Two previous Universal Government plans in trouble. Why will Universal Healthcare work?

I read in the daily local today that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2037 and Medicare will be bankrupt by 2017.

Both "Universal" programs created by the Government. Both unwieldy and expensive. And now, both will be insolvent soon without major changes.

Now tell me, with the track record of Mommy Gubberment regarding Social Security, Medicare and now TARP, the Crysler bailout, the AIG bailout etc etc. what makes you actually think that America wants and/or can afford another massive "Universal" program that is run by the obviously inept U.S. Government?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

it just feels good to provide health care. It is a right! Of course don't expect me to write a check to pay for other people's care, because that is what we have the government for. Besides those evil corporations make tons of money (e.g. big oil) let them pay.

Well, how do the REST of the industrialized nations manage to pull it off, Chris? And how do they do it at a much less cost per capita, with a higher level of service?

I already know the answers to these questions. I just want to see if YOU know. :^)

IMHO it will be a miracle if the government can pull it off.

If you remember several years ago the government, due to, I believe a tax issue, became the owners of a brothel in Reno.

They couldn't even run a whorehouse, think they can run healthcare?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Social security doesn't need a "major" change--a slight tweak, and it will be solvent for many years. As for Medicare, healthcare in general needs a major change--i.e. competition, a public plan competing against private plans.

Pink Slip

I'm laughing a bit about your "slight tweak" quip. The SS equation has been tweaked constantly (and at increasing cost) for over a generation. The taxes you and your employer pay for SS have always gone UP. So another "tweak" only means "take more out of your paycheck and employer's bank account". Check it:

"These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program)."

"The taxes you and your employer pay for SS have always gone UP"

The SS rate has been 6.2% for awhile now. The cap raises with inflation. But it's a highly regressive tax, in as much as there is a cap.

Pink Slip

I too am laughing hysterically at that "slight tweak" comment. I heard one other person say that and I couldn't decide if they were dumb or delusional...I think it was both. But seriously, I really, really, REALLY hope some people, well, take for example PinkSlip, does get some of that FABULOUS "free" medical, government-run healthcare. It will be so good for all of us!!!'s "free" AND run by the gov't!! That makes it super ...ah... dupe-r. Really awesome. great. I know, I know, I'm going to have to go with a user-pay private insurance company. YEA___oops.... I meanshucks.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

going old school? Instead of just providing a link to the story, you're copying an image from the paper-product itself.

Or, hey, was the image provided by the paper's website? Now that I think of it I recall talk of that being available at some point.

Kinda like it.

If I recall, I heard a news program not long ago where they said that prior to the 1970's, Blue Cross Blue Shield covered most everybody (and they also still had welfare & medicare) - then BCBS was bought up by somebody, and insurance co's began to 'own' the health care system - dicating who would get care or not,, based on whether they'd pay for it or not. They said that our country is almost the only industrialized country in the WORLD that does not have some sort of universal health care, and that our country spend far more on health care than other countries - BECAUSE insurance & drug co's eat up so much of the money - makes millionaires out of the top dogs, stockholders, politicians (most senators are making money off this shit), lobbyiests, in insurance & drug co's.

I'm not convinced our country can pull this one off either - but while some mock the term 'rights' when it comes to health care, I have to wonder what they say to a family who's parent or child needs surgery or meds to live, and insurance co's decline to pay for it. I guess their only 'right' is to die. The rich & poor always have health care - it's the middle class who usually ends up going without tests, treatment, surgeries, meds, surviving.

Haha...looks like the big front page picture of The Blade has updated itself. I guess The Blade is smarter than the "man seeking liberal fellatio".

Btw, Libs have you tried Craigslist yet?

Pink Slip

Libs always struck me as a guy in the airport bathroom kind of guy.

I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy hairdressing schedules and ignoring your same-sex partners to come on to me, but LIBSCANBLOWME is only my identity because it takes too long to type:


Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

I just thought you didn't want to post under your real name: Heywood Jablome

Pink Slip

SensorG, just about any time you want to wire three cinder blocks to your neck and go for a midnight stroll on Lake Erie, it'll be fine with me. Sooner is better.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Wow- that's really deep...

Nice to know that you think people who disagree with you should kill themselves or just die in general. Very telling.

As for messing with Libs...he's the one who chose a name that is begging for gay sex. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't take it personal when people mess with him.

You mean Larry Craig's list? Haha, too easy.....

The real question is not the success or failure of universal health care. The question people should be asking is, What happens when it fails?

This is a train wreck involving a nuclear hazardous spill looking for a time to happen.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Letting the federal government take control of health care is about as smart as letting my 15 year old daughter run the national Treasury.

Our Fed government has proven itself to be completely incapable of managing our tax dollars as it is. What's going to happen if they do health care? Sorry, I don't trust them one bit.

Reform the system across the board, period. Health care reform. Health Insurance reform. Tort reform. All of these should go hand in hand in fixing this problem.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.


Okay, wait... what's her GPA like?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

damn good question

Likewise we should ask "If we institute government run healthcare what happens to the 15 billion dollar industry we currently have and the people who work for them?"

RN's is one of the best jobs you can get in today's economy. They make a good wage, have good training, and have job security.

This is because of the many home healthcare options now offered. If you put health care in the government's hands the places like Emergi-care industry is wiped out, and add to that the pharmacies at places like Walgreen's. That's a huge chunk out of our economy.

I know what the next question someone will pose is "Who says they will go away?" Well to that I say "What makes you think they won't?" Since I am a betting man if we institute government universal healthcare the safe bet is on them going away.


Why would RN's suddenly have to worry about their jobs if there was a public health insurance plan? How exactly would Walgreen's get wiped out?

Pink Slip

Right now groups like Walgreens buy drugs and supplies from companies who need to make money. Walgreen's sells the drugs and supplies with markup in order to make a profit. The supply and demand dictate the prices.

Since the gov't would take over and wouldn't try to make a profit they would give the drugs/supplies out free or at least a non-profitable rates. The gov't has two options for distribution.... government and private. With private distribution it'll be at contracted (lowest bidder prices) thus lowering profit or government distribution which puts private distribution out of business.

As for RN's, without competing health care agencies all healthcare is provided. What is the need for Emergency services outside of the Emergency room? Currently it's competition, lower rates and better services. Remove the competition and the other other two go away automatically. So... the real question is why would the government pay to keep two people doing the same job that one can do?


Your Walgreens example doesn't hold water for me, since we've had a public plan option available since the 60's with Medicare--and Medicare hasn't wiped out any pharmacies to my knowledge. And I believe the proposed public plan is going to offer higher payments than Medicare (although several different plans are being floated).

As for your second point--you'll have to explain this to me a little more. Why wouldn't there be competing "health care agencies"? Is someone proposing to get rid of them all?

Pink Slip

PS, the rightwing-dingbats are the ones behind all this misinformation. You can buy health insurance in Canada, for example. If socialized medicine really did replace private providers, then why is health insurance for sale in Canada?

No, nobody is proposing to put the private providers in the USA out of business. True, some of them WILL go out of business if true socialized medicine is enacted. But most of them will adapt. In fact, those who remain will thrive ... and that will show how much fat is in the current system. For-profit healthcare is a travesty, a huge waste, and is frankly inhuman since we're in the best position to enact socialized medicine.

If healthcare is provided for free in Canada, why does anyone NEED to buy health insurance?  If socialized medicine in Canada really does work, why do they need private providers in addition to the free healthcare?

The answer is easy. According to Canadian websites so Here are the facts according to Canadians.

Direct from the Canadian Institute for Health Information website are these quotes.  (The Canadian Instutute for Healthcare Information is a website owned and run by the Canadian Government for you simplistic Liberals).

"Waiting for care remains an important issue for Canadians. For example, respondents to a November 2002 poll said that reducing wait times for diagnostic services, such as MRI and CT scans, should be the number one priority for new health care spending. Over half (55%) of Canadians aged 15 and over who had a non-emergency MRI, CT, or angiography in 2001 said that they waited less than a month for their test, but the 5% with the longest waits waited 26 weeks or more*. Sixteen percent of test recipients said that waiting affected their lives. Worry, anxiety, and stress were the most frequently reported effects. "

"The supply of medical imaging equipment varies across Canada. For example, as of January 2003, Ontario had the most CT scanners (95) in the country, but the fewest machines per million population (7.8). In contrast, the Yukon Territory's one CT gave it the highest number per capita (33.5). Variations also exist internationally. For instance, the per capita ratio of CT machines for Japan (data for 1999) was triple that of Korea (2001), the country with the next highest ratio; almost 9 times that of Canada (2001); and fifteen times that of England (2001)."

And direct from the CBC News website (that is the Canadian Broadcasting Company for you Liberals)

"The focus of the Ontario Wait Times Strategy has been to spend nearly $100 million in the provincene to increase the supply of CT and MRI, yet despite this, wait times for MRI are still way above target," said John You, an ICES scientist, in a news release."

"Although Ontario has a single-payer health-care system that strives to provide universal access to care, our findings suggest that access to MRI may be influenced by factors other than clinical need alone."

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

The problem with you rightwing-dingbats is that you keep making the worst assumptions about socialized medicine since you have no intention of ever implementing it. In other words, you're uniformly propagandists.

Health insurance is available in Canada since NOBODY ever claimed that socialized medicine would be ALL medical procedures ALL the time. Naturally, some rationing is expected. And we do the same, with money. After all, that's how you ration ANYTHING -- by AVAILABILITY or by PRICE.

Hence, people who want faster service or more extensive service in Canada use health insurance to cover it. And we can do the same here ... instead of the DREAM WORLD you live in, where people generally suffer and die since you're too fucking CHEAP to save their lives.

At any rate, the numbers are solid and show you up for the stupid asshole you really are:

1. The USA is #1 in per-capita healthcare expenses in the world. No other nation spends as much as we do. THEREFORE, claiming we can't save money through socialized medicine is LUDICROUS.

2. The USA's most-expensive healthcare system only delivers quality of service at the level of #37 or so. That means THIRTY-SIX OTHER NATIONS deliver BETTER SERVICE for LESS MONEY. (Boy oh boy, you'd THINK that some of your beloved CAPITALISTS would jump all over that opportunity to capture market share by achieving greater cost controls. BZZT! Not in for-profit-only USA, buddy!)

The HARD FACT is that we're just about the only industrialized nation that doesn't protect its citizenry with socialized medicine. That's SICK and morally WRONG. We also spend too much making sure insurance companies and hospital administrators get uncalled-for millions. Blatantly put, we put profits well over Human life and quality of life. THAT IS A CHOICE, NOT A PHYSICAL LAW, AND IT'S THE WRONG ONE TO MAKE.

SICK AND WRONG. The USA is a backwater in the world, which is only to be expected, since we're a vicious Empire whose fall just can't come FAST ENOUGH.

P.S. For a minimum of guaranteed care, I'd LOVE to be on a waiting list ... instead of having NO CARE AT ALL, EVER. So screw you and whatever dipshittic, vicious point you were trying to make.

Does your Communist rationed free healthcare system cover high blood pressure? Stroke? Mental problems? Obesity?  Will you still be able to get your free Viagra?

Cause you might get an MRI a few weeks after drooling when you stroke out due to your emotional problem, anger issues and Turrets Syndrome.
By the way, you might want to look back at your Liberal Indocrination Comic Book. Because you left-wing whacko morons always screech about the "seperation of church and state".  Quit trying to force your whacko religion or moral beliefs on me. It is YOUR Moral Opinion, YOUR religion you are trying to force on the rest of us.
And I suggest if you want everything in life to be free, move back to Cuba you America hating dirtbag. Your true colors and true feelings about America shine through with your self-loathing statement "The USA is a backwater in the world, which is only to be expected, since we're a vicious Empire whose fall just can't come FAST ENOUGH."
Are you a NAZI? Or do you just hate America so much that you are trying to make its 'fall come faster' so your Dear Leader, Stalin, can take over faster?
Have a nice day Comrade.
You must be so proud.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"since we've had a public plan option available since the 60's with Medicare--and Medicare hasn't wiped out any pharmacies to my knowledge"

Well since it's such a good program why do you insist on eliminating it?

Oh yeah that's right... refer to the original post.


I'm not sure what you mean. Where did I say I want to eliminate Medicare?

Pink Slip

A "Universal payer system" like the one Democrats are proposing would not directly lower healthcare costs, instead it would put Insurance Companies out of business. Much the same way Toledo has put the ambulance companies out of business.

Those insurance companies that provide healthcare insurance are mostly small. Under 50 workers according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A "Universal Payer" system would not lower costs, but instead do what Medicare does. Pay ONLY what Medicare says they would pay. Period.

For instance, say you need an operation for a gall bladder, Medicare will pay $100 toward that operation as an example. But the actual costs associated with a gall bladder operation are actually $1000 after the hospital pays for the surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologist, drugs, sterile OR, instruments, paperwork and even the housekeeping staff to clean the OR after the operation.

 Who do you think would pay the rest?

Don't think that makes sense? Look up the Medicare website and their Medigap offerings.

Or, Google "Medicare supplemental" and see the 1,200,000 hits you get from companies selling Medigap insurance.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

A universal plan is not being proposed. A public plan is being proposed alongside existing plans. People would CHOOSE between the plan they currently have or choosing the public plan.

"A "Universal Payer" system would not lower costs, but instead do what Medicare does. Pay ONLY what Medicare says they would pay"

ALL insurances do this. Services paid are based on contracted rates. NO insurance company pays what is billed. And it's usually more than what it costs to provide the service (it has to be, or there would be no profits)

Pink Slip

Democrats and other Socialists do not take into account human nature.

FACT: It is human nature to take the path of least resistance.

FACT: People like getting things for free.

So according to your thinking, people would choose between a plan that they have to pay for, that they have to read the contract, that they have to take responsibility for


a plan that someone else pays for and who cares what the fine print says.

"ALL insurances do this. Services paid are based on contracted rates."  Which means that healthcare costs would remain unchanged, right? The only thing that changes is who pays for that cost.  What is the difference then? Are you getting lower taxes in Toledo now that the TFD has taken over ambulance service? Are you getting lower taxes in Toledo now that the City has taken over the tow lot? If not, and everyone knows you are not, why the hell do you think that the government on a nationwide scale can do better with health insurance?

Using your altruistic "logic", I also want you to pay for my car insurance. I want you to pay for my homeowners insurance. I want you to pay for my college. After all, those are my rights to have those things.

Meanwhile, I'll sit back and take no responsibility for my own actions. Why should I? You take away the consequences of my laziness, my stupidity and my ineptitude. It is THAT thinking that leads to the AIG bailout, TARP, and all the other blood-sucking ideas that take money from the people who earn it.

If you and other simplistic Democrats would stop and think about your ideas, maybe this country would be better off.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"People like getting things for free"

Nothing is free, son. And no one is offering anything for free. So put your straws away.

"why the hell do you think that the government on a nationwide scale can do better with health insurance?"

Well, I know that I would be paying a lot less. And most people would pay less in fact, due to the hidden tax that's currently applied to our premiums. This is the tax that makes up for all of the uninsured. And we are ALL paying it. In Ohio, we pay $1,000/year more per family to make up for the cost of the uninsured. This might help explain why our country pays waaaay more than anyone else, and we still have 50 million uninsured.

"Meanwhile, I'll sit back and take no responsibility for my own actions. Why should I? You take away the consequences of my laziness, my stupidity and my ineptitude"

Is this supposed to describe people who don't have health insurance? If so, I personally know a few auto workers you should talk to. You can tell them how "lazy" they are.

Pink Slip

Sure, people give stuff away all the time. I've been trying to get rid of my 'free' magazine subscriptions for six months now, and they still won't listen to me.

Seriously, though, it's about perception. The tax money comes out of my paycheck before I get a chance to hold it. I have no real control in the way that my tax money is spent, nor do I see a direct, tangible benefit. By control, I mean that I do not have the authority to say that although the federal government took 30% of my money, none of that money is to be used for military spending (for instance). The government does as it pleases them without restriction.

I pay too much for health insurance. Insurance companies are profit minded institutions, so simple logic would tell me that if a non-profit organization replaced the insurance company, I should be able to pay less than I do now because that profit is eliminated. The trouble is, greed gets in the way. The federal government will conclude that since I'm paying 30% in taxes and, say, $150 per month for health insurance, why couldn't I simply continue to pay that amount? Look at it this way: it isn't going up this year. And that's where it starts, and that's why it won't save us money. Yes, it should save us money. It won't.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"Well, I know that I would be paying a lot less."

How would you be paying a lot less? Where in the Obama plan are healthcare costs reduced? If it costs $1000 for a procedure today, what part of the Obama plan will bring the cost of the same procedure down?

And like you said, "Nothing is free, son. And no one is offering anything for free."  So how will you continue to pay for healthcare? And if I do not have a job, who is going to pay my share of my healthcare premium?

Once again I ask, when Carty took over the EMS service and tow lot, did your taxes go down? They should have.

Proof that you ARE paying for the City of Toledo to be in private business, just like the Federal Government would be. You WILL pay for healthcare, it will cost the same and you will pay with it through taxes.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Libs, if everyone is covered under some kind of plan then costs are spread out over more people (rather than having the insured pay higher premiums to cover the non-insured)

Pink Slip

"Libs, if everyone is covered under some kind of plan then costs are spread out over more people (rather than having the insured pay higher premiums to cover the non-insured)"

You must be joking, right?  Are you suggesting that someone can get a health plan with little or no money and somehow you will not be the taxpayer who pays more in taxes to buy health insurance for them?

You actually think that your premiums will go down once you are lumped into the same healthcare plan that someone else gets for free?

My insurance company does not have to raise their premiums to cover the non-insured. The healthcare provider has to do that. My insurance company covers what costs I incurr and also what costs the other members of my plan incurr.  NOT what the hospital has to charge to make up the difference between those who pay and those who do not.

And THAT is what the Obama plan lacks. YOU WILL pay more. You will pay more through taxes in order for the Government to purchase healthcare for the non-producers.

Are you part of a plan at work now?

How much does it cost you?

Now, if some of the people at your work got the same plan for free, do you really think that your premiums will stay the same?

Like was said before. Nothing is free. YOU will be FORCED to pay higher premiums immediately since you will have to pay to make up the difference in money between those who have the cash and those who do not.

Once again I ask.

Which part of the Obama plan lowers the cost of healthcare?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"Are you suggesting that someone can get a health plan with little or no money and somehow you will not be the taxpayer who pays more in taxes to buy health insurance for them?"

No, I never suggested that.

"My insurance company does not have to raise their premiums to cover the non-insured. The healthcare provider has to do that."

And who does the healthcare provider get their money from? Insurance companies. The cost gets passed on to the insured through higher premiums.

You will pay more through taxes in order for the Government to purchase healthcare for the non-producers

Of course, it will have to be funded somehow--that's obvious. But the costs of lower healthcare will outweigh it.

"How much does it cost you? Now, if some of the people at your work got the same plan for free, do you really think that your premiums will stay the same?

No one gets a plan for free. But a public health care option would work like this. The uninsured can purchase a plan from a large pool (think purchasing power--like employer based coverage). If these uninsured try to purchase healthcare on their own, it's outrageously expensive, but not as much with group purchasing power. Private plans would then have to compete with public plans by being more cost effective. And since public plans do a much better job of controlling costs, private plans should become more cost-effective--they have to if they want to compete. I believe the public plan would also be available through employers as well, with some cost-sharing occurring.

Pink Slip

Let me ask you some questions about your car insurance in order to make a point.

You live in Ohio, correct?

You have a law in Ohio that everyone who registers their car and gets license plates must have car insurance, correct?

Since the answer to both of those questions is 'YES', then why are you also required by law to purchase an 'Uninsured Motorist' policy in Ohio?

If there is a law that everyone has to have insurance, why is there another law that makes you buy 'Uninsured Motorist' insurance also?

Could it be because people do not purchase auto insurance like the law says?

And you think that everyone will buy health insurance also? Really, what will happen is YOU will pay for the 'Uninsured Healthcare' insurance just like you do for your car

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"what will happen is YOU will pay for the 'Uninsured Healthcare' insurance"

We're already paying healthcare costs for the uninsured, with higher premiums. The goal is to get everyone insured and lower these costs. (and then hopefully focus on prevention)
France has a public/private mix, and they pay much less and their healthcare is considered the best in the world by many

Pink Slip

Think about what you just said.

"We're already paying healthcare costs for the uninsured, with higher premiums."

How many members of your health insurance group are not paying for their portion of your group insurance? If someone is going to get stiffed, it is NOT the insurance company, it is the hospital or doctor. Therefore, you are not paying the healthcare costs for the uninsurre with higher premiums, you are paying the costs through higher charges from the medical institution that is getting stiffed by the uninsured, who also will not pay cash for the service they steal.

Here. A quick lesson in what insurance is and how it works.

"The amount of the premium is determined by the operation of the law of averages as calculated by actuaries. By investing premium payments in a wide range of revenue-producing projects, insurance companies have become major suppliers of capital, and they rank among the nation's largest institutional investors."

So, the healthcare costs for the uninsured are NOT paid by your insurance company. It is the job of the insurance company to asses the risk per individual in their group and set premiums accordingly.

The PRICE of the lack of healthcare is being paid by the medical providers.

So once again I ask, what part of the Obama plan lowers the cost of healthcare for the people who provide the service of healthcare?

Get it?  Insurance companies DO NOT provide the service of healthcare. It is the medical providers who have to raise their costs to make up for not getting paid by some people.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"If someone is going to get stiffed, it is NOT the insurance company, it is the hospital or doctor."

They recoup those costs somehow. And they do it through higher premiums:

Nearly 48 million Americans will be uninsured for the entire year in 2005. What happens when some of these 48 million Americans get sick? Research has shown that the uninsured often put off getting care for health problems—or forgo care altogether.1 When the symptoms can no longer be ignored, the uninsured do see doctors and go to hospitals. Without insurance to pay the tab, the uninsured struggle to pay as much as they can: More than one-third (35 percent) of the total cost of health care services provided to people without health insurance is paid out-of-pocket by the uninsured themselves.2

To find out who pays the remainder of this bill—the portion that the uninsured themselves simply cannot manage to pay—Families USA contracted with Dr. Kenneth Thorpe, Robert W. Woodruff Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, to analyze data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Center for Health Statistics, and other data. Through this study, we found that the remaining $43 billion is primarily paid by two sources: Roughly one-third is reimbursed by a number of government programs, and two-thirds is paid through higher premiums for people with health insurance.

Pink Slip

"It is the medical providers who have to raise their costs to make up for not getting paid by some people"

Right. And those costs get passed down to the insured. According to the report I referenced:

"Providers attempt to recover these “uncompensated care” dollars through various strategies; one key strategy is to negotiate higher rates for health care services paid for by private insurance."

Pink Slip

I currently receive government health care provided by the government. I work for it.

Why would I pay for private health care when I already receive it for free?


I don't know MikeyA, why would you? (Although, I have to say--your health care is not free. Someone pays for it)

Pink Slip

"I don't know MikeyA, why would you?" Exactly Pink. You can't answer that. So explain to me why we need to be rid of a billion dollar industry.


MikeyA, no one is proposing that we eliminate any private plans--only that a public plan is offered as well

Pink Slip

This link shows the real cost of a gall bladder operation,, for both the general public and medical "tourism". Look at "General Surgery" section. Still cheaper than a car, I guess.

Old South End Broadway

...go (especially if your health insurance company drops you for this "preexisting condition"). This link,, compares the cost to a patient in the U.S. versus going to India for the surgery.

Old South End Broadway

...government to subsidize flights to India, instead of subsidizing the expensive lifestyle of surgeons in this country. We could send our most vulnerable citizens to India where they would get good care at a reasonable price while permitting our medical establishment to do what they do best: the transfer of wealth for those fool enough to pay the price.

Old South End Broadway

From MikeyA: If we institute government run healthcare what happens to the 15 billion dollar industry we currently have and the people who work for them?

My first reaction to this question was the wrong one. Here's the second.

If this is a 15 billion dollar a year industry, turning it over to the federal government should make it a 30 billion dollar a year money pit. What will likely happen is that a lot of middle and upper middle income workers will transfer over from the insurance companies to government jobs. Then, just when everyone bellies up to the hog trough for their third helping, the place will begin to go broke. The politicos and the media will have a circus that will completely obscure what ever other shenanigans the thieves in D.C. want to pull off, and the health care federal insurance will crash land and kill everyone who didn't have a parachute.

Right after the first child dies from appendicitis the Congress Critters will have a double secret emergency session. They'll formulate a brand new plan and The Anointed One (or His Successor) will take the podium and jerk us all off on national TV.

I'd think a sharp spike in unemployment will be the result, followed by a nasty hit to the economy.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Hey, it looks like that runaway teen from Norwalk was caught in Tennessee

Pink Slip

I did not realize that the link to the front page of the Toledo Blade was not static.

For those of you who did not see the front page from yesterday, here is the article.

"Article published May 13, 2009

Social Security fund might run dry by 2037

 The recession is hurting both funds, which are financed by payroll taxes.

The United States has lost 5.7 million jobs since the recession began, meaning less payroll tax flows into the funds. At the same time, aging baby boomers and rising health-care costs add to expenditures.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees' group, said lower health-care costs are key to saving Medicare. "The most effective entitlement reform measure will be a major health reform that helps bring down the growth rate of national health-care spending," he said.

President Obama and Congress have been working to overhaul the health-care system with the goal of increasing coverage and lowering costs. But there is no consensus on how to pay for it.

"This report underscores the urgency of action on comprehensive health-care reform this year," said Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "As costs continue to rise, the Medicare program so important to so many American families is put in jeopardy."

Republicans agreed that health-care reform is urgent.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) said the report shows the recession is "accelerating the arrival of a massive, trillion-dollar entitlement crisis on our doorstep. "Trying to kick the can down the road will not make it go away," Mr. Gregg said. "We need to take meaningful action now."

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree."

Mr. Geithner said the Obama Administration plans to tackle Social Security once health care is addressed.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to use the report to build momentum for reform, reiterating the administration's contention that the best way to strengthen Medicare's finances is to, as she put it, "fix what's broken in the rest of the health-care system."

The options for fixing Social Security are simpler than for Medicare, though just as politically daunting: either raise revenues or cut benefits.

Workers fund Social Security by a paying 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 of their earned income. Employers match the payment.

Increasing revenues could be accomplished by raising the tax rate or the amount of earnings taxed.

Workers can retire with full benefits at age 66. The retirement age is to gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

One option to cut benefits would be to raise the retirement age even further. "Social Security is really a math problem," said David Certner of the AARP. "Can you make sure that the money coming in is the same as the money going out?"

The report projected Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections.

The report said the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting demands from the of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016.

After the fund is depleted in 2037, annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. "

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Which is more greedy, corrupt & untrustworthy? The insurance co's or the govt.? Seems pretty much a tie to me. I know that insurance co's employ people who's only job, is to search for ways to decline coverage, to decline paying, to decline giving insurance to people based on silly reasons (pre-ezisting conditions which are often petty things, like a kidney infection 10 years ago),

Insurance co's are small? I fail to see that is true - they are extremely wealthy, and they do control who gets medical care, tests, medication - by whether or not they'll pay. Health insurace co's are no more ethical than AIG (oops, also an insurance co. - and AIG LOST what was it? About 700 thousand, trillion dollars or something like that, in derivatives???????? And yet, their top dogs got millions of dollars in bonuses? And the parties they threw with tax payer dollars??? Only to come back, begging for more money??? Seems to me, Insurance co's are just as greedy & corrupt as the govt is. It's a toss up who's worse.

You think I'm crazy by saying that few will choose the private option?

Well I... that's right me... right now... have....Government run healthcare.

And.... I ..... do not.... purchase.... private... healthcare. Why?

Probably because I'd be dumb if I did. I'd have to pay out of pocket for it while my tax money already pays for it free. I couln't use it if I did because the hospital I am near doesn't accept private insurance.

Now. Do I enjoy my healthcare? Yes, I earned it. I work for it. It's one of the few perks to serving our country.

Do I think it would work for the nation as a whole? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I am pushed to the front of the line due to my rank. If the doctor makes a blatant mistake I cannot sue. And when I'm in pain I don't get the "good drugs". Now we get one drug. What we in the Marines call "Vitamin M". Motrin. Only Motrin.

I have a Marine on convalescent leave. He's in pain. The only thing they gave him. Motrin. My wife, has stomach pains that thus far have not yet been correctly diagnosed. What did they give her? Motrin.

Now don't get me wrong. I can deal with military medicine. Their hands are tied just as mine are. They deal with more red tape government b.s. than even I do and god bless them for it. But if given the choice between going to a military doctor and a civilian one you'd be hard pressed to find a military member who doesn't take the private option.


I gov't-run healthcare is better in your estimation. And it's good enough for you, but not for others?

Pink Slip

If you would have read my post you'd realize that with gov't run healthcare you get doctor's who are gov't run. Emergency rooms that are gov't run. And pharmacies that are gov't run.

When was the last time you left the Social Security office with a warm and fuzzy feeling in your stomach?

and "I gov't-run healthcare is better in your estimation. "

No I'm not saying it's better. In fact, I'm saying it's not better. Hence why military members rush to the civilian doctors when they're given the chance. The reason it's not better is the red tape. The military doctor's are excellent but have to follow protocol that limits what they can do. How do you think America will react when they stop their private insurance only to find out their gov't run insurance will only pay for them to get motrin? Something they could buy over the counter themselves?

"And it's good enough for you, but not for others? "

Again, Not what I'm saying. I support expanding the military health care system to both 9/11 families and service organizations. If someone doesn't have healthcare and that's a top priority then they should join the military or a service organization.


Since no one is proposing government-run doctors/ER's/pharmarcies, then that should allay some of your fears, right?

"The military doctor's are excellent but have to follow protocol that limits what they can do."

Again, this is not unique. Private insurances also dictate the rules. A lot of complaints about Medicare or military healthcare are the same as complaints about private insurances. But private insurance is wasteful, and cost-prohibitive. They MUST make a profit, therefore they MUST make it expensive. The profit motive retards the supply/demand laws. Even though demand is high, they restrict the supply. They MUST do this.

Pink Slip

GOP Senator agrees with Michael Moore: "[Gitmo detainees] get better health care than the average American citizen does."

Pink Slip


"Washington, DC (WUSA) -- A major 9NEWS NOW EXCLUSIVE -- allegations from a former inspector at Walter Reed of widespread and dangerous problems in nearly all the buildings at the Army's premier hospital. Burst steam pipes near electrical cables, rats, mold, and holes in floors and walls -- all of that extends far beyond the well-publicized problems at the notorious Building 18."


"The U.S. Army voluntarily discontinued much of its blood collection at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., in March while it worked on correcting numerous blood collection violations.

Investigators with FDA's Baltimore district office uncovered the violations while inspecting the Walter Reed blood center Sept. 28 through Oct. 17, 1995. Problems found included:

* lack of proper equipment and supplies for blood drives

* failure to maintain an up-to-date donor disqualification deferral list

* improperly refrigerated whole blood"


Army fires chief at Walter Reed, citing poor care

"WASHINGTON - The Army fired the general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center after disclosures about inadequate treatment of Iraq vets and other wounded soldiers.

The action on Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was announced Thursday by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care." He had headed Walter Reed since last August. "


Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.