit motive that lets 18-30 thousand Americans die for lack of affordable medical care each year. It's the profit motive that bankrupts millions of Americans just because they get sick. It's the profit motive that leaves millions of Americas children unprotected by easily accessible health care. It's the profit motive that leaves parents afraid to let their children go out to play, or participate in sports for fear they will get hurt and need costly medical care. It's the profit motive that lets a healthy child die from something as simple as a tooth ache that gets infected and destroys their brain. HR 676 is the way to go. In the US you have to watch out for doctors trying to sell you on the most profitable treatments for the doctor. And their stock portfolio. And their drug company kick backs. You the patient are just their B**CH. A cash COW! A peace of meat! Especially if you have so-called good insurance. That they and their colleagues can milk dry. People in government programs like Medicare have some protection from civil service oversight. That is why doctors hate Medicare so much. They can't get away with as much abuse of patients. As they can with private insurance. This crap does not happen in Canada. Because their doctors do what is accepted as best, and safest for the patient. Not what is most profitable for the doctor. Before you or your loved ones get sick. sickocure.org michaelmoore.com And don't just trust me. Get on the internet. Look it up for your-self. It's a no-brainer. Then act aggressively. Get congress moving. And get HR 676 passed. People, you are all at risk every day of your life now. Whether you have the finest full coverage health insurance. Or no insurance at all. All other developed countries have Universal Health Care. That is the best, and only thing that works. You could not have a worse. Or more horrific system than we currently have in the US. In anticipation of coming changes in our health care system. Thousands of patients are being killed at a fevered pitch. And millions injured, and poisoned with unnecessary medications, medical procedures, and surgery's. In an orgy of greed, and profiteering a head of proposed changes to our current disgraceful health care system. I advise you to be careful of taking any recommended medical care at this time without doing your home work. And getting a good independent 2nd, or 3rd opinion. Especially if you have so-called good insurance coverage. This current generation of children. Are the first generation in the history of America who's life expectancy is less than that of there parents. Words cannot express the monumental catastrophe this is for America. America is facing extinction by greed. And our enemy's are laughing their A** off. They fear that we will pass HR. 676 single payer National Health Care For All. Because they know that will make America very strong, and competitive in the world again. They are hoping we fail. Just like the pharmaceutical, insurance, hospitals, doctors, and some politicians are hoping we fail. They are all traitors if they don't wake up and get on the side of the American people. Get it done America. You can do this. You must do this. Or you will not survive.

Well we now know who the anti American politicians are. The politicians who are against the American people. And in it JUST FOR THEM-SELF. They are the ones that voted against Americas kids. And for the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors. That have been raping the American people, and even the little children, and babies of America with abusive, injurious, mutilating, murderous health care. Each of you should find out if your politicians voted for, or against the children of America on September 25, 2007. By voting for, or against SCHIP. A bipartisan majority of both the House, and Senate voted for SCHIP, and for the kids. But those that voted against the kids allowed Bush to veto the bill. As he promised. This is outrageous. And each of you must act NOW! The kids need you to fight for them. And you need to fight for your-self. And for your family's to get SCHIP, and HR 676 passed ASAP. Now that we know who many of the obstacles are. We can really get down to work. You can google "congressional vote record" to get a list of all the politicians that voted against Americas kids, and who will vote against HR. 676 Universal National Health Care For All Americans. See (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvotes.html, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress) These are the politicians that all of you, republican, or democrat need to aggressively start working to replace. Either by supporting strong candidates for their office who fully support SCHIP, and HR 676. Or by running against them your-self. As I have said before. Don't worry that you may not be good enough. Anyone that supports SCHIP, and HR 676 Universal National Health Care For All is a better person than any politician that doesn't support them will ever be. No matter how big their name may be. Forget your fears, and your ego. This is bigger than any individual or group. Run if you must. And run hard for your-self, your fellow Americans and the health, and life of the little children. Take care of your self. And be tough. It may be that some of these politicians will have a change of heart. And will support SCHIP, and HR 676 Universal National Health Care for All Americans. They will get a chance to prove it. We all make mistakes some times. Hope for the best. But aggressively prepare for the worst. So you will be certain to take them out if they don't support SCHIP, and HR 676. I am appealing to everyone. Young, and old rich, or poor. Whatever your back ground. As long as you understand the crisis. And will support SCHIP, and HR 676 with your whole heart. Then do it. And if there are several of you that run. And someone other than you that supports SCHIP, and HR 676 looks like they will have a better chance of a win than you. Drop out at the best strategic time for them. And throw your wholehearted support behind them for SCHIP, and HR 676. Every American needs to do every thing they can to put maximum pressure on these politician's that voted against the kids health care. And see to it that they don't have a snow balls chance in hell of reelection unless they change. And wholeheartedly support passage of SCHIP, and HR 676 Universal health Care For All. There are many things you can do. And if you are creative you will think of more things you can do. Some of the things you can do now. Is to identify which candidates can run against them that will fully support passage of SCHIP, and HR 676. If you cant find one. Then you must step up to the plate. And run your-self. Or find some people that will. Run if you must. And run hard. Everyone who's politicians voted for SCHIP should start contacting their neighbors in the states, and districts that voted against SCHIP. Use the information above to get the information on the politicians states, and districts. Then start giving your neighbors in these districts a call. Write them a letter. Or send them a email if you have an address. Contact their newspapers. And online message board's. You can use google, and yahoo directory to lookup names, address, and phone numbers of your neighbors in other states. Then contact them. And in a neighborly way. Let them know that their politician "by name" voted against health care for the kids. And because of that Bush was able to veto a bipartisan bill to assure health care for many of your kids. Ask them to contact there politician and put pressure on them to pass SCHIP, and HR 676 when they come up again. And to make them veto proof from Bush. And to please stay on top of these two issues SCHIP, and HR 676 Universal National Health Care For All. And keep the pressure on. And keep the pressure building. And to please vote for the candidate in the next election that will support SCHIP, and HR 676. And to vote against any politician that will not support SCHIP, and HR 676. Also contact your family, and friends in these other states. And ask them to contact their politicians that voted against the kids. contact the National media. And tell them that you want them to broadcast the vote for the kids live. Scheduled for October 18, 2007. Call the medias sponsors and tell thing you expect the media to broadcast the vote for the Kids live. especially NPR, and PBS. Do every thing in your power to focus the total attention of America on the vote for the kids. Talk it up at work, and at your job. Unless you work for the drug, insurance, hospital industry, or doctors. Your employer should be very supportive of SCHIP, and HR 676 Universal National Health Care For ALL. Medical Care is killing American business. Ask everyone that can to stop what they are doing. And watch, or listen to the vote. Ask your employers, restaurants. The sports bars. Every body to stop what they are doing and tune in to the vote for the kids. If you are driving tune in. And turn on your car lights for the kids. And if you can do it safely pull over, and honk your horns for the kids. Do every think you can. Pullout all the stops. To make sure that Washington knows you will be watching this vote with vengeance in mind. If they fail the kids again. If you need any motivation at all. I have posted long lists of horrific truths about the disgraceful state of American health care. But my space here is limited. So I will give you just one of the many horrible facts about health care in America. And I am warning you. Brace your-self. "This current generation of children is the first generation of children in the history of America who's life expectancy is less than that of their parents. And they have already started dieing at an alarming rate." Shocking!! Horrific, Catastrophic. We must do everything we can to save Americas children. And the American people. You can do this America. No matter how much money the insurance, pharmaceutical, hospitals, and doctors line the politicians pockets with. This fight is for the kids, and for your life. It's on each of your shoulders individually. You must not fail America. You must not fail. Pickup the sword. Hold it tight. And use it. :-(

Oh, my, where to start, Jacksmith. . . Your fragmented sentences make your rant somewhat difficult to read. Supporters of SCHIP argue, as Jacksmith has done, that the bill is needed 'for the protection of the children' and that Bush's veto has done nothing but 'sentence millions of children to death.' The fact of the matter is, however, that SCHIP is actually still in place. What Bush vetoed was an EXTENSION of SCHIP which would have added additional strain to the already-faltering system. You would be a 'child' up to age 25, and thus qualified to recieve assistance from the government. You would qualify for assistance, also, if your income is within 400% of the poverty line. And how do we plan to fund this? By raising taxes on private insurance policies. That's right, the government seeks to penalize you, the insurance holder, for not holding the 'government's plan.' But SCHIP aside, I'd like to consider Jacksmith's anti-capitalist rant for a second. Perhaps he believes that if we simply got rid of money the world might be a better place. That may be true, but it's a metaethical question and not one that is appropriate for discussion in the forum. What Jacksmith seems to imply is that if we could just convince doctors to work for the good of mankind, we'd all be better off. That's a noble position to take, but an infeasible one in the context of human nature. Doctors provide a service, just like your dry cleaner does. You might argue that the service of the doctor is far more important than the service of the dry cleaner - in which case I would contend that doctors are rightfully compensated for their services more than dry cleaners are. Helping people is a noble goal, indeed, but doctors have to be businessmen as well (even they must earn a living). So Jacksmith contends, I suppose, that we ought to just put doctors on the government payroll and let it stand there. A nice ploy, but an infeasible one; when you take the profit margin out of the potential doctor's choice of careers, it makes being a doctor a lot less appealing. So much money goes into educating these guys that it stand to reason that one would be either a fool or wholly desperate to accept a government position which would not merit the compensation that a doctor should rightfully recieve. At the end of the day, at the very least, privatized insurance allows for much greater consumer choice and flexibility. I wouldn't be opposed to the government offering its own competitive plan (so long as it wasn't funded by taxes), but that doesn't seem to be Jacksmith's proposal. He advocates one plan, for everyone. Totally inflexible, and totally vulnerable in the event of a catestrophy. It would, I think, be a monumentally poor decision to concentrate so much more power and so much more money in the hands of the government. I don't want my life to be in their hands.

You have to take the profit motive out of the practice of medicine. You don't become a doctor to become wealthy. Anymore than you become a teacher, a policeman, or a firefighter to become wealthy. Should these jobs pay well. And have good benefits. Yes they should, for dedicated public servants in the richest country in the world. I hear from people around the world with no ax to grind about health care in America. Because they all live in countries with good health care. But when ever the subject comes up about seeing your Doctor. They almost always apologetically respond like this. "Oh I'm sorry. I forgot. You live in America. I understand their doctors are not very good." So true. And so sad. Because we used to be consider the best in the world. But the corruption of the profit motive, and greed have killed it. American Doctors have killed it. The truth is. Few people begrudge a dedicated Doctor making a comfortable income as a byproduct of providing an important public service. In fact this was supported down through the years by the public. Specifically to free dedicated doctors from having to worry about providing comfortably for their family's. So they would be free to provide for the medical needs of the public without undue financial concerns. Not as some believe. As a reward for all their education, and working hard in school. Or sacrifice for their chosen profession. Many people are just as educated. Work just as hard. And sacrifice just as much for their chosen professions. The comfortable incomes that the public has allowed. And in many cases encouraged is not about the Doctor. It's about the publics need, and value of the service provided to the public by presumably dedicated professionals in their chosen fields. Not to create a wealthy class. Or as a reward. But rather merely as a byproduct of being a dedicated servant of the publics best medical needs. I know. It sounds like a joke compared to what is actually going on in this country. And most American Doctors think that's just crazy. Most think all the money is because they beat out other people for a spot in medical school. And all the money is their reward. Wrong! Their reward is supposed to be being able to provide the important social service that most said they were dedicated to doing from the time you were a child. I can just hear it now. "Mommy! Daddy! when I grow up. I want to be a rich Doctor." And that is who the medicals schools choose. Most of which are public tax supported institutions. It's wrong! Millions of people with no health care. And those that due. Unable really to afford it. People who worked hard their whole life. Two, and three jobs. To pay for their home. Educate their family. Pay for their worthless health insurance. And retire with dignity. WIPED OUT. Because they happened to get sick. Often from the side effects of poisonous drugs, and unnecessary treatments pushed on them for profit by their DOCTOR. It is my understanding that every doctor in congress voted against health care for this kids. And few if any of their doctor colleges have spoke up against them for the kids. Or publicly urged them to change their vote. What a disgrace American Medicine has become. They should all be replaced...

So what you seem to be saying is that we need to stop allowing people who want to be doctors 'for the wrong reasons' to be doctors. An interesting proposition; but you seem to come from the standpoint that doctors have an obligation to help people. I suppose, from a sociological standpoint, that may be a viable claim; but I don't think it withstands the common-sense test. Think about it this way: I am a musician; I play french horn. But the fact that you like french horn music does not in any way compel me to play my french horn for you at your behest. Similarly, the fact that doctors have certain skills does NOT in any way entitle you to access to those skills. You can't compel people to help you just because they know how; that's more like taking advantage of them. I'm not sure where you come up with this apparent claim that health care is an absolute right of humans; there is a difference between me killing you (and depriving you of life intentionally), and me with doctoral skills refusing to save you (I am not at fault for your death by virture of the fact that I don't want to use my skills). This is why good samaratin laws are bogus - you can't legally or morally compel people to use their particualr skills just because you want them to. Granted, many doctors DO want to help people, and do so when asked. But it is dangerous to assert that people who want to become doctors ought to be absolute altruists; in doing so, you strip them of their humanity and reduce them to their skill set alone. It seems morally similar to the concept of slavery. . . . .

I'm curious to know, Jacksmith, whether or not you go to doctors when you get sick. You seem to have an absolute disdain for the profession, and an absolute distrust of the professionals. So when you fall ill, do you still put your life in their hands? Or perhaps it would be better if we all just learned to care, medically, for ourselves. . . .

To be perfectly honest, I want the doctors to be profit driven, because if they are, they have the incentive to do a good job. If profit is taken out of the picture, they have no reason to provide decent care, because they will have a guaranteed source of income from the Feds if the system goes socialized. The proof of hideous customer service is in all the government run aspects of society. Look at the DMV, Social Security, Medicare...you can't get anything done by any of them in a timely, efficient, or cost-effective manner because they know that every customer has to use them, and them alone. They have no incentive or reason to improve their service because they are a state-owned and operated monopoly. I don't want my healthcare to fall into the same trap, because as soon as that happens, health care will go in the tank. Competition and profit help to drive excellence. Yes, there will be problem areas, but there will be far less problems overall than if the Feds socialize all of the medical profession. Why would a doctor go through 10+ years of school, have the terribly expensive education to pay for, have to endure all the time of internships and fellowships, if they are only going to come out and make a meager government salary comparable to a teacher? They won't! It's the problem in just about every country with a socialized system...they don't have enough doctors anymore. For the flaws our system has, it's still the best in the world. Why else would people still be flocking here for healthcare if we were so crappy? Statistics don't account for that. If the healthcare in Guatemala or Zimbabwe was so much better, or any country for that matter, US citizens would be booking charter flights elsewhere for care, rather than the reverse which is the current state of things.

This didn't post the first time, so I'm trying it again...To be perfectly honest, I want the doctors to be profit driven, because if they are, they have the incentive to do a good job. If profit is taken out of the picture, they have no reason to provide decent care, because they will have a guaranteed source of income from the Feds if the system goes socialized. The proof of hideous customer service is in all the government run aspects of society. Look at the DMV, Social Security, Medicare...you can't get anything done by any of them in a timely, efficient, or cost-effective manner because they know that every customer has to use them, and them alone. They have no incentive or reason to improve their service because they are a state-owned and operated monopoly. I don't want my healthcare to fall into the same trap, because as soon as that happens, health care will go in the tank. Competition and profit help to drive excellence. Yes, there will be problem areas, but there will be far less problems overall than if the Feds socialize all of the medical profession. Why would a doctor go through 10+ years of school, have the terribly expensive education to pay for, have to endure all the time of internships and fellowships, if they are only going to come out and make a meager government salary comparable to a teacher? They won't! It's the problem in just about every country with a socialized system...they don't have enough doctors anymore. For the flaws our system has, it's still the best in the world. Why else would people still be flocking here for healthcare if we were so crappy? Statistics don't account for that. If the healthcare in Guatemala or Zimbabwe was so much better, or any country for that matter, US citizens would be booking charter flights elsewhere for care, rather than the reverse which is the current state of things.

For the most part, John, I agree with you. It troubles me, however, that there is so much discussion about 'world rankings' and 'how our system stands up to other systems.' In reality, all of this is pure hogwash. How the Sweedes run their healthcare has no effect whatsoever on how we run our healthcare. We currently have a system that works well, for US. Why should we care if it is a system that would work well FOR EVERYONE? I mean, taxes in many European countries are collected at rates of upwards of 50% for each individual (and in many countries, substantially more than that!). Does that mean that we should have high taxes here? Of course not - there may be reasons to have high taxes (I don't believe there are any, but that's my opinion), but at the end of the day how OTHER governments run is contingent upon the wills of their own people. We ought not let ourselves fall into the trap of allowing our government to sign us up for policies which are in the best interests of the British, or the French, etc. Appeals to international law and international precedent may make people feel good about themselves, but ultimately it is the responsibility for the US to craft its own laws and its own policies. Bottom line: stop discussing how our system rates against other systems; ours works, imperfectly; socialized medicine also works, imperfectly. My simple contention is that socialized medicine would NOT work in the United States. Which is 'better' is a matter of personal preference, but is wholly irrelevant to the debate.

Kyle, We want to live like civilized human beings. Not like animals. As you suggest. Why don't you go to one of these underdeveloped countries. Where you can slug it out with the other Animals like your-self to see if you can be the top DOG! Then get back with me if you survive longer than 10 minutes before they make you their B**ch. ;_)

I'm not sure where you gather that I suggest that we live like animals. I would assert that the voluntary trading of goods and services is among the highest marks of a civilized society! All I indicate is that it is unethical to require people to act according to their skill sets. Think about it this way: suppose I am a genius in the realm of physics, so much so that I have devised a way of developing faster-than-light travel. The fact that I have this knowledge, however, in no way compels me to share it with anyone; nor does it compel me to even practice physics as a profession. You seem to assert that, since doctors know how to save people's lives, they ought to be REQUIRED to use those skills whether they way to or not. Like I said before, this is eerily similar to contending that African slaves were strong and hard workers, and so should be compelled to work against their will because the benefit to society will be greater.

Kyle, You have to take the profit motive out of the practice of medicine. You don't become a doctor to become wealthy. Anymore than you become a teacher, a policeman, or a firefighter to become wealthy. Should these jobs pay well. And have good benefits. Yes they should, for dedicated public servants in the richest country in the world. I hear from people around the world with no ax to grind about health care in America. Because they all live in countries with good health care. But when ever the subject comes up about seeing your Doctor. They almost always apologetically respond like this. "Oh I'm sorry. I forgot. You live in America. I understand their doctors are not very good." So true. And so sad. Because we used to be consider the best in the world. But the corruption of the profit motive, and greed have killed it. American Doctors have killed it. The truth is. Few people begrudge a dedicated Doctor making a comfortable income as a byproduct of providing an important public service. In fact this was supported down through the years by the public. Specifically to free dedicated doctors from having to worry about providing comfortably for their family's. So they would be free to provide for the medical needs of the public without undue financial concerns. Not as some believe. As a reward for all their education, and working hard in school. Or sacrifice for their chosen profession. Many people are just as educated. Work just as hard. And sacrifice just as much for their chosen professions. The comfortable incomes that the public has allowed. And in many cases encouraged is not about the Doctor. It's about the publics need, and value of the service provided to the public by presumably dedicated professionals in their chosen fields. Not to create a wealthy class. Or as a reward. But rather merely as a byproduct of being a dedicated servant of the publics best medical needs. I know. It sounds like a joke compared to what is actually going on in this country. And most American Doctors think that's just crazy. Most think all the money is because they beat out other people for a spot in medical school. And all the money is their reward. Wrong! Their reward is supposed to be being able to provide the important social service that most said they were dedicated to doing from the time you were a child. I can just hear it now. "Mommy! Daddy! when I grow up. I want to be a rich Doctor." And that is who the medicals schools choose. Most of which are public tax supported institutions. It's wrong! But millions of people with no health care. And those that due. Unable really to afford it. People who worked hard their whole life. Two, and three jobs. To pay for their home. Educate their family. Pay for their worthless health insurance. And retire with dignity. WIPED OUT. Because they happened to get sick. Often from the side effects of poisonous drugs, and unnecessary treatments pushed on them for profit by their DOCTOR.

Jacksmith. . . .reposting your original rebuttal does not qualify as a rebuttal in itself. I still have to contend that doctors are not 'public servants,' nor should they be considered as such. I believe that I have sufficiently labored that point in my other posts, so I will not reiterate it now.

How could anyone vote against health care for the kids. The health of Americas children is in a crisis. This current generation of children. Are the first generation in the history of America who's life expectancy is less than that of there parents. Words cannot express the monumental catastrophe that this is for America. Add to that. Life expectancy has been dropping in America dramatically over the past years. At one time. American women had the longest life expectancy in the world. They were #1. Now they rank #42 with the rest of America. And getting worse. And some people still want to quibble about the need for expanded health care for kids. And the need for HR 676 Universal National Health Care For All. Give me a break. How corrupt, stupid, greedy, and short sighted can you be. America is facing extinction by greed. And our enemy's are laughing their A** off at us. It's midnight in America. And we have no time to loose. Get SCHIP, and HR 676 pass as fast as you can. See sickocure.org, Michaelmoore.com And let every politician know that the HALL OF SHAME!! awaits anyone who votes against the kids in this health care crisis. And it will be the duty of every American to let their constituents know that they voted against the kids. No excuses.

This argument is more than just a 'quibble.' An expansion of healthcare into the federal sphere of control represents a step towards socialism that this country will not be able to take back. I don't doubt that there are many who wish to follow the European model and pursue Socialism, but I would caution them to realize how inferior a system it really is. Stagnant economies, birth rates below the replacement rate, and similar travesties threaten to doom the European continent. Furthermore, I'll not sit idly by and let you turn this into a 'you're either for the kids or against them' argument. The fact of the matter is, SCHIP still exists; what Bush has vetoed is an EXPANSION of SCHIP which will effectively bankrupt the program. The proposed expansion would cover 'children' up to age 25, and would cover children in families of up to 400% of the poverty line. That isn't 'providing healthcare for those who need it most,' it is simply cloaked socialism in a package made to stir up public hatred of those who oppose it.

Americas children are dieing people. Cut the crap and help them. Protect them. Fight for them. Get SCHIP passed. Then get HR 676 passed asap. Wakeup people. You are all suffering, and dieing needlessly. All of you. Rich, and poor. Young, and old. Insured, and uninsured. Democrats, and republicans. Liberal, and conservatives. Don't you get it. The alarm bells are screaming!!!!!!!!!!!! at you. Everyone must rise above politics, and ideology. Before it's to late...

But within all of your alarmist ranting, Jacksmith, there is no intellectual argument. SCHIP has already BEEN passed, and has been working for the last several years. It is the AMENDMENT to SCHIP that was rejected, and rightfully so. YOu say to wake up before it is 'too late,' but I ask you, too late for what? Death happens to everyone eventually. A couple hundred years ago life expectancy was in the 40s; now, life expectancy is somewhere close to 80 if not higher. I mean, let's be intellectually honest here - there are no 'alarm bells' screaming, there is no risk of extinction imminent. Let's resolve to take a more rational approach to this discussion, so that we can avoid clouding the waters with emotional hand-wringing.

Here is a good example of some of the problems with socialized medicine. It's an article about Britain's National Health Service: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071015/wl_uk_afp/britainhealthdentists_071015111944