Health-Care Reform: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em?

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 4:58 PM, XMFPhila100 wrote:

  Until you put caps on malpractice suits, health care really can't be truly "reformed." You can't have a productive health care system (perhaps that's why we're #37?) when you have doctors performing too much defensive medicine to cover their own rears. Without tort reform, costs will remain high, whether or not the taxpayer is footing the bill.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Walker6464 wrote:

  It really doesn't matter who pays the bill for health care, the american consumer, or washington. What matters is the fact that doctors have ass-backwards economic incentives. Doctors get paid by the test, by the operation, by the procedure. Thus they have an incentive to do more tests and procedure, not provide better healthcare. If an electrician is wiring a house, and he gets paid per socket, it doesn't matter if the owner or the contractor is paying for it, he is still gonna wallpaper the house with sockets.

  This is wack.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:23 PM, SmallWords wrote:

  Electricians do get paid by the socket, of a sort. Wiring to a junction box is more expensive than just installing wire. So, your metaphor is bad. Bodies aren't a project with a start and end. They're a system that has routine, unscheduled, and emeregency maintenance but no overhauls. A better comparison would be to the having a lawyer on retainer. They're paid a regular sum for their minor work and plus for extras like actual litigation.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:31 PM, tomjb346 wrote:

  NICE ratings aren't that different from Hospital Formularies, except NICE is national formulary. It is a fact that different people react differently to the same drugs. Right now those personal differences are not an exact science. Consequently physicians usually work down a working list for a particular problem. Some doctors prefer the old tried and proven before the new and highly advertised, others are more willing to try the newer creations. I think the reason for a national formlary would be to act as a guide for the hospitals and especially for physicians operating in more independent settings. And if the National Formulary is public information you would promote a more educated set of pharmaceutical users, and that should be the ultimate goal. In the end this also is a function of the needs for tort reform. The more educated the public is, then hopefully the less need there will be for legal action.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:34 PM, kirkydu wrote:

  Here's a letter to Senator Kohl I sent. FYI, I am an investment advisor rep in WI with an econ background. As I've written before, fixing health care delivery isn't really that tough if we set aside the special interests and agree not to let government crowd out the private insurers, but do allow government to set standards and regulate ala the utlities.

  http://kirkspano.com/content/view/40/46/

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:45 PM, cronerbc100 wrote:

  I am currently under a plan where my Dr. gets a fixed salary rather than "per visit" pay. I think an additional improvement would be the much discussed Whole Foods health care plan which would encourage much more consumer participation in the purchasing process.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:47 PM, starbucks4ever wrote:

  Obama is trying to take a quadrature of the circle by requesting to spend less than 16% of GDP but only under the condition that healthcare interests receive no less than 16% of GDP. With a request like that, you must soon run into certain logical difficulties.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 5:48 PM, stonebusted wrote:

  Cap lawsuits! The legal system has struck again, raising costs without providing any product. Sort of like a tick.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 7:06 PM, AdamE1968 wrote:

  In response to a couple comments regarding the need for malpractice reform as a portion of overall health care reform...I don't disagree but I think there is over emphasis placed on this area as opposed to some others.

  By way of disclosure I am an attorney and work for a health insurance company.

  I recall seeing studies back in the 1990s during the reform debate that noted the cost of malpractice litigation, including the damage awards, attorney's fees, cost of malpratice insurance etc. accounted for less than 1% of the nation's health care spend whereas by contrast, fraud, abuse and improper billing and reimbursement practices that result from inefficienciencies in the system were somewhere between 7-11% of health care spending. How about focusing on that rather than malpractice reform...based on those numbers, malpractice reform will not "bend the curve" on health care costs.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, xetn wrote:

  Much of the cost of health services are a direct result of government intervention in every area. Malpractice costs could easily be capped by having all parties use arbitration instead of jury trails, but most want to try to get rich with huge jury awards.

  Getting FDA out of the drug business could result in lower costs and shorter times to market by using private testing labs a-la United Laboratories. Reducing the time for patent coverage would go a long way to reducing the costs of drugs as would preventing drug companies for charging higher prices in the US than they charge in other countries (the US customers are subsidizing other countries).

  As for health insurance, why do you need to insure for physicals, and doctor visits? These just drive up premiums. It is kind of like having your auto insurance pay for maintenance. Instead you could just purchase insurance with large deductibles with attendant savings.

  The simple fact is that health services is not a constitutional right and government has no business being involved in it.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, stockmenot wrote:

  Adam, How about we do both? Let's not use your example as an excuse to ignore your 1%. After all....1% is 1%. If you were not a lawyer, you would agree.

• Report this Comment On August 27, 2009, at 8:38 PM, tomd728 wrote:

  UNH ?

  Now there's a stock that needs a double paddle

  shot ! Just can't get out of it's own way.........

  The posts herein are not lost on me mind you.

  We have a system that works despite the warts.

  I have never known one person, in a vast life experience, that was denied the proper if not the best

  medical care there is.

  Yet we have an idealist as President that is going to

  fix everything in our lives that he deems is broken.

  He's just not that bright !!!!!!!

  Tom

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 2:39 AM, prettymeadow wrote:

  I have noticed that most of the people if not all of those who oppose healthcare reform, already have insurance. I can only assume that you don't have any friends or family who are struggling to make ends meet much less have anything left over to pay for even the most basic of healthcare. I know several people who have had serious injuries or illnesses but can't get the care they need. They can barely afford to put a roof over their head and food on the table much less pay for services that would save the one person I know, who is going blind. The rest of her lifetime may be spent in darkness. How is she going to make a living then? Especially when her husband has a serious mental illness that doesn't allow him to work either. Another I know, was fired from her job because she wound up with cancer and her employer couldn't afford to keep her as an employee and pay for the increased cost of insurance for all of his employees. People are losing their insurance by the thousands, either due to job loss or serious illness, though no fault of their own. Insurance companies are already rationing care by denying coverage to those who become ill and by making it impossible for many to afford insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

  High deductables won't work for those who can barely survive now. Also just because you can live fairly well on $1400.00 per month in some cities does'nt mean that works everywhere. Large cities like L.A. and chicago cost more than that per month just for rent much less anything extra like heat lights and food. We need national healthcare to take care of those who are the most vulnerable among us. For the record I already do have insurance, at least for the time being. I do however have many friends and relatives who don't get the care they need.

  Healthcare should be a right in the richest most powerful nation on earth. And quit mistaking communism for socialism. All socialism means is that everyone is entitled to basic human needs like medical care and education.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 4:06 AM, thomdd1959 wrote:

  Please do not fall for any more tricks! Stop and think about what is really going on! Do not give them ANY more power! This is very serious! Think Very Carefully!

  This whole issue is not about Healthcare! It’s all about Power and Control!

  This is OUR Country! “We the People” and they work for U.S.!

  Our biggest problem has become our government! Stop! Just stop all this nonsense!

  Our biggest mistake is to trust our government. They can not be trusted! History has taught us this, over and over again. We have been warned over and over again. Why do you think we have so many economic problems now?

  We need laws stating that any Representative, Senator or President that has the audacity to sign any bill without reading it and fully understanding it should go immediately to jail without any bond? We must raise the bar of Integrity and Honor for our employees! Elected or appointed “public servants” need to achieve a much higher standard. How did it get so low? If they are found guilty, a 30 year minimum sentences would not be out of line! This complete lack of responsibility is a very serious issue! It’s totally scandalous, outrages and just plain wrong! It’s Criminal!

  All of our government employees have taken an oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Do your job! We want Honor and Integrity!

  We Must Never Again Allow Our Leaders to Have Unaccountable Trust! EVER!!!

  People are corruptible! We must always question and watch very closely everything they do! Our Freedom, Our beloved Constitution, Our National Sovereignty, “We the People” and the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic is why the United States of America is the Greatest Nation in the World! Any bad truths about our Country are the slow results of the corruptible human nature of a few individuals! Power and wealth can corrupt a person if not kept in check! After we fix our current problems, and we will, we must put in play many more “checks and balances”. We must figure out a way to completely take away the opportunity of corruption! Nothing personal - but “We the People” must always come first and be protected!

  http://www.tomdavidd.com/blog/

  “We can all commiserate forever about how bad things have been, are, and will continue to be. But I don’t think that we can afford to wait for elections in order to have our say about putting a stop to this madness. Enough, already! Let’s start talking treason, prison, and death penalties for all malefactors in government who subvert, ignore, skirt and otherwise trash the Constitution of these United States of America. Those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and have then ignored their oaths of office are guilty of perjury and malfeasance in office.” -Stephen A. Langford (personal communication to this author)

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 9:45 AM, tj66 wrote:

  "As much as no one wants to discuss the pink elephant in the room, we already have rationing in America. It's not based on some government board that makes the decision, but rather on who can pay for the services and who can't. Is that what we want?"

  Yes. This is what happens in a free market - it's pricing, it's how we ration things in a free society. How is some Government Bureaucrat making these decisions for us? I mean really, if someone can't avoid a new car, does that make the rest us obligated to buy him one? (Uh-oh, I think Cash For Clunkers may have partially answered that). Long story short: if you can't afford it, you need to make different choices - one less car, a smaller house, stop having kids, drop the cell phone and cable for Pete's sake! No one has a Right to ANYTHING at someone else’s expense.

  Or we could drop the Land the Free thing and just go with th Land of the Taken-Care-Of.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 10:54 AM, JohnnyAngel33 wrote:

  Citing the WHO is a joke. Over the last few weeks the MF has surprised me. Most of the articles on the health debate here (except for a select couple) have absolutely no research to accompany their findings or solutions. This article is another example.

  The MF likes to espouse doing extensive research into a company before investing yet when it comes to the health debate they completely ignore this philosophy, talk in generalities without details, and take things at face value without further inquisition.

  For example they cite WHO as ranking us 37th overall yet don't even think to look at how the WHO came to that ranking and whether it is accurate or not.

  I've been increasingly disappointed in the MF these days.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bamafan68 wrote:

  Adam, I wonder what the costs of defensive medicine are? As an ob/gyn, I can definitely say that we do a bunch of tests and c-sections out of fear of litigation. What about the mandatory head CT for minor head injuries that present through the ER?

  One thing that I think is lost in the discussion of our health care rating is that our population is far less homogenous than many of the countries that rank higher than we do. Some very real cultural differences, as well as equally real genetic differences, are present in large portions of the American population. Such differences tend to skew the data with regards to infant mortality, pre-term deliveries, death from heart disease, etc. This can be seen when we look at the health statistics state by state. The more homogenous a state's population, the healthier its statistics appear.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 12:39 PM, riderchicks wrote:

  Since you guys are the ultimate capitalists, I'm surprised at the ardor you display here-but-having lived in other countries and seen first hand how universal health care works-I'm in perfect agreement here with you-except for one thing-medicare is single payer-and so is congress's health care-and the VA-so why won't it work here when it already is? Thanks so much for sense and wise foolishness!

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 1:17 PM, priusqueen wrote:

  I HAVE insurance and have paid over 67% of all my gross earnings the past 9 years on out-of-pocket unreimbursed medical expenses. I inherited a genetic defect from my father, I learned after I had two bouts with cancers.

  Luckily, I'm alive and doing well, just very low-income.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Indyjh wrote:

  People already expect to be taken care of. Socialism is here. At the same time, we have a very expensive health care system that is getting more expensive faster than virtually everything else. Our businesses compete against Canada and Europe with their nationalized health care systems that are more efficent and against 3rd world countries with no health care systems. Reform must occur.

  Health care reform won't work if people are made to leave their current plans against their will. However there is much economy of scale in insuring the 50 million that don't have insurance and the millions on the edge that work and have a bad plan.

  A government sponsored insurance corporation is a feasable way to go on this.

  -They will have a ready market of 50 million+ customers that no one else wants. Most of which are in average health and of average age. The premiums can be based on a percentage of income. Many of these folks work and can pay a significant portion of premiums.

  -This corporation won't have the advertising costs associated with a for profit business.

  -Administrative costs should be very low. Far lower than a for profit business.Social Security has extremely low administrative costs.

  -This corporation should be able to leverage better service fees than any one insurer alone.

  -The plan could be written to accept customers from all the struggling small businesses that are doing business with the huge financial burden of health care being on them. This is probably the biggest source of concern for the insurance industry and it should be. I expect that even if these businesses had to pay a premium to participate in the plan, they would gladly pay it if it cut down the costs and increased benefits. Most small business health plans are pretty bad.

• Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 7:13 PM, williamseale wrote:

  As a hospital administrator said--if we could get rid of all the doctors and all the patients- it would be a lot better.

• Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 11:41 AM, redhead77 wrote:

  If other countries can cover 100% of their population for a much smaller fraction of their GDP than we do, then we're missing something big -- but it probably isn't just one big thing. It is probably three or four.

  Healthcare administrative costs are about 3 times more than other places. Malpractice premiums keeps your family doc from delivering babies. The uninsured patients who can't pay and use emergency rooms for clinics cost our hospitals big time. A doctor can get paid 15 different amounts for the same service. A noticable percentage of the people in our country can't live productive lives because they're trapped by their healthcare insurance issues. What we've got seems broken.

  I've lived in Denmark and seen that it can work nicely for everyone.

  Do we "owe" everyone healthcare as a "right"? Many say yes, many say no, but can we agree that if others are finding ways forward that cover everyone and are cheaper as a % of GDP, then our whole country will be better off if we emulate the best of what else is out there?

  I am starting by trying to learn more about what's out there. I don't get a spike in blood pressure when some uses the word "socialism" as an epithet. That's just a reason to look away from some things as a choice that might work better for all.

  BTW, I'm a Republican, have worked in medical malpractice and health reinsurance, and am the parent of two uninsured twenty somethings that desperately want health insurance but can't afford it and don't have it at their jobs yet. I'd buy it for them, but I just took a pay reduction and am on a tighter budget than I have been on in a long time.

  I'm open for ideas. I doubt we'll get it right at first, but if we're committed to an efficient system that covers all, I think can iterate on improvements and get to something over a period of years that is much better than what we have now. And better for our economy as a whole as well.

• Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Indyjh wrote:

  On malpractice-I'm generally uneasy about making any profession less accountable by capping damages for services, especially for complicated services such as medical services.

  On adminstrative costs-if you bought groceries with the same billing system that the medical industry does, you'd get a bill from every staffer in the place, cashier, stocker, warehouse guys, the meat counter staff etc., and then a bill from the store. The billing would be done by a third party biller and there would probably be screw ups on what you bought, so you would have to call and (during work hours) contest the bill. Not efficent.

  Its interesting that when opponents argue against this issue, "socialism" is the big hot button word that turns people off on the idea of reform. No one ever calls police, firefighting, schools or road building "socialistic" institutions, even though the public expects these services as a "right" to be provided. Opponents also cite the myth of inefficent government as a premise to be against reform. Most of the time, the government services above are delivered efficently at a cost that no private organization can compete with. When government services are privatized, the services are typically subpar to the government services they replaced.

  The fact is that most people are one serious illness away from bankruptcy. If you get cancer, you have go to the doc, during work hours, you'll probably have a copay for all visits and lab work. You'll use up your sick time pretty fast, then you'll be on FML. After that is used up, many companies will dump you then you're on COBRA. If you're fortunate enough to afford COBRA, and you're fortunate enough to have savings to pay for the copays while you're collecting unemployment (if you manage to get it), your lifetime of savings will evaporate soon. One in two men will get cancer, one in three women will get it. Not a pretty picture.

  The big "non profit" hospital systems need to do more to keep their "non profit" status. A tiny fraction of their budget goes to charitable care. These guys don't pay property taxes on their huge campuses, and don't pay sales taxes on the billions in goods that they purchase either. They always seem to have the cash for the big building projects located on the prime real estate in town though. Its an open secret that they run as "for profit/non profits" and its wrong.

• Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 11:32 AM, wolfman225 wrote:

  "As much as no one wants to discuss the pink elephant in the room, we already have rationing in America. It's not based on some government board that makes the decision, but rather on who can pay for the services and who can't. Is that what we want?"

  Absolutely. We must get away from this absurdity that everyone "deserves" everything that everyone else has. Just like "everyone deserves to own a home of their own" (we've all seen how that one's worked out).

  Personal responsibility is the key. There's much too little of that and far too much of "the government owes it to me!". I posted earlier that the best way to control costs is to limit government mandated coverages and to allow citizens to choose those coverages they want from a menu of options provided by insurance companies and to have the ability to purchase their policy from any company, anywhere. This would also make the coverage portable, much in the same way that auto insurance is mandated the state (minimal coverages), optional (increased premiums for increased coverages and freedom of choice of providers nationwide), and affordable (premiums are, to an extent, indexed to known risk factors, thus putting personal responsibility into play).

  Fixing health care is relatively simple (although not easy), but we first need to get rid of the notion that there are no consequences to our actions/choices and that, if there are, it's always going to be someone else's responsibility to pay for them.

• Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Systag wrote:

  I cringe when I hear the misnomer "health care." It's not healthcare, it's "sick care." Healthy people don't need doctors. Americans are sick because they make themselves sick. We have access to "hyper palatable" foods that keep us addicted to fat, sugar and salt. The majority of us are obese. I wish there was a statistic on how many were on some type of drug. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are drug pushers and won't be happy until everyone in America is on some drug or other. Responsibility for our health belongs to us. Even doctors admit that 75% of what's wrong with Americans is LIFESTYLE

• Report this Comment On September 01, 2009, at 4:20 PM, jkklm wrote:

  Prettymeadow- I lost my insurance because of severe lupus which is affecting my kidneys. First they gave me the option to raise the deductible (rates still went up, just less than they would have). Then over time I was out of options. I just had to cancel it. Now I get temporary insurance policies for emergencies, but they don't cover the lupus because it's pre-existing, so it goes untreated for the most part. Now, as to your comment. I am very much against Obama's plan. I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. We live month to month and struggle because of my illness, but I don't think that the plan on the table right now is the answer. I'm also not confusing socialism and communism when I call the plan socialistic. It is a definite turn in the direction of socialism.

• Report this Comment On September 02, 2009, at 12:18 PM, gtobynj wrote:

  All companies should stop providing health insurance to their employees and retirees immediately.

  That will create a crisis that with require action and possibly reasonable debate instead of the ridiculous bickering and name calling that is currently going on.

  The current proposal is ludicrous IMHO. How can spending more money in a system that already costs too much make it better.

  According to an article I read recently the US gov't spends more taxpayer money per person that any country with universal healthcare of any type. For that kind of money there should be universal coverage anyway.

  Oh and BTW for all the "rationing" fear mongers out there. In the UK and Canada if the gov't denies you a drug and/or treatment you know what you can do about it? Exactly the same as in the US, open your check book and pay for it yourself.

• Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 4:23 AM, AlexisMachine wrote:

  Brilliant, spend less to get more is pure genious. I know as far as costs are conserned when I go to the hospital for an emergency I always tell them to give me the cut rate. None of that pricey technological breakthrough stuff for me, MRI, CAT SCAN, Anti-biotics, X-rays, or any other pricey testing flim flam for me. I want only the cheapest, bare minimum, lowest budget treatment they have when it's a critical situation and my life is on the line that's when I want pennies pinched, bargain value medical care as cheap as it get's. I'm no fool to think that by paying higher costs for "better" care makes any sense at all. In fact the less I pay for anything the better it is and the savings are tremendous. Thousands for a new car? Never, not when $150 get's me an all rusted out 20 year old pig better than anything someone spent more on. Clothing, food, fun, you name it the cheaper it is the better quality it is and the only thing better than dirt cheap stuff is the free stuff that there is. Best pair of slippers, record player and sandwich I ever ate all came right out of the dumpster free as the healthcare in the UK and Canada. Those folks who choose to spend all sorts of extra money for thier own private medical care, like it's some sort of private personal decision what kind of medical care they receive and not anyone else's business have a lot of nerve. The fact that it's a conflict of interest for them to make thier own medical decisons that often leads to costly and wasteful treatments and procedures never even get's mentioned. Those type of decisions when left in the hands of benevolent politicians and the compassionate faceless bureaucrats they appoint to objectively choose what care is and is not received by patients are in better hands. Unburdened by guilt or remorse they are able to save bundles on care by denying wasteful and costly procedures to the elderly who are going to be dead sooner than most and don't need new hips, knees, heart valves, pacemakers, or spendy medicines with so few years left to live. While the other big wastrels of precious healthcare resources the chronically ill, the disabled and mentally retarded can also provide the taxpayers with great savings by withholding all the overpriced advanced care that merely prolongs the inevitable at a considerable premium and for what? It is not as if they are contributing members to soceity and in weighing the public good as well as the good of these individuals a line has to be drawn somewhere. The bedridden, invalids, crippled and retarded or the good of the people seems to make the choice clear that it is best for all to just let nature take it's course with these unfortunate creatures and provide a means to ease them along and end thier suffering means millions of dollars saved on medical costs best spent on the young and healthy. Some might object to this but I suspect it has not occured to them that we don't spend healthcare dollars on the healthy so we won't be finding the savings amongnst them. The fact is a lions share of medical expenses go to treat the physically and mentally ill and the elderly so that is where we will have to do all the saving of medical costs. Considering that medicare was passed to provide free care to the elderly in the late sixties at a cost congress estimated at the time that didn't cover 10% of the actual figures and is projected out to be 32 trillion in the hole by 2050 costs will have to be cut. Why anyone would object to expanding such a succecful program to the rest of the population at the mere cost of 1 trillion dollars over ten years and 2 trillion over 13 years to use the costs estimated by congress makes little sense. In case the 1 trillion for 10 years 2 trillion for 13 makes little sense it is easily explained thanks to the Congressional use of Enron style accounting. In an effort to conceal the actual costs of this program Congress back loaded hundreds of billions of expenses out beyond the 10 year horizon that way thier not lying to us when they say it will only cost 1 trillion over 10 years. Okay they are lying, it will certainly cost much more than 1 trillion over 10 years not including the 6-7 hundred billion in costs hidden using creative acxcounting techniches. Also they are lying about cutting costs as neither they nor you can name 1 single Government program that ever came close to only costing twice as much as was originally claimed. Lying about the ridiculous notion that this will not lead to massive tax increases on everyone who works or earns a dime to fund this boondoggle as a 100% tax on the "Rich" making over $250,000 a year would not begin to cover the chasm of unfunded entitlements this will add to an already yawning 50 trillion or so in unfunded Social security and medicare funding gap that exists by 2050. Lying about the fact that healthcare won't be rationed as you have got to be a beknighted boob if you are stupid enough to not grasp the concept known as scarceity and that it applies to healthcare just like everything else that is not unlimited in quantity. Of course those who cannot grasp this rudimentary fact will also overlook fundamental facts when they shine like the glittering jewels of ignorance that they are by saying stupid things about paying out of pocket for care denied by such rationing. First the 50-60% tax rate you paid your entire working life much of which went to fund this universal healthcare that on denying you the care you need turns out to not quite be universal after all. Second would be the shortages inherant in universal healthcare systems like Canada where the small number of machines that provide MRI's and CAT Scans necessitate a 4-6 month wait for those who are priveledged enough to get the Governments permission. Thus an entire industry has sprung up in North Dakota up near the Canadian border to provide the thousands of Canadians with these vital services for $400-600 dollars each with the immediate results that are often the difference between life and death as simply as making an appointment. The fact that so many Canadians are willing to shell out $600 dollars for a procedure they could have for free right in thier own Country might suggest that it is a good thing to spend more on healthcare than Canada does to those who don't feel that a life saving MRI costs to much, and therefore does not make our healthcare any better. In the UK and Canada when the Gov't denies you life saving drugs or treatment the wealthiest members of soceity are often the only ones who can open up thier checkbooks and pay for care out of pocket. Ironically many of those same people need not worry about thier gov't denying them lifesaving care as they are generally traveling to America for the lousy overpriced healthcare provided in this Country. They all seem not to understand that the universal economical healthcare systems in thier own countries provide superior care at affordable rates and entirely free to everybody. Those who live in the UK and Canada who are not wealthy, which is most of them thanks to Socialisms equal distribution of poverty, also can do something about being denied lifesaving medical treatment. They can drop dead. Meanwhile, in the darkest heart of cruel, uncaring America where people still think that individuals should be resposible for themselves, pay thier own bills, and earn thier own keep evil is afoot. By not embracing those who spend thier lives living off of others, walking around with thier hand out and being parasites to thier communities they have followed a different path. Rather that embrace a system where everyone is a ward of the State, to be taken care of and coddled from cradle to grave for the price of ones dignity, thus rejecting failed Marxist philosophies that have devastated so much of the world they learned from history. An ethos that in one from or another has condemned mankind to one form of hell on earth or another throught human history would be best left in the ashheap of history. It was America that first recognized that Socialism is the proud father of global misery and had the sense to reject it for the failed Statist filth that it is, was and forevermore shall be. The dichotomy could not be more profound between the product of the different societies that exist between the UK and America. In the UK an 80 year old toothless vagabond whose healthcare needs would be addressed for free under the universal system would never be deemed worth the cost of performing the open heart surgery he would need to survive, perhaps some nice painkillers to help him slip into oblivion from his hospital bed where he would wait to die. In America this very same hobo would be cruelly denied free healthcare coverage simply for existing and so when he staggered into a hospital clutching his chest in agony the $100,000 cost of his heart surgery would haunt him here as well. After receiving the surgery he would have many years ahead of him to live with the cruel billing process and unaffordable bill for $100,000 he would receieve in the mail at his shanty and I weep with the sadness of the horrible plight he faces. Would that he could have lived in the UK he would have been spared this indignity with his death from never getting such a procedure at his age and in his condition. Oh the humanity of the Socialist is boundless while the greed of America is shameful. May the Democrat Party succeed in it's mission to do away once and for all this Capitalist Nation and make it a beutiful nation of beutiful people just like the socialist utopia that is the rest of the world. Only Barney Frank can give us the medical care we need in America and in the end that is what the Socialisized medicine the Democrats have in mind for us amounts to; Barney Frank with latex gloves and KY jelly telling us all to bend over and "Sthpreed ethem".

  In summation I must add a final thought since the mental midgetry of several liberal jerks angered me enough to make this necessary a final truth about the sorry condition of the leftist pukes among us:

  "It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for out own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of thier own conscience."

• Report this Comment On September 07, 2009, at 11:41 AM, DeborahCalvert wrote:

  Or you could just run your nursing homes like Sun Healthcare Group out of New Mexico who operates over 200 homes throughout the country:

  Even w/ dbl pneumonia SUN forced her 2 get up and dressed by 5:30am, I found out on a surprise visit, as she was then made to sit in the hallway 2 hrs 2 wait for the dining room doors 2 open b cuz SUN understaffed and simply put, 5-7 CNAs that arrive at 7am cannot dress 59 patients in b4 8 am. Sun's Medical Director interceded stating no sick patients were 2 be made 2 sit up ever again. Common place: Opps you fell out of your wheelchair head first while no supervision in Dining Room? Sun didn't file accident report; Thirsty? Back in an hour; Need bathroom? we use diapers here; Hungry? great food; U need a Dr? Call 911; Fever? r thermometers broke; Hot? HVAC condemned by State; Cold? HVAC broke; Can't breathe? No Ventiliation? Did I mention the HVAC is condemned? BTW ur oxygen tank ran out -no staff 2 monitor oxy tanks; Looks like u had a stroke! r b/p monitors broke, now u'll never swallow again -sorry; opps u contracted MRSA from us from all the overuse of antibiotics for urinary tract infections -so sorry 2 tell u this but now u will die. Seven months later our mom was dead from this callous behavior.

  Calverts sued SUN but were cheated out of treble damages b cuz we could prove SUN's CEO and board member's willful misconduct. I have the letter SUN wrote me it was OK w/ them not 2 have a working HVAC sys 2 patients rooms, while under an existing injunction from the State of Calif barring SUN from ever having a broken HVAC system since they killed patients in a Burlingame, Calif facility in 2000. The CEO and Dr Hunker could have been terminated 4 good cause. In defense the CEO gave threatening messages to me during mediation which intimidated me and I signed off on only a fraud charge. I sued that attorney for malpractice when I regained my strength from pancreatic cancer surgery seven months later. He died 2 weeks later. Think he was stressed I'd have a tape recording of those threats in mediation?

  In June, 2009, the board of directors of Sun Healthcare Group thru the attorney firm Fonda & Fraser LLP Anaheim, California, has been provideded evidence of this possible criminal behavior by board members. There may indeed be a major shake up on the board.

  Deborah Calvert, Newport Beach, CA

Add your comment.