This is why we need and want healthcare overhauled and reformed in this country. Too many screw ups that cost money needlessly charged. Nothing is streamlined, nothing is transparent. The whole system is overpriced to insanity and beyond. Its time the American people stepped in and took control of a system gone mad. Too many people have gone bankrupt over stupid @!$%# like this.

Please consider as well that it was told over and over that they were some how able to get insurance....try writing this story if you have just "regular" insurance or very little insurance or no insurance.....guess what, you end up in the 48,000 that don't make it every year. Please don't anyone every take their insurance for granted because it may not provide you anything or very little and then the last story is even worse.

This is just as sad as the OctoMom that MediCal(govt) paid 1.5 million so this out of work lowlife could rape the system.

The point is the system is broken. The other point is the govt will make it worse.

No more mail on Saturdays!!!

What this story clearly illustrates is that the system needs to be fixed, and this bill won't necessarily do that, and that ultimately, medicine comes down to some hard choices.

Sadly Obamacare would have cut off treatment for this man's cancer and denied him the two top cancer fighting drugs. How can anyone calculate what a person's life is worth? Every day he had with his family is worth more to them than anyone can measure.

And when you consider that juvenile cancer would also receive limited healthcare with this new bill how can anyone justify voting for it?

Well, here's some more bull... hot topic; health care. Job; sensationalism, selling, and promoting what you're told to.

Cancer kills, no one lives forever, and if you have paid, let's say.... $300,000 into the system between you and your employer by the time you're 50, and are diagnosed w/ cancer, and the treatments come to, say... $600,000 over the course of several years, where DOES that extra $300,000 come from?

Arguing the reforms presented are meaningless, because there are none.... Medicaid and Care have recently been changed to gift big pharma that HAS always bilked us all; generics in many popular cases are NO LONGER COVERED by these 2. Only brand names are. Nice, isn't it? There's change for ya....

My mother died of pancreatic cancer, and believe me... I know how high the costs (price) are inflated in the name of 'research'; the same that is approved by the inept FDA daily, and are recalled, blacklisted, and recalled by the FDA daily, the same that are sued by vulture tort lawyers.... if any care to, research where funding FOR most research comes from; you'll see, it ain't bogusly inflated prices... that goes to investors.

My mother died at 73, had been insured by my father that worked for the same company since his discharge from the Korean War up till his retirement (at 68), and even after he paid in all those years with very little compensation pertaining to ever going to the doctor for ANYTHING, ... she still felt horribly guilty about the costs of the bills, and stopped looking after the 2nd year of treatment.

My point is that NOTHING being considered now does ANYTHING for actual cost reforms; in fact, as mentioned, it already has closed the doors for any international competition regarding pharmaceuticals and ALSO has ALREADY gifted big pharma for support in lobbyisms and career politician investments.

Nothing of real value has been included in this crap bill for over a year now, hasn't been addressed by either party (though Red has been attempting to include tort reforms and competition rulings; if genuine, a VERY good start) and as pointed out, the wee bits that ARE manifesting themselves have done the exact opposite of what this administration claims to be doing.....

So, for those that yet support this abomination of any real insurance and cost reform... put that in your smipe and poke it.

BOB,

What has Saturday mail delivery have to do with this article?? Besides, the Postal Service gets it's money from selling stamps and mail related services (bulk mail, Express Mail, Priority, and the items they sell in the lobbies). It is "self sufficient". That's why they are in trouble. Less mail volume = less money in sales. However, they still have all the rising costs of energy (gasoline, electricity, etc). Add to that the billions they are now forced to set aside in PRE-funding their employee's future retirements (this was passed through congress in 06/07, I believe) and you can see the problems.

The PS does NOT get money from the Federal Budget, or from any other Federal or State source.

But I do agree; end Saturday delivery.

Health-care isn't whats broke, it's us

No Doctor, No treatment, No miracle cure, No ammount of prayer, No heroic action, has ever saved someone's life....at best, it has only extended it

We are all going to die, some young some old some soon, and nothing is going to change the end product

and Moderation is correct, nothing in this bill adresses the reasons prices are increase, it only changes who pays the bill, and adding 40 million more consumers who have no concern for the costs is going to make costs rise for everyone and the 10 - 13 % the CBO states is a gross underestimate....But the truth of the matter, the total collapse of the current system maybe the only to get to an intellegent healthcare system, So maybe we need to thank Obama and the Libs after all

Mary Ann

You are kidding ....right? The Postal Service is run by the feds

I hope you are joking.

Too many screw ups that cost money needlessly charged. Nothing is streamlined, nothing is transparent. The whole system is overpriced to insanity and beyond.

And here I thought you were talking about the Federal government. Do you really expect this to change under the inept that we have at the helm today? Please, get a clue. We were promised transparency in the Whitehouse, we still don't have it. We've been promised reform after reform of the programs that they already have legal control over and they've either fumbled the ball or let it slip through the cracks...

Why do you think they're going to solve this problem when they have next to no success solving any other problem?

In the year 2018

here is my proposal for the rebuilding of our health-care system

First step is to get rid of all types of insurance...it's kinda silly to pay for something you may never use, and probably wont help or be adequate if you ever need it

The Government (State and or Federal) pays for a certain amount of things for all Americans...this should include no more than vaccinations and maybe some annual screenings that will prompt and or warn the patient of impending health issues

Everything else should be paid for in one of two ways...

You go to the doctor and pay him out of pocket for services

and if your Budget will not allow you to PayGO...the doctor submits your bill, to the Government (State and or Federal) in your name and then you set up a payment plan to repay your debt

Healthcare for everyone, except administrators and government employees. Don't these people earn enough?

You basically have 2 choices. Accept a terminally illness and die peacefully or....

Do everything possible to extend extra few days to months. Resulting in emptying lifelong savings and aquiring jaw dropping debt.

Like what the article said, 2/3 of the cost occurred the last few months of his life.

My step father's death cost $360,000. I can definitely relate to this situation. He was unresponsive and unconscious for 35 days on 100% life support. My brother who spoke for him could not "pull the plug". My mother had a living will and struggled for 18 days. I turned in her living will on Nov. 9th and by Nov. 11th they let her go. I tried to save her as best that I could, but when I realized there was no hope I let her go. Did I do the right thing? Could she have been saved? That haunts me to this day. I miss her a lot. Her quality of life was not good. She was unconcious, in a diaper, not eating, developed pnuemonia, on oxygen, and just hard to look at. A living will seems to be a logical alternative, but people must realize the gravity of that decision. The medical profession will go by that will as it is your wishes.

Healthcare need fixed? Yes

Would the current bill if passed have helped this woman? No.

I may show my overall ignorance here, but I think I have a fairly simple way to make a government run health care system work.

I think that the problems in the health care bill would vanish if the people that decide what health care system the public gets is required to use the same, identical program, without special exemptions for their government position. I would apply these same guidelines to all public programs, social security would be at the top of that list...GovernorTubaguts could then work for 50 years so he could receive less than $2000 a month instead of his annual salary for the rest of his life.

Stan W., you did the right thing. Been there, done that.

SO, EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS A LIFE WORTH???????????????????????

This is the question we all need to be asking. Not that there is an answer but you have to throw emotion to the side and take a position. If you don't no amount of health care, regardless of who pays for it, will ever be enough.

There are two truths or guarantees in life.

1) You were born.

2) You WILL die.

Everyone thinks the 2 truths are death and taxes. You don't HAVE to pay taxes, you may go to jail, but you DON'T have to pay. However, I guarantee each and every one of you,,, if you are here you were born and someday, YOU WILL DIE!!!

As a retired physician I can assure you, the most difficult thing everyone experiences is death. The even more difficult thing is,,,,to plan for it. How many of you think about dying everyday? I wager not many. Yet we all know it WILL happen. I can't remember all the times the decisions to let a patient go by the family is when the patient was end-stage or very close to it. This is NOT the time to be making ANY decisions let alone life or death.

I understand sitting down with your loved ones and discussing your or their own death is not appealing, but it has to be done. If not, most of the time, the wrong decision will be made. Even with options to keep the patient alive, the outcomes are usually inevitable. Now, you need doctors who will give you the percentages for how much the treatment will help and what will the patients quality of life be. Trust me, the odds you'll get from even the greatest specialist in that field will be a basic guesstimate. If doctors could predict the future that well we'd all be buying Lottery tickets and save ourselves a lot of time and effort,,,,LOL.

Making difficult, and often times unpredictable, decisions when you're healthy is much easier than when a crisis is occurring. Living wills and advanced directives are best created, and a patient advocate assigned, in the comfort of your home with those that care for you. Legal advice isn't that expensive and the resulting peace of mind helps everyone involved.

How many of you have told your spouse or friend that you NEVER want to be put on life support if you're going to have a small chance of recovery? I bet most of you. But when the moment happens and your wife or parent is laying in ICU with every possible life support tube stuck in every possible place, on a respirator, unconcious with little hope left, this is the time you need to respect the patients wishes. Not your own.

Yes, health care costs a lot. But realistically when it comes to a situation like Mr. Foley's the situation changes. He had metastatic cancer for 6 years. That's a LONG time in medicine. Sure, he was given 6 more years with his family, but that ONLY happened because we have the technology to do it now. Otherwise he would have died within a year or so.

While we all sit here and BITCH about the cost of health care remember, these life saving or more appropriately, life-extending, drugs and procedures are expensive. We're talking about a human life, not an plasma TV or a new coat. The levels of care required are incredibly complex. Can the cost be controlled? NO. Why not? Because every situation is unique and individualized to the patient. There is no cook-book that we use with each disease.

Life is very precious, but it is also very fragile. What works 75% of the time means 25% of the time it DOESN'T! That's when the cost starts to change, and I guarantee you it won't go down. Not to mention the legal costs involved in every decision making process the costs start to spiral out of control. If all the options aren't given and all the possible scenarios explained, liability creeps in. This adds tremendous stress and cost to the patient care we all so desire.

If Mr. Foley didn't get his life saving drugs, treatments, tests, surgeries, procedures, care and many other things he probably would have died in a year or two rather than 6 years. Nothing in medicine is standard and yes it needs to be fixed, but the simple solutions we and Congress think exist,,,,don't. This is when the question becomes very difficult to answer.

EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS A LIFE WORTH?

I am 51 years old and have been healthy my entire life and never used my health care which I have payed plenty into. Last Noveember I got a sudden searing pain which comes and goes in weird intervals. It took until last week for them to finally come up with diagnosis. I am the proud owner of a pancreatic tumor which hopefully can be removed with the Whipple procedure. Statistics are not good but I will go into this with a smile on my face regardless of the cost to my insurance company or myself. I watched my father and my aunt both die of pancreatiic cancer but theirs were late diagnosis and mine is early. If the time comes that I know quality of life is not going to be worth it I will stop. But until then any of you posters who speak as if people like me are not cost efficient and should just die off can kiss my a$$. And those of you who think Obamacare is the answer think about this. Government control will only add more time to go through red tape and get a reasonably fast diagnosis which was necessary for the possibility for me to survive. No thanks. Stay the hell out of my healthcare.

Excellent post, USARogue. It's so good to see comments that get at the heart of the problem instead of bickering about how to treat its symptoms.

Unless we want outrageous insurance premiums or taxes, no system can afford to pay $600,000 for every American who dies. Families or loved ones should be the ones who decide when to "pull the plug," but there must be some way of balancing hope and emotion with cost and reality...without making money be the only deciding factor. I really wish I knew what that solution was...

ETA: EZHUNTER - it's your money and your insurance plan, so the cost is nobody's business but your own. If I may hazard a guess, it sounds death has its work cut out if it wants to claim you any time soon! ;)

Stan, any that tell you this won't haunt you don't know; it will. It does me, and not only with the choices that I attempted with my mother, but with my dog recently as well (laugh if some must, but she was every bit a part of me as any other).

Pertaining to outsiders, we can see more clearly than we can when our own are at stake. But, reality sets in, and most times (though emotional connectedness can't be discounted) we see what was inevitable, and know we had to let go... in many cases, we realize that the letting go should've been done some time before it happened. This isn't to say it's selfish in a bad or shameful way, but the avoidance of pain on our part as well as denial and hope for a different outcome makes it so.

Most all of us would sell our souls to save someone we love. This is the very guilt, the very emotiveness that big pharma, insurance companies, and now the government rely on. It's expoitation to the Nth degree.

This is the same reason costs aren't being addressed, real savings or why lack of benefits (jobs, economy) aren't being addressed, tort reforms aren't being addressed, and real competitiveness, both nationally across state lines and internationally pertaining to pharmaceuticals aren't being addressed.

Democratic or Republican, it's ALWAYS big money interests (not true American capitalism and economy) that are rewarded, and as in my earlier posts, is continued now under pseudo changes. There are none.

It's only human nature, and none of us can be counted on to be objective unless we're more or less inhuman to limit choices or costs when 'the time' comes. That same human nature is being EXPLOITED now by this supposed 'reform', whereas there is no money to pay for it, the end results most often are only prolonged, costs are NOT being contained (again, my earlier post) and all that's touted is 'all need to be insured' when un and underemployment are through the roof, jobs AREN'T even being considered relative to production and manufacturing coming home based on a True American Economy and survival vs. the bull about globalization............... and in the end, we're expected to cut doctor's pay, nurses pay, Medicare cuts to the elderly and pay more in taxes to support an indefinable amount of uninsured to become, at best, partially insured by the same government that ONLY recently has eluded to financial abuses in Medicaid and Care. The same government that has done all they can, presented the best of the best, both parties, and still........ here we are; financially broken, partisanly neutered, unemployed with our M and P sold overseas, losing our homes, our retirements, and fighting over which party is best....

Working in hospitals myself, I know... government insurances (Caid and Care) require an average of 4-6 more steps for the same procedures that private insurance does in 1 or 2. Self perpetuating extras. Hospitals, doctors, etc... are compensated less at every visit, yet the number of visits is more than double, and medication lists are ALWAYS substantially longer than those of private insurance; looking them up, some meds offset other meds, and as all know, this multiplies the possibility of adverse side effects. As in city and state budgets, 'use it or lose it'.

In essence, the government takes care of their own, ONCE AGAIN.

How long are we going to have to revisit this same old, tired, and worthless topic of health care nothingness? How many will continue to defend something that does nothing? Don't most know by now the difference between health care reform, health insurance reform, economy factors and human nature involved?

We do need Health Care reform NOT Obamacare, or a take over by Government of the Health Care system.

What is really the point of this article? You had good health care and he survived. Did you want some Government official to decide his fate?

MSNBC loves these stories because it sucks stupid people into thinking that socialized medicine is the answer. We have the BEST Health Care system. We don't need Government taking over Health Care.

Thanks, Highnoon. You read me correctly. I watched and helped my wife survive a fast spreading breast cancer not to many years ago and now I guess it's my turn and we are fighters. My head is screwed on straight and tight.

EZhunter; believe me, I don't want to be accused of giving out med advice, but will say this as a matter of history:

My mother was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, and was taken in for an operational procedure to see if it could be removed; it couldn't, because as small as the tumor was, it involved the inferior vena cava. This was at the Cleveland Clinic.

Prior discussions I'd had with her were radiate THEN remove if it wasn't possible to remove at the time of the exploratory surgery; as it were, though my parents had both believed in the Clinic's reputation, the surgeon went by the text; a partial Whipple and leaving the tumor instead of radiation first to shrink (or attempt to) and then removing the tumor.

Personally, I believe that the outcome would have been different if the Clinic hadn't done this in the order they did. Certainly, there really is no way to know for certain, but many doc's have agreed with me. Every majorly recognized hospital has their specialties, and those they don't specialize in tend to do 'by the book'; University Hospital across the street would have done differently.

Just my opined advice, but be carefull; personal experience, after the Whipple, you will never appetize correctly again. If a 2nd opinion will tell you there's a possibility of the tumor's shrinkage THEN removal and further radiation treatments to avoid the Whipple, please research it carefully.....

Thanks for the advice, Moderation. I understand what you are saying as ia have been researching constantly. The only thing I haven't fiured out is if I am safe with Tampa Gemeral or should I go North to Mayo? My surgeon who I will meet Monday is trained by Mayo. Any advice?

Boston Tea party;

Here is what we need, and you can scream the old lie about socialism when its not, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. We do not have the best health care system and you know it. We rank 37'th in the world. "THIRTY SEVENTH" Can't anyone get that into their stupid brain or do you blow dry your hair in a microwave? I would rather pay 10% more in taxes than the rates I'm paying to the useless insurance companys. I just went to my MD for a general check-up and got a bill for 480.00$. That means most of the bill was not coverd by insurance and I literaly paid two premiums this month. Does that make any sense? There needs to be price controls and the only way to do that is a PUBLIC OPTION...............

MDC, What kind of insurance do you have? $480.00? I paid less than that for my portion of the CT scan last week. I wasn't happy about the price but it goes towards my 1500 max for the year which I know is coming fast.

EZ, that's something beyond me to even attempt to answer regarding advice; all I would say is this.

If, like my mother, you were one of the lucky ones to be diagnosed w/ pancreatic cancer prior to any spreading, and you're in the lower millimeters in size, I would consult with whomever is to do any surgeries before hand.

If they don't believe they can remove the tumor itself, and are to do the partial or full Whipple as a matter of procedure, then again.... please research the living hell out of it. Certainly you know that no 2 cases are really the same; I can't say definatively that if my mother underwent radiation, shrank the tumor, and then underwent removal surgery it wouldn't have metastasized. She survived 3 more years after, but it had always been a 'should have' with us, as they weren't a good 3 years.

Again, you've done research, so you obviously know the purpose of the Whipple; it's not without merit. But, in early stages of detection, and with nutritional supplements and further radiation treatments after surgical healing, at least in my mother's case, I'd have avoided the Whipple, and many times she said she would have too. I was really surprised at her 3 year survival following, as eating for her following the Whipple became more than just concerted effort.

But, to state again, a personal case based on personal experience. If it were me in that same position, I would've avoided the Whipple or partial, taken the radiation, then surgery, and then chemo or radiation to deal with chances of any metastasizing later. But, isn't hindsight always 20/20?

Moderation, thanks for your insight. You are the first person I have spoken with that knows what I am looking at and it's nice to get a good honest opinion. Keep watching for my name on the vine and that will tell you how I'm doing. I just had to take myself out of work this morning and that was pretty tough but I could'nt continue my job with the pain. Thanks again for your honesty.

MDC; let's say we all pay 15% more in taxes; then, PERHAPS, more are covered. If you're correct, then that's perhaps 1/2 of those that aren't covered becoming covered under a health CARE system that ranks 37th in the world. Even the designers of this plan state that tens of MILLIONS would yet remain naked.

Nothing about quality of care is or has been addressed by any of this. The issue of care in and of itself hasn't been brought to issue; only who is and who is not covered has. That is something that especially here and now can't even be considered. Costs are supposedly being addressed, but as in my other post, factually, costs are already rising for Medicaid and Care per gifts to big pharma.

No matter where the poll was extrapolated from, to rank in qualtiy of care as the 37th? There aren't even 37 civilized nations with modern quality health care to rank this far down. Suspicious numerology at best. Going back to the increase in taxes to increase coverage that has NAUGHT to do with quality of care; how many times has your city or county or state raised taxes, for schooling or other things, only to cry 'broke again' the next year, and threaten or go through with taking away? Have you researched these proposals for coverage? With benefits going to the wrong and cuts being placed on the professionals, how would you think this will affect quality of care, be it right or wrong?

And, again.... even those that support this garbage of "reform" state that tens of millions WILL YET remain uninsured, it will take 4 years to take effect, nothing is being done about torts, competitions, personal responsibility, and tax subsidized Medicare and Caid have already given what will be BILLIONS in 'thank you' money to big pharam.... with nothing being passed yet, no less.

This article was written for people who want government run health care. Wait till you hear the horror stories of government run health care. There will be 10,000 more for every one that exists now.

EZ, I'm somewhat new to the friends thing on here, only recently found out it even exists. I'm no expert, not a doctor, but have spent years researching on my mother's behalf. If it's ok, I'll add you to 'friends' list, and talk through e-mails and such. I still remember all my mother went through as if 3 years happened this morning. To beat all, she was claustrophobic; that only added to it all.

What is the point to this story?, regrets of decisions made?, The difference in charges?, bottom line is what is the point of this story, The complexity of the billing of the paper work generated is to be expected when there are subcontracting ...... Mistakes yes, so what's the point ...

I am a Vascular Surgeon that just got home from an emergency surgery so forgive me in advance because I am tired and grouchy. Last night was my daughters birthday and I was called in at 8pm from dinner ( on call this weekend).

ModerationinAllThings,

I will start with you because you seem to want to play politics over reality. This bill has everything to do with quality of care. Just like my surgery tonight it could have been prevented if it had been treated earlier. Arteries do not block or diseases develop over night it is a slow gradual process. The access to preventive medicine is not only measured in the quantity of live but also the quality. Had this waitress been able to afford regular check ups (she was uninsured) and not had to wait until the ER was needed this would have been found years before. Preventive Care is very much a part of the bill that you use the term "garbage" reform to describe.

I love your scare example of 15% increases in taxes. Were you using that as your best guess of what it would be or do you have very different information other don't? One more question, what is the alternative? Allowing it to continue on the current path that we all know will not only create more uninsured and unemployed but also force those employees on company health plans to start paying a larger portion of the premiums let's say of about 15%? That certainly is moderation in thought!

Boston tea party,

You said,

" What is really the point of this article? You had good health care and he survived. Did you want some Government official to decide his fate?

MSNBC loves these stories because it sucks stupid people into thinking that socialized medicine is the answer. We have the BEST Health Care system. We don't need Government taking over Health Care"

What is it you are wanting? Some insurance bean counter to decide your fate? Who is the "we" that have the "BEST" Health Care system? I recall one "stupid" person making that statement after he walked out of a Hawaii Hospital. However this "stupid" person playing the same political game didn't even know that he was at a Hospital in a State that has had a universal Health care system for forty years.

The bottom line people is that the plan is not perfect but it beats the NOTHING that is being proposed by the insurance company owed opposition.

On a professional note to those of you looking at the difficult decision of questionable life support. Rather than force that decision on loved ones that as one above said may haunt you for the rest of your life, YOU can make the decision. Those that do not want to beon life support need to put a legal DNR under conditions in a living will. I have one not only because I may be more aware of life support capabilities as they now exist but also because I love my family enough to never put them in that position.

EZHUNTER--I wish you the best of luck with your disease. I think that your situation illustrates perfectly the fundamental problem that health care faces in this nation. For all of the "pay or die" posters out there, you may say that if you can't pay for an experimental treatment, etc., you should die. The problem is that few people actually do this. When you or one of your loved ones gets a serious illness that might be cured with an expensive, experimental drug, you will jump on it. It's easy to have a philosophical debate about how much a human life is worth, but your life or a family member's life is worth everything to you, and nothing to me. Until we get a streamlined medical system (Medicare for all) where procedures are a set dollar amount and streamlined, some will get an early diagnosis and cure, and others will get a late diagnosis and will die. It all depends on who you work for and how much money you have.

I wish that all of the "pay or die" people would make a living will and publicly state that if they or their family can't pay for medical treatment, they will refuse it. Human nature being what it is, though, when they get to the point that they or their family are actually sick, they want a cure or as much time as possible, then declare bankruptcy. Please take your own advice and, when you are diagnosed with a disease that has a probable but expensive cure, and can't pay for it, go crawl in a corner and die. Then, maybe others will follow your example. Until then, quit pontificating.

Number 1 - Obama and the Liberals are softening us up to accept rationing and killing off old people.

Number 2 -

"He knew his name, but not the year. He wanted a Coke."

That's why he got cancer - Soft drinks, especially Diet Soft Drinks, ruin your health (obesity, diabetes and cancer)

Number 3 -

"31 percent for paperwork"

That's where all the wasted time and money is going - to Paperwork, Red Tape, Government Bureaucracy, Administration. And the Government Takeover of our Healthcare/Insurance Industry will just make it much worse.

Number 4 - In case you didn't know, if you put someone in "Hospice", they are killed. That's where you send people to die.

Jeania---1-what is your evidence of this? Or is this just your opinion?

2--Cancer is caused by many things, but you can't blame it exclusively on Coke. I have known smokers who lived into their 80s, puffing away, and never got lung cancer. On the other hand, fit young athletes like Lance Armstrong can get cancer. Lifestyle is not the only thing that causes cancer--genetics, the environment, etc., play a role as well.

3--Medicare for all. The government runs 40% of the health care system (VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare) with 3% overhead. Let's give them the rest.

4--Hospice isn't where you go to get killed. Hospice is where you go once you are dying. It is the equivalent of going home to live out your last days in peace, only in a hospitalized setting with the appropriate facilities, counselors, etc.

EZ Hunter You don't know what you are talking about, but you soon will. My husband has had two heart surgeries in one year. He has Medicare and Blue Cross. Medicare is his primary provider. Blue Cross is secondary. He was born with a congenital deformed aortic valve which worked fine until he was 65 years old. At 65 he had his first illness. But, ten months after getting the valve, his heart became infected. Pieces of the infection went down his arm (instead of his brain- good). He had two surgeries, one to save his arm and one to replace the aortic valve again and repair the mitral valve. He also had an abysses on his heart. His bills are small, thanks to Medicare.

I got cancer at the age of 64. No Medicare. You should see my bills. I have been paying them here and there. The radiation therapy costs $6,000 for each treatment. I have to have five treatments. This will give me a 98% chance the cancer will not return. My insurance pays 85% and I have to pay 15%. Figure that out. That is a lot of money out of my pocket. My check book is full of checks for doctors, cat scans and etc. $495 here, $395. It goes on and on. This was even before my surgery or radiation.

Without Medicare, my husband and I would have lost all of our savings and more. There would be no money left for my cancer. His two surgeries would have wiped us out financially.

Medicare has been a live saver literally. I think though that Medicare needs to charge more for premiums. We pay Blue Cross $700 a month and Medicare is only about a $100 a month. Like I said we were healthy all our lives until 2009 and 2010.

Talk about red tape. With Blue Cross we had to make sure the doctor was a preferred provider. We got a letter saying how long I could be in the hospital ( one night) without paying out of pocket. Blue Cross made every medical decision. When my son was in college, he needed a simple appendectomy. I had to pay the full cost because Blue Cross said that it was not really an emergency. He was very sick and the doctor had the appendix out before I could even get there.

Medicare let the doctors make decisions for the most part.

Roger-356271

You're right about Hawaii's health care but there is a negative side to that, I'm from Hawaii and the major problem to that are employee's that works more than 20 hours per week has to be offered Health coverage, so the businesses hire majority part time employees good example is Burger King I was a Manager there and the only person that's full time was the managers, don't get me wrong but there are negatives to mandatory health care, businesses are in business to make money and this Health care issue needs to be presented correctly, yes it could benefit the employers but it could also create a situation like that of Hawaii ..... I'm all for Health Care reform if done correctly but like most I'm a very concerned that it could make things worst depending on how it is presented and we all know our politician's probably could not out think a 5th grader .....

Christina, thank you for your concern. We may not see eye to eye on everything but I think many of our goals are the same. It's not necessarily the pay or die posters that got me posting my experience here though. It is the fact that an article was written to promote the new agenda to reduce health care costs by making people weigh their circumstances with cost of healthcare providers payout being a primary decision maker in situations like the one in the article and my own situation. The article and many posters seem to imply that we should in order to help society economically stand aside and not try to be saved. All of this type of thinking really spiked a rage in me. While I think there are many ways for the government to help the situation I do not feel that it takes a 2700 page bill to help us. This big of a bill obviously has to have many unnecessary provisions that were placed there to help the wrong people. On the other side of the table the previous administration ignored the situation for 8 years allowing this problem to become much worse before sudddenly speaking up. There is blame all over for what got us to this point. Democrats do have some good ideas in the making and so do the Republicans. What needs to be done now is take only those good ideas and cast out all the garbage and fix the health care system which saved my wife through technology and passion and will now hopefully save mine.

Enlightening article, although how spending a trillion dollars to buy 40 million people health insurance changes any of this I don't know, and why you have to spend money when the stroke of a pen (changing laws) would be more effective. To me it's simple, when you have your own insurance or have it supplied by your job you are the customer, when it is supplied by the Government you are a customer of the customer. In the first you or your employer are spending a lot of cash on your policy and when service is poor you can threaten to take your business elsewhere, and if it's employer provided you have an HR person going to bat for you. In the second the State is the customer and it is telling the insurance company "look ...uh, money is tight, if you can delay, put em off, loose paperwork, stall em till they give up, whatever you gotta do is OK". There is no room full of benevolent Federal customer service rep's that have your best interests in mind, insurance companies run Medicare and Medicaid, here in Indiana it's Aetna and UHG.

Jeannie, Explain where I don't know what I am talking about. PS. I am under no type of gov. insurance. I do have a maximum out of pocket expense for the year that I can handle. My money problems will be the fact that I am not going to bring in a paycheck unless they can fix me and get me back to work. My insurance is through my wifes HMO. I have no problem with HMO's though. I thank CIGNA all the time and speak up for them for how they handled my wifes breast cancer with a minimal cost to my family while we were going through it. This time however it is not CIGNA so I am waiting to see if there are any stumbling blocks in our new HMO.

This is why instead of FORCED HEALTH INSURANCE they need to overhaul the actual HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY they over charge, for what health insurance costs most people we could pay the doctor upfront and then take out major medical for the big stuff only. As someone who has studied health insurance that is what the original intention behind health insurance once was. Go to the doctor before ordering test the first thing they ask is if you have health insurance, when you get a prescription the first thing they ask is if you have health insurance at which point in both cases you get the more expensive treatments. I know of many people who pay for expensive health insurance yet do not go to the doctor because the insurance pays so bad, why do the dumocrates want to force this down our throats. Ego in Chief get a brain cell or two please!!

Jeania you do NOT put people in hospice to die, you put people who have no chance of living in hospice so that the last months, days or hours of their lives can be confortable. In my step dad's case they came to the house and let him pass away at home where he wanted to be, in my mom's case they were going to put her in hospice connected with the hospital but she passed before she went there, they both had cancer and NO CHANCE of living. Hopice is an humane end of life option for someone who has no chance of living and lets them go with dignity

thinkstraight, I agree with everything you have stated but would like to speak further about Hospice. They are a wonderful organization that I have been involved with 3 times in recent years, with my father, mother and father-in-law. All I can say is passionate and wonderful people helping others at the worst time in their life. For all who are truly passionate about health care and can afford to help others you should do so through donations to organizations such as American Cancer Society and Hospice to name a couple of good ones. There are many others who need help also.

Reform really needs to start before people get cancer. If you choose all of the lifestyle choice medical issues and rethink them from the beginning, you can remove poor health and cancer from our society. That means requiring food manufacturers (contradiction in terms!) to provide only healthful, life-sustaining foods that don't contribute to diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and cancer. In looking at cancer "treatment", the poison regimes currently followed by the medical community just don't work. My father died of pancreatic cancer, a sure killer. Many years ago John Beard identified the lack of pancreatic enzymes being closely related to the increase in cancer cells in the body. Do look that up if you are interested. His research was ursurped by the current poison/radiation/surgical methods that are so costly and harmful to quality of life, yet still do not work consistently. Healthful diets have consistently shown that they DO prevent cancer. I see Michelle Obama's vegetable garden as a very positive step in improving the overall health of the population. That's where Obama care is really headed, and healthcare reform is merely the first step.

Sad to think that we're so desparate to stay alive we're willing to support insurance companies as per the story/headline above. Think of it this way: WE'RE HIRING SOMEONE TO PAY OUR BILLS FOR US. This doesn't make sense to me.

In the mean time many people are dying from much simpler causes - they need a polio injection, a tetanus or malaria injection, or perhaps some bread and clean water.

This world of ours has gotten too complicated. If anyone asked me what to do I would say ABOLISH ALL HEALTH INSURANCE ACROSS THE BOARD. Let people pay what they could afford. I don't hear anyone addressing the rate of salaries for CEO's of hospitals, insurance companies or pools of doctors. I am one of the 45 MILLION americans w/out any health insurance - when my time comes I will simply have to die. I'm in good company however; feeling pretty much in line with most of the other third world citizens in this country and around the world.

I will chip in one consideration:

The United States ranks 37th in health care and France ranks #1.

The U.S. covers about 40% of its citizens with insurance that varies wildly in adequacy. (I am not counting things like CIO or AFLAC-like policies.) France covers 100% of its citizens.

The U.S. covers some citizens with health care --- VA, Medicare, Medicaid and it works well enough that groups covered do not opt for private insurance. France covers everyone, but will also pay for a private plan if you wish. A surprising number of people opt for private plans because in them older people can drop maternity benefits in favor of day care for Alzheimer's patients.

The U.S. pays almost twice per capita (not per insured person) what France pays. Britain and Canada pay quite a bit less than France but still rank well above the U.S. in healthcare.

In the United States in 2008 (I can't find numbers for more recent years, but they are most likely to be worse) over 60% of all bankruptcies were caused by medical bills. Of those, 40% had insurance. We are the only industrialized country where medical bills figure into bankruptcy at all.

Despite the fact that it is a felony under HIPPA, for-profit hospitals and physicians use their inside knowledge of your medical condition in decisions on whether to turn you over for collection. The for-profit medical industry (including physicians) are #1 in number of days before you are turned over for collection. That's one reason that they are the #1 cause of bankruptcy filings.

In this country, medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death. It is not even in the top ten in any other country in the world. We are the only country with a tort system that actually protects malpractitioners and allows them to continue their malpractice until they finally kill someone very high profile or politically-connected. 24 states have already enacted "tort" reform and in those states, medical malpractice insurance costs are rising faster than in the 26 states without it. How's that tort reform working for you, Doc?

The primary opposition to healthcare comes from the for-profit medical industry including pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospitals and clinics. The insurance companies whine that they only make 1-2% in profits, but if you count all their subsidiaries and REIT's and such, the number jumps up over 30%. The drug companies target is an 8000% profit despite the fact that most drugs were developed on taxpayer dollars from NIH or NIS. These people are using human misery to bleed our citizenry dry. But they can afford millions to buy Senators and Congressmen and time on Faux News to promote their cause. They are actually spending more money in lobbying against healthcare reform than they claim to be making in profits. That smells a little like bad herring to me.

The bottom line is that if we could just stop the draining of excessive profits and fraud from our for-profit medical system, and get a fair way of reclaiming pharmaceutical development funds from their profits, there is enough money in the system already for this country to have the best healthcare system in the world while covering 100% of its citizens.

But unless we can step back from the lies and myths promoted by the opposition, nothing will change: premiums and drug prices and the costs of procedures will continue to rise even though inflation and wages aren't and fewer and fewer people will have health insurance. Finally it will be only the elite who have health insurance and out life expectancy will start to decline and diseases we haven't seen in decades will begin to emerge. The past stages will be the return of Pest Houses to the country.

Trillions to be spent on health for a corrupt system that makes all of its money off of destroying families that are about to lose a loved one. How about for starters, a 20 billion dollar Manhattan project to end cancer? That would save a trillion right there. Over the next several years.

Roger,

Great post, thanks.

Boston Tea Party.

You said we need reform, not Obamacare. Newsflash, there is no difference, you ignorant fool.

Has it occured to you that the president is doing his best to do the right thing as much as possible? Of course not. His middle name is Hussein after all, right? We can't have that in America. Good gawd almighty, you people are unbelievable.

You tea baggers are so blinded by your irrational and baseless hatred of the man that you really don't give a damn what happens to the uninsured or the costs to us all as a nation, just as long as you stop Obama from accomplishing anything while he's in office.

You people really do beat everything I've ever seen in my 50 years of life. As far as I'm concerned you tea-baggers can take your filthy racists signs, your ignorant cries of tyranny and socialism, your threats of armed revolution and go straight to hell. And take Glenn Beck with you. You're a cancer on the face of our country.

I watched a brilliant speech yesterday day by Mitt Romney. He explained very well exactly why this sort of thing continues to happen, because the health care system needs to be set up to work like a market, NOTcontrolled by the federal government. The perfect example in this article is how Blue Cross Blue Shield negotiated the costs of the health care for the patient becuase it is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization, and negotiates the best rates with the hospitals for ALL of its patients. Other health insurance companies don't do this and will pay whatever the hospital chooses to bill. This in turn makes the health insurance rates sky rocket. The patient never had a say in how much the other health insurance companies would pay because they had already paid their deductible, and it didn't affect them anymore, there was no need to negotiate. If anyone wants to understand this better, look up Mitt Romney's speech that was broadcast on TV yesterday, March 5th, or read his book. I have not read it yet, but from the little bit that he explained in his speech, what he did reveal about how exactly the health care system should work here in the United States was brilliant.

Moo, This was a civilized forum with great discussion of opinions until you had to put your hatred into it. While we are all passionate about our feelings we do not need to start referring to each other as ignorant fools, thank you.

Richie,

I don't believe we are talking about an advantage in Hawaii in hiring part-time people in as far as Health Care is concern being that all have it. The advantage to the employer would be in the other fringe benefits. I am not picking on fast food industries but throughout the Nation they tend to employ part-time and underage employees at a cheaper rate. You can get sub-minimum wage exemptions on certain groups of people.

Jenia,

You are very wrong about Hospice. They are a very dedicated and caring group that provide a difficult service in the most stressful time in a persons and their families life. I donate money to those in our area on a yearly basis because it takes a very special individual to handle what they do on a daily basis. Don't follow the lead of the idiots that tried to scare the Nation with their "DEATH PANEL" distortions.

You are also wrong on the 31% overhead being a bureaucratic red tape concept. I am a physician and I also own a private Clinic of Surgeons. We do have to hire people just to do nothing but deal with the paperwork of the insurance companies. Every procedure we perform has to be coded to meet the exact definition of the insurance companies limitations and there are numerous. Medicare part B is also time consuming.

That is our end of it, the other side of that administrative cost of your premium is on the insurance end of it. That is what pays for these huge, elaborate, offices, jets, vacation retreats for some Clinics that will accept it, their own $400,000 trips to Vegas for training etc. Ask John Boehner R Ohio who likes to go on the insurance companies completely funded golfing trips how much it cost him?

Someone above asked why they had to have this huge 2700 page bill instead of a simple document. Well there are several reasons but the main one is politics. I believe they understood from the beginning that there was going to be political opposition even from those that said on record that they supported Health Care Reform. That meant that they would have to address every issue or it would be attacked. As it is now there are only a few that have become talking points for political advantage in order to kill the bill. Don't believe for a second that the opposition, that says they are not against reform, didn't have major talks with insurance companies trying to find a mistake that they could jump on. Right now they are jumping on the abortion language. Even though it states that they will not fund elective abortions, the area of contentions center around rape and incest.

Look at your current policy and see how large it is. Keep in mind when you are going through it that each time your come across a reference to an accordance to section 4c of part B that you don't have that is another book in itself.

Thinkstraight,

Why don't you apply that to a family of 3 making less than $40,000 a year.

Christina,

Very nice and accurate post.

Brian below,

The 16% administrative cost would be nice, now convince the insurance companies to do that. Why stop there the Government overhead would be about 3%.

Sorry this is so long but I actually read your posts not simply repeat what some paid talking head says.

Robin,

If you go back and look at your history, Nixon proposed an $80 billion "Manhattan Project" to cure cancer. It's control was immediately co-opted by the for-profit pharmaceutical industry. The current scientific research on cancer at the time Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" was that it was an organizational disease. The pharmaceutical convinced the medical community (with no evidence at all) that it was a runaway cellular disease. Funding for the organizational approach was virtually ceased and the new approach embraced by the NIH for purely political (read monetary) reasons. The cellular approach has been a failure and now research dated 1962 or so is being dusted off and resumed.

The closest analogy I can come up with to illustrate what I have over simplified is that cancer can be compared to a grid-locked traffic jam. The organizational approach says that it is caused by ill-timed traffic lights and traffic patterns and too many cars for the streets and that it must be treated as an overall "organizational" problem. The cellular approach ways it is caused by cars and the way to fix it is to treat each individual car, even though each individual car may require a different treatment. And chemotherapy is akin to burning each car and hoping enough survives to be drivable. In the cellular approach, drug companies could sell many hundreds of drugs as different approaches to different problems. In the organizational approach, the avenues for new drugs (read profits) would have been greatly reduced.

We achieved exactly the same result from the War on Cancer that we got from the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) ---- nothing.

All I Know is we spend a fortune to care for the Illegals and a fortune to keep the Queers

with aids alive. So why not spend money on normal people spend till till we fold the system,

break the bank then we can restart this train wreck that the progressives have built get back

to the principals of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

LESS TAXES, LESS WASTE, LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE LOCAL CONTROL.

EZHUNTER:

You don't seem to get it. You said "I am 51 years old and have been healthy my entire life and never used my health care which I have payed plenty into." So you have never seen a doctor for any reason nor had any lab tests? I doubt this, which means you have used your health care, just fortunately have not had to use it for a bad situation for yourself. Has your health care been used for a wife or child?

You said "Statistics are not good but I will go into this with a smile on my face regardless of the cost to my insurance company or myself." How noble of you to not express a concern for how much your illness will cost the insurance company (in other words, all the other insured). While I hope you are able to achieve a positive outcome, recognize it does not come without a cost to more than you.

You said "If the time comes that I know quality of life is not going to be worth it I will stop." By that time you may not be in a condition that you are able to express your wishes - what happens then?

You said "Government control will only add more time to go through red tape and get a reasonably fast diagnosis which was necessary for the possibility for me to survive. No thanks. Stay the hell out of my healthcare." Why do you think the current insurance companies are not doing exactly what you fear from government. The insurers are in existence to make money, not to ensure people have access to as much care as they may want or need. And by the way, it is not your healthcare, it is the insurers healthcare and all of the other people insured in that plan.

"

As an R.N. I can tell readers here that unless we change the "fee for service" reimbursement model we are doomed and healthcare costs will be out of control. The last I heard a round of chemo cost $18,000. and that doesn't include the doctor or the hospital. Americans are so distanced from the "cost" of healthcare that it is absolutely impossible to have an intelligent debate about this. My inlaws died in December from an automobile accident. Medicare was billed $20,000. per day for each of them. The total bill was $200,000.00 for 5 days in the hospital until they died. This is unsustainable. Either the federal government will go broke or medicare will go broke. They are both going to go broke. The current healthcare reform does not address this problem.

Ezhunter--I didn't get from the article that the widow advocated Obama's health care plan. She was merely asking, "What is a life worth?" She admits that she didn't have the answer, but treasures all of the extra moments she got with her husband.

As for Obama's health care bill, I agree with you that this bill isn't going to fix the problem. I was and am for Medicare for all. Health insurance is not profitable, and the only way to make profits is not to pay claims or drop sick consumers. I don't know why the Democrats didn't push the public option, but they should have.

This health care debate is only a symptom of a larger problem--An aging population coupled with medical advances that were never forseen by the current system. Social Security was enacted at age 65 because you were actuarily dead at 63. So, a small portion of people actually saw Social Security, and they were on it for maybe 10 years. Social Security was never meant to support you from 65-105. Likewise, Medicare was largely to make Grandma comfortable in her last years. It was never meant to replace hips, hearts, knees, cure cancer, etc. These are advances that occurred after Medicare was enacted.

Western societies have not confronted these realities. Try pushing the Social Security age to 75 or limiting Medicare to antibiotics. You will have all of these "I paid into the system, now I want mine" people screaming about death panels, etc. Obama's health care bill does not confront these realities, but no politician will, until we are bankrupt and no one gets a Social Security check or Medicare. Then we will go back to the true good old days when if you didn't have money, you simply died. I support Obama, but he is a politician, just like every other President before him.

Chris, in the context of the 70s that may be true but with current technologies, I would suggest that the only thing preventing a cancer vaccine of some type is greed. Which is to say that there are those in the health care industry who murder people for money, in case my point was unclear.

EZHUNTER

If I had been on the side of teabaggers/republicans/ you wouldn't have said a word to me. So please, spare us the hypocrisy.

Uninsured people are suffering and dying because of the right wing greed and ignorance that is running wild in this country. And that is a fact. Not all of them are uninsured either, at least not to begin with. People with HC insurance often live with the fantasy that if they become seriously ill, that they will be covered like the gentleman in the story. It is not true. Many are denied treatment and die as a result.

Here are few facts about what self identified republicans believe:

63 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist

39 percent think Obama should be impeached

24 percent agree with the following statement: "Obama wants the terrorists to win”

31 percent believe that Obama is “a racist who hates white people".

63 percent don't believe the president is a natural born citizen, and 21 percent think that ACORN stole the election for him.

There is a term for these people and frankly, calling them ignorant fools is being kind.

In their misguided zeal to do what these people feel they must do, what they feel they have to do, is stopping president Obama from obtaining any political success at all costs, thereby limiting him to a single term.

In doing so, these ignorant fools are being used by the HC insurance corporations to slow progress on a reform bill to a standstill. And they're quite proud of it. You likely know this already however, as I suspect you agree with some if not all of their kooky beliefs.

These people should be hanging their heads in shame. I have no doubt that many, though not all, of these people are motivated by the president's racial heritage. I have a lot of difficulty believing that republicans are so stupid that they actually believe the outrageously stupid crap about him that they claim to.

Why do you think they call it the white house anyway, right tea baggers?

How else can you explain that a quarter of the republican party believes the president should be impeached, and that he wants the terrorists to win? It's either ignorant fools or racists pigs, take your pick.

So, health care reform goes nowhere while your pals on the right spread lies about it, and meanwhile people get sick and some die. Families go bankrupt. But it's all worth it as long you get Obama out of the white house. Isn't that about right?

Despicable.

Jan,

you're right, the proposed HC bills do not really fix the problem of costs. But the sad political reality is that the health insurance lobby has, of course, declared war on reform. They have millions of screaming, sign carrying, highly motivated troops that they dispatch via buses to any place any politician goes to meet with the people and discuss the problem. When they arrive, they make dialogue impossible. And since they vote, they have many politicians peeing on themselves in fear. And that is their goal.

If that's not enough, the politicians are enticed with big money from big insurance to see things their way. And if the carrot doesn't work, the stick will. They promise to fund candidates who will run against them.

The current HC is far from perfect, in that it does not do much to contain costs. But it does severely hamper the industry from raising rates in the future.

Most importantly, the current HC bills put an end to people being denied treatment or from being dropped for PECs. And it gets coverage to those who don't have any. A perfect bill? No. But in the current political environment, it's about the best we can hope for. And we can build on this in the future, but we have to at least get the consumer's foot in the door.

It's a start.

Moo, You sure show a lot of rage in your statements here, don't you? While I may fit into some of those percentages you speak of, definately not all of them because I am not the bad person you make me out to be. I simply think you have a way of speaking on the vine which only hinders the situation which we are discussing. I have a right to any opinion I have stated on the vine without being attacked as you see fit to do. This is about opinions and NOT about attacking each other. Grow up and learn to have a real discussion.

Christina, I feel that a large number of people posting here feel that MSNBC specifically puts articles like this on the internet to promote Obamas agenda. Not all. I personally don't see how anyone could do an article contradicting their feelings of love for their spouse by asking if it was worth the money without supporting Obamas agenda. Just consider the timing of the article. But remember this is just my opinion and I never expect everyone will agree with me. I beleive I mentioned to you earlier that you and I don't see eye to eye on everything but that's OK. Even my wife and I still have large differences in opinion after 30 years of marriage but we respect each others opinions as you and I should do. Life is too short to be attacking each other. And again thanks for showing concern for me earlier.

Statman, Nice play on words you have there! Until now I had never used my healthcare for myself except one checkup which was needed to have my doctors name used for my new provider when switching companies. I have gone through broken fingers and thumbs,broken ribs, broken toes, a seperated sternum caused by trying to pull a woman from the water into my boat after she jumped off the skyway bridge in Tampa next to my boat and pneumonia which took about half my breath away for about a month all without ever seeing a doctor. My motto is if you can stop the bleeding you don't need a doctor. However when the pain struck my abdomen in November I immediately knew I was in trouble. As for my wife she has also worked her entire life and paid for and used healthcare for breast cancer. I was speaking for myself when I said I hadn't used mine'

As for your second attack. I have paid for insurance my entire life and I believe I am now entitled to a return on my investment. Any problem with that? Insurance companies have made a huge profit off me every week since I was 18. Do the math and I think you will find they still come out ahead.

And for your third attack. Everything is already set up and my wife knows to make the decision to make me happy and end my suffering if needed.

And to answer your last attack. As I have stated many times on the vine, when my wife was fighting a very aggressive and fast spreading breast cancer a while back our insurance company which was by no means cheap worked flawlessly with her doctors to insure she got all treatments that were needed. Our out of pocket expense was minimal and there were no delays in treatment. I thank CIGNA constantly by always speaking highly of them for the way they handled my wifes treatment. I now am with a different HMO as I have stated earlier and am wondering if I am going to run into any stumbling blocks with the new company. I am sure I'll find that out soon.

So in closing the only thing you will find out of me to say negative about insurance companies is that I said they are not cheap. If they have satisfied my needs then why would I want government to get involved in my affairs?

EZHUNTER

You posted me because for calling someone on the right an ignorant fool, upset about my injecting hatred into the discussion. I might take you seriously, that is if you also posted in such a manner to posters on the right when they are using negative terms to describe liberals. But you don't do that, do you?

When you are only upset by comments made by someone on the left, while failing to hold those on the right, or yourself to the same standard, it really is impossible to take you seriously.

When I responded to you, I stated the facts about what republicans honestly believe about the president. I did not say this is what EZHUNTER believes however.
I stated my opinion on what I believe is an incredibly negative impact those republicans who hold those beliefs are having on the nation. And I said I considered them to be ignorant fools or racist pigs because that's what they are.

The fact that you happen to agree with them on some issues, and are therefore offended, is not my problem.

I did not post about you specifically or personally, I did not endeavor to make you out to be a bad person, nor have I attacked you personally, so play the victim if you like, just don't expect to convince me of it. I doubt the sincerity of your moral indignity.

Moo, I went back through all the posts above and still find you to be the only one who had to speak that way left or right. Go back through the posts if you like but you will find yourself grabbing at straws. I don't think I missed anything above this post. You are right that many are against Obama and state that in their posts. None were written like yours on todays discussion above. I haven't read below what has been said because I am a slow typer and was into the discussions above. And you are right you did not specifically include me in your hatred, but it did appear that way. If you study the rest of my posts I think you will admit I try to be carefull how I state things but try to voice my opinions respectfully. Also you will notice that I have stated blame on both sides of the aisle for the position health care is in and that if both sides would start over they both have good ideas that need to be put together to make honest improvement to the healthcare problem we are in.

EZHUNTER

I did not grasp at straws. I clicked on your name and looked through your posts from other threads, as you wish. And it is clear, when right-wingers engage in name calling, you do not say a word to them about it. BUT, when someone from the left says something you don't like, then you chime in with how they are hateful, or you invite them to leave or whatever. It is simple enough.

It seems as though you are concerned that my saying you are hypocritical in this regard will somehow harm your online reputation. I assure you, there is nothing to worry about. Republicans do not let things like a little hypocrisy get in the way, in fact they like that.

As long as you continue to fight HC reform and oppose the president on every single issue, no matter what, your reputation cannot possibly be damaged in their eyes, least of all by a liberal.

Even if it had, it still would have 432,600...guess that is a bargain.

Besides what's in my first post, seriously.... I'm in a higher risk category; I've had several family members die of cancer. I miss my mother every day; the older I got, the better friends we became.

But her and I both know that people don't live forever. Some say there's bull about not being able to stop cancer after all the research, but here, that's not the point. The point is that people die, it hurts those close to them, and it hurts more the younger the patient. It's a sad fact of life.

When something can be done, it comes down to costs, and again, in my first post, nothing is being addressed about these, and they're being furthered. Legislating true cost reform is one thing, and doing so on those that are involved; NOT doctors, nurses, and Medicare patients.

Simplify it; what's being presented is 'hey, everyone needs to be covered, for everything, and this is how we'll do it' with NOTTA being addressed as to how to pay, as to personal responsibility, as to how to actually use insurance (how many expect car insurance to pay for oil changes?), continued tort abuses, no national competition.....

It's a farce, it's not being obstructed by Red (though they've earned the rep on other things), none of this was presented by Blue, and they're BOTH as inept, self serving, and corrupt as it gets. There it is... the short version.

We have had, and now more than ever do, a need for radical changes in government, in those we elect, and how it's all done. Supposed 'Constitutional Specialists' have done little more than bastardize everything intended Constitutionally, similarly to how criminal and tort courts now operate.

As some of our contributors to the Constitution have said, we now need to tear down, re-do, re-vamp, and start anew; corruption has indeed been infiltrating our Values for well over 70 years now. If any species needs to go extinct by the hand of Man, it's the Donkephant.

As someone will more medical problems than Carters has pill, we need less government involvement in our lives.

Maybe like the big banks we should look at the big salaries paid to many in the health insurance industry. How else do they have the money to bribe and put pressure on the Ego in Chief and congress if they don't make big bucks, right Mr. Daschle.

For their family, it was more than they had

"...Keep him alive if you can, I said...."

My dad was diagnosed with cancer in his early 80's and was told that if he didn't have surgery and treatment then he would die.

My father refused.

And they were right, he did die....5 years later of old age...

Well put!

I'm gonna use that line !

The terminally ill are the most profitable patients for the for-profit medical industry. While profits are greatly diminished under Medicare and Medicaid (where a lot of people die), a person under 65 with private insurance and assets in the form of retirement savings, a home and other assets is like angels playing on harps to the for-profit medical industry. Physicians openly discuss this in profitability meetings (usually called Patient Reviews or somesuch). It is shocking how they milk the system --- you have someone dying and unconscious and it becomes a license to charge them for everything from hospital slippers to drugs that do nothing worthwhile, but at 15-35 times what was paid for the drug.

newsbusters? Gee, there's a real reliable source...you're kidding, right?

Thanks, pjam!

I love Newsbusters. I posted that information on Twitter. Rachael Maddow's face is crocked.

GE sold NBC (including MSNBC) to Comcast.

Just to show you what liars Faux News is, here is the link telling about the deal from Faux Business News:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/media/report-nbc-universal-deal-set-unveiled/

I guess Faux columnists do not read Faux Business News. Maybe they can't read. Or maybe they are sponsored by forces who want to see the country fail.

Not if there is no system...currently, there is no system in this country and it is administered by 50 different states and the insurance companies don't compete....it is surprising that we can even afford to get 10 minutes of a doctors' time.

Excelletn question. Why does the hospital charge the uninsured three times as much as the insured? That is insanity! If a person couldn't afford health insurance, how the heck are they going to afford three times the rate? These criminals should be in jail.

I don't think they charge more to the uninsured, I think they charge less and have less "fluff" because they don't have the bottomless pit of money.

The uninsured certainly pay more than the insured. I was in medical billing for time, and this is how it works--a procedure costs a provider, say, $75. The provider bills the procedure for $100. Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, pay about $75, between what is paid by the insurance company and the copay, often a little less. BCBS, United, etc., pay $80-85. What happens is that the extra $25 or so is written off. The provider is covering their expenses, but just barely. The uninsured person pays the full bill, which is $100. That $25 extra is what covers any denials by the insurance companies and provides the extra cushion for profit.

The interesting thing is that for services required primarily by old people on Medicare, like oxygen, canes, walkers, etc., almost all of the insurance companies paid exactly what Medicare paid. This is why Medicare for all is such a good idea. It will streamline admin costs and will normalize what the insurance companies pay. Since all can get Medicare, the reimbursement rate will have to be increased a bit, but the providers will be just fine. If a procedure costs $75 and everyone pays $80, the problem is solved. I don't know how the Democrats managed to screw this one up. Don't call it single payer or whatever, call it Medicare for all.

If you are uninsured, try to negotiate a rate with that provider that corresponds to what Medicare or BCBS would pay. The provider still breaks even and you don't pay extra.

It is because for-profit insurance companies negotiate prices with hospitals and physicians. Their goal is to create a monopoly by driving the other insurers out of the state, then they raise prices. A good example is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama which currently controls about 95% of the health insurance. At 35% control they were one of the cheapest in the country, at 95% they are one of the most expensive. Kinda supply and demand in reverse. If I control the supply and you can't do anything about the demand, I can charge anything I like.

This is not capitalism, it is just a return to the robber barons in another form.

Chris,

You are right in what you are saying but as a physician I want to point out that not all are connected to a Hospital. I have a private clinic of surgeons and although we have privileges at many Hospitals we in no way are involved in their price negotiations with the insurance companies. If those of you that have had surgery would read your bills you would see the break down of costs.

The across State insurance proposal is not going to work as some believe. It may lower the cost of a few States for maybe a year or two but will actually end up costing the States that have lower rates more. You are very right in saying if they control the supply they control the price. You need to take that one more step if they control the supply they can also control who gets their insurance. They have the ability to deny at will. If you have had a problem in the past that they feel may reoccur why would they take you in? They simply play the bottom line, profit.

We heard the "death panel" call of a few but in reality allowing an insurance monopoly is going to be a death sentence for many. When your only option is to be put in a high risk pool if you can get coverage at all the price is going to be staggering.

There were laws developed in the past to prevent monopolies but they don't really prevent prices fixing. The top five insurance companies last year showed a 12 billion dollar profit. You shop around and you will find that their cost and payments are almost identical. Do you actually believe this is by accident?

As a physician I am worried about it because they also have us sandwiched. They tell us what we are going to charge patients but yet continue to raise our premiums on our Health Care and malpractice.

Many people do not understand that we also have to pay Health Care for our families and employees just like any other employer. That is why the AMA and numerous Physicians are supporting the reform. Democrat or Republican doesn't mean anything to me, there is good and bad in both. As a matter of fact I am a strong advocate for term limits on Congress.

I am just asking everyone to be careful mixing politics with reality. We cannot continue on our current path without a major problem in the future. The proposed bill has some holes but it is better than no action. If Congress would work as hard on trying to fix problems as much as they do getting reelected this would be an easy. Our premiums have increased over a 100% in the last 10 years has your profit or income? This is another Wall Street coming that is going to affect everyone except the people voting on it. Watch them on television their acting skills are worse than a 5 year old. Their goal is to divide not fix or unite. If they can divide us on every issue the only winner will be them.

It is called comand sence. Michele.I guess you live in a box .just read something and cannot figure out any thing else but what you read.you think they will put that in righting.

Common Sense does not show 31% went to executive bonuses and corporate profits. Very few industries have those margins. The only one that comes to mind is the financial industry. Also, the buyer chooses the insurance company. If you do not like the company, go elsewhere.

Go where. another insurance co . very smart.hum.

Sorry Elvis, your complete lack of English language skills gives you a credibility score of zero.

Your choice.

Rick- try oil and gas companies!

your lack of comand sence is useless.

At least, for now we do have the choice to go to another one; pretty soon, there will be only one choice left.

Good point rockin. I did not read about that .must not be true either Rick. huh.

I think most of us suffer from a lack of "comand sence".

Rockin, do you have an example? Chevron's net income was 6% of revenue, so if you want to say executive bonuses were 25% of revenue ($40 billion) you can, but that will not make it true. For the net income of 6%, you can look at the financial statements.

Elvis, No it is not true. Just look up the facts. I have not problem debating opinions, but facts should and can be validated.

Rick lies look good on paper.you cannot fool this American.

Rick,

The way it works is that executive bonuses (and worker's pay in all forms) comes out of gross profits. It is an expense. Net profits is the part re-invested or distributed to the shareholders as dividends after all expenses and costs of doing business are deducted.

I hope you're not in business if you don't know the difference between gross and net profits (and there is no such thing as net income).

At least, for now we do have the choice to go to another one; pretty soon, there will be only one choice left.

I'm sorry...exactly what "choice" do WE have? I have insurance through my employer, and, for the most part, it is excellent. I've also had breast cancer, twice. I don't want any sympathy, but I would like to know what choice I have if I lose my job, be it from lay-off, health reasons, or any other reason...My "choice"...no insurance.

Genafan201 - I agree that the employer should not be the source of insurance. If you look back and see how we got to the point that the employer is the main source, it may surprise you as it did me. Insurance use to be bought by the individual, the government decide to put a ban on raises (During WWII), so to keep employees, employers started to offer benefits. I think going back to the individual buying the policy would encourage people to shop for what they want, need and can pay for.

The current plans in congress is not a plan to give us choice, it it a plan to have someone else make choices that should be the individuals to make.

The current plan in congress is to pay big medicine and insurance 2 trillion more for doing just exactly what they do at a huge profit today. In other words, the congress is attempting the largest heist of the treasury in history. When will an investigator step up to properly prosecute those guilty?

The current plans in congress is not a plan to give us choice, it it a plan to have someone else make choices that should be the individuals to make.

Right, which is what we have now, only it's the insurance company that makes those choices, NOT the individual.

As far as your comment above "Also, the buyer chooses the insurance company. If you do not like the company, go elsewhere" goes...You apparently do not have employer provided insurance...Unless you want to find another job (good luck in this economy" there is no "elsewhere" to go to.

The least possible staff that is what they want .more profit at the top. cut staff put more work on the staff they have.I work around the medical field and see it every day.

Elvis, Have you thought about starting your own insurance company that makes no money and does not pay it's executives? Maybe there is a future in that.

Hey Rick have you seen what doctors make just off of medicare and medicad. I know one he has five cars and a eight bedroom ,five bath house .and it is just him his wife and two kids. I believe in a profit but that has to stop.I do want to pay for my doctor bill. but I do not want to pay his 1,500 electric bill it is coming from me and you but. I do think you are one of them.

Agreed Rick. If all these people who are whining about "record profits" would put their money where their mouth is and ante up for once I'd die of shock.

Ok, lefties, since you guys have all the answers why don't you do what you want others to do: put out your own coin and start a company that pays for healthcare and meds on a non profit basis. Come on, if it's good enough for someone else to do and if it's such a good idea why don't *you* step up to the challenge and do it? Why do you demand that someone else wreck their company doing it? Do it yourselves. Step up, no one is stopping you.

I guess throwing money at a problem is only a solution as long as it's not your money, right Obamaites?

Elvis, I am not one of them. Why do you dislike doctors? Stop going to see them, if you like.

Rick i do like doctors most are from other country's but are good.And east coast. we already pay for health care you and I the only one that get free health care is people on welfare and the Rich.but who pays the bill. the middle class always been.There has never been a bill for the middle class never.

East Coast,

That is exactly what Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans did in the 1940's. It was a new medical world then --- antibiotics and new understandings of disease were meaning that people who previously died could now be saved. Public-minded individuals started individually owned and operated non-profit plans in each state. (In a few states like New York and California there were multiple plans.) There was a Blue Cross Association based in Chicago that coordinated claims between different plans, so if you were insured under one plan and hurt in another's area, you were still covered.

For every dollar they took in, they subtracted overhead and paid out the remainder. I worked for the Chattanooga plan (BCBST) and our overhead was zero because we processed accounting systems for small hospitals (SHAS) and processed Medicare Part A and Part B claims for the feds to pay our overhead (and when our overhead was met we stopped billing the feds ---- usually sometime in June [on an Oct fiscal year].) That meant that for every dollar we took in in premiums, we paid out a dollar in claims and the physicians and hospitals negotiated much lower UCR's (Usual and Customary Rates) in order to be "in network." And these companies were some of the most heavily regulated companies in the world because they were regulated as both an insurance company and a non-profit. The president of BCBST made then $43k a year and I left after 10 years because my salary as a systems programmer was about half what other companies in town were paying (and I had two small children.) Low pay is a frequent problem with all non-profits and government service.

But in the 1970's the for-profit insurance companies began to whine about unfair competition and socialism and communism. They contended that it was anti-American to give non-profit companies the right to deal in a free market since they always had a head start since they did not try to generate profits to keep shareholders happy. The for-profits contributed many, many millions to politician's campaign coffers and lobbyists and bought every congressman in sight. The Reagan administration agreed and a simple change was made ---- all non-profit health insurance companies were required to put aside one-years operating reserves "to protect the public." There was no way a non-profit could do that. Overnight the non-profit BCBS plans ceased to exist. The majority became for-profit insurance companies with profits and stockholders and all the trappings. The remainder became not-for-profit shell corporations that are owned by for-profit companies. For example, BCBS Alabama is not-for-profit, but it is owned by the hugely profitable Able Insurance Inc. It's a simple trick, but very effective. BCBSAL controls approx 90% plus of the healthcare insurance market in Alabama and makes many millions in profits that show up only on the books of Able.

Even companies like AFLAC got into the act. AFLAC had been barred in every state in the U.S. except Geirgia (its headquarters.) But AFLAC took its profits and started up operations in Japan where there is virtually no consumer protection law in place. They they took their profits from Japan and Georgia, and state-by-state they bought legislators until they are like they are now --- legal in 46 of the 50 states. You see that stupid duck everywhere, but you don't see the millions of complaints, lawsuits and fines that they pay to keep cheating the public.

So at one time this country had a good start on a nationwide plan, controlled by private enterprise (albeit non-profit) that was keeping medical costs down and keeping premiums as low as possible. But the free-market "no-regulation" capitalists couldn't handle it, so everyone got to suffer.

Anthem Blue Cross in California has already announced a 39% increase in premiums for 2010-2011 (July 1-June 30). Most other for-profit health insurance companies are following suit. The rate increases over the next few years are going to be huge as the insurance companies try to maintain profits with a shrinking subscriber base. I can guarantee you that your employer is not interested in taking up all the slack.

I am lucky. I am a vet eligible for treatment at a VA hospital a half-mile away and I am 66 and eligible for Medicare. So the government-run insurance haters should be encouraged. I don't want them at the VA and would like to see them renounce their Part B and Part D benefits when they turn 65. (You can't renounce Part A without losing your SSA benefit and you will be "fined" by the pharmaceutical industry if you renounce your Part D, but the haters can afford it.)

Rick

1) No they won't rick because the gov will have to give them the money to pay the 20%

2) The uninsured now pay nothing. They only get minimal care but still they pay nothing. You can't get blood out of a turnip. It's not what the charges are that counts it's what each pays that counts, so medicare PAYMENTS will have to go up not down. No more things like $1833.45 charged 792.21 allowed by medicare.

3) I believe that is a freedom of speech question isn't?

Great points Rick. We are one of the few countries that allow drug companies to advertise.

The money they spend on getting poiticians and medical descion makers wined, dined and laid truly delivers a great ROI.

The problem with drug companies advertising is that you get people demanding drugs that provide no benefit. And it may be a free speech issue, but when it changed (10 years ago) it was not a free speech issue. If it is a free speech issue, I do not want to infringe on anyone's rights. But who is being denied free speech? Companies do not have the same rights as individuals? Good point.

Oh is that why Bush stop the elderly. going to canada to get cheaper medicine.he made a law to stop it.and the elderly suffered when he did that .

Actually RICK, Companies are people in the eyes of the Gov't. Why do you think there are LLC's.

Mike- They not just wine and dine politicians but, EVERYTIME I wait to see my doctor at his office, guess who gets to see him first....the Pharma rep. with a bag full of goodies!

Rick

I believe your comment about companies having different rights than individuals may be open to debate. I would be the first to agree on the advertising issue. I would split it though. If I were King, AND I AM NOT NEARLY QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION, I would allow advertising on non perscription drugs but not perscription. The rational is this. If it is a perscription drug the choice is not yours anyway, it is your doctors. But you see if I were king I would not have to address the freedom of speech issue. And you sure as $ell don't want me as king.

Elvis - I do not know why Bush stopped people from going to Canada. I do not have a problem with that.

Rockin - Drug companies are not LLC, they are incorporated as a "C" corporation. Companies still do not have the same rights as individuals, as an example voting. It seems to be a gray area.

Rick I thought you have comand sense .oh you must read it first.to believe.You do not no why he stop it oh my.

Rick- yet they have freedom of speech protections. ON a different point ....you can't sue your health ins. company (protected by law). It's a free market for everyone but, you and me. Don't be a tool your whole life. Stop defending corps. for the sake of defending corps.

It is not a free speech issue. Tobacco companies and Liquor companies are limited on where they can advertise.

Rick,

Tobacco and liquor companies are not exactly a free speech issue. They agreed to curtail certain forms of advertising (they still advertise) and showing certain activities (notice that no one actually drinks in liquor or beer ads) in return for immunity from certain types of lawsuits. In other words they gave up a dime to get a dollar.

Rick,

Another little tidbit (I agree that all drug advertising should be stopped): Did you know that the drug companies get to deduct 100% of their advertising cost as an expense just like every other company? But the government then gives them an additional 20% of the cost of their commercials and ads as a tax credit for "educating" the public about their drugs' side effects.

Chris - I did not know about the tax credits.

All those side effect are scary.

3% my butt: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

retireddoc wrote "Insurance companies are raising their premiums 20-30% a year."

These rates are overstated. Using 25% and a simplified calculation, premiums would then have doubled after four years, quadrupled after eight years.

The young will not stay healthy forever. they will need it in life as well some day.

The concept of insurance is to spread the risk and costs over as broad a group as possible. The current health-care system only insures people who aren't sick or likely to get sick. If you need to use the benefits you are paying for you will be denied coverage for "pre existing conditions" or priced out of insurance as fast as possible by the insurers> they only insure healthy people.

elvis

I agree with you completely but the current adminstration will not be around forever. Warranty expired.

Sharky

How about a different approach. Instead of insurance through your employer how about a policy of your own. No pre-existing conditions clause. Not to say your employer is out of the picture but employer contributions to your health care insurance are part of your pay package and not taxable. Now the less you go to the doc with minor probs the lower your insurance rates. Now you don't loose your insurance when you get laid off because it's YOUR policy and as long as you make premium payments it stay's in effect. Not that simple I know but I think it would be a start. What say you?

The concept of insurance is to spread the risk and costs over as broad a group as possible

yup, and it's basically gambling. The customer is betting he will need the insurance and the insurance provider is betting that customer is not going to need anything from them. I admittedly don't know how it all actually works above and beyond the obvious. It all just seems to be getting exponentially more complicated at a very rapid pace and like many of us agree, it's just plain and simply not working, in particular for the consumer in a benefitial way. And Lord knows I don't have an answer, after all it's hard enough just to keep track of how it's working for my wife and I. It's effed up big time and it's getting worse fast.

Yes calvin the Democrates will not stay in power but this has to start.The Republicans will add things when they are in power.but it has to start.

America ceases to be America when decisions about life and death are removed from the individual.

Then apparently I'm no longer in America...Most the decisions about my cancer were based on if insurance covered whatever was being done. I couldn't afford most of the tests and procedures, so if my insurance didn't cover it, I didn't get it...

Hey dum dum. they are building a hospital . were I am living we do not need it but guess what. it looks like maybe. we might need doctors ,and what are the one's that come in and take care of us when we are in bed.and medical supplies. it sounds like jobs to me.what does it sound like to you 30 million more people that well have a doctor for the first time in there life.

With the current bill in congress, the shortage of healthcare providers will grow. We will start importing doctors and nurses from outside the US. Here is why: You increase the number of people going to the doctors (everyone has access, but more people will go for colds and other illinesses that do not need professional care) and it will decrease the number of doctors (fewer people will go to school for 10 years at a a cost of $250,000 to make $100,000 a year).

I'm sure you will heed your own words and act accordingly when your time comes, and it will, don't worry about it. Make sure you have the means and wherewithal to do exactly what you champion here other are supposed to do.

Because we are free and The Consitution is what we are suppose to follow, not the power grab of politicians.

Most people get insurance from employers, who run the insurance plan, not the insurance company.

It has already increase people are droping coverage it is to high. and the Insurance companys are raising rates .and the government has not even pass the bill.no government control.out of the two . who do i trust the most. remember I said most. Government or the Insurance Co.huh.

Um. No. The profit is from the healthy. The sick & dying are an expense.

No chief the church is not responsible. The people who are having sex are responsible. Stop trying to blame someone else. And while we are discussing health care, how many catholic hospitals are there in the country? And nurses who are nuns. I'm not catholic but don't try to start something. And as to haiti, have you been there???