Hmmm ....it seems to me the cancer is ignorance. As if there is no GOV. reg on consumer goods like HD TVs.

Umm how much do you pay to watch TV? I used to pay nothing.

The new health-insurance reform legslation is called the Affordable Care Act because it uses a variety of methods for reducing the costs of health insurance and care. Health insurers would be requiired to compete for clients in the new state markets called exchanges. Mandatory insurance coverage of free screening tests will
encourage their use and the early detectkion of health problems before they become serious and very costly. Research will offer guidance to doctors on the most effective teatments. Electronic maintence and transmission of medical records will prevent duplication of diagnostic procedures and provide information on which therapies have been used for each patient. Also, Mr. McGibblets, it seems to me that health care shuld be univerally available in a society which has a fundamental responsibility to respect a right to life. A free market approach would only ration health care by ability to pay. Lefty Gill

Lefty,

You talk alot about what the alleged end results of the legistation are supposed to be but you fail to mention HOW that will happen and by what process. You mention electronic maintenance of medical records but dont mention how much those processes cost to implement but naturally assume all of these things lead to lower costs.

Further, health care IS universally available to society, like everything else you get what you pay for.

Lastly, you say that a free market approach would only ration health care etc but dont mention how health care is rationed in places that DO NOT use market principles such as UK and Canada. You simply assume that the market is bad and people lose but the market isnt a zero sum game you seem to imply.

So McG, what are your suggestions? We are not in Canada or the UK. What they have cannot be taken without knowing the other laws that support it AND there are shortcomings there too. For what Lefty is outlining, what would you be willing to pay? $10 a year $100 a year $200 a year. What would be a value if everyone with above a poverty income were to contribute so that all could benefit? Make some statements among your questions.

Rusty, I'm not sure what part of my very first post is not clear. There should be no 'health care bill'. There is no reason to treat health care as if it is something different from all other goods and services. The market provides individuals with the opportunity to do something BETTER if they feel others are not doing it the best way possible. The market gives options to what consumers want and demand, it is the introduction of govt into this situation that restricts options and lessens the competition that drives costs down while driving performance up.

Brian, you mention TV as in the service you subscribe to. I am referring to the product you use to display said service. If you have complaints about what youre paying for 'TV' you certainly have other providers to choose from as well as the choice NOT to have a TV service.

Also, the extent of 'GOV. reg' as you put it on television hardware pales in comparison to how entrenched and intertwined govt is with health care, further making my point.

Lefty,

I would love to engage you in a wager over whether or not the so called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will in fact reduce costs. There is absolutely no chance of that happening. NONE. If you think the government can take over a huge portion of the US economy and reduce costs it might not even be worth replying to you. The fact that you could believe such rubbish almost makes making a wager with you unfair...the equivalent of taking candy from a baby. Of course, you'd never accept such a wager...libs, while quite keen on spending other people's money, are very hesitant to put their own money on the line.

In the end it won't matter anyway...because the so called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be struck down by the Supreme Court any day now.

Now, I'm hesitant to turn this into a debate about abortion, but since you brought up "a fundamental responsibility to respect a right to life," perhaps you'd like to offer your feelings on the "right to life" of a fetus.

Just because the parents or illegal it doesn't make their children illegal. I am against the: "we are here illegally but have legal children so you cann't separate us and send us back". Let them take their legal children and leave this country.

My answer was quite clear, the market can provide the best health care at the lowest cost. What makes health care different?

I dont see you making blogs about who deserves any other good or service. Perhaps youre the one suiting your emotions.

OK Rusty, I think it's time for Government 101, or perhaps The Constitution 101.

The US Constitution spells out very few things that the federal government may do. Anything not specifically delegated to the federal government is left to the states, or the people themselves, to regulate.

Car insurance, as far as I know, is not mentioned in the Constitution (Rusty, if you can find mention of "car insurance" in the Constitution please let me know). Therefore, its regulation is left to the states.

Health insurance is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, its regulation is also left to the states.

So, to sum up, both health insurance and car insurance are issues that the federal government is prohibited from regulating (I believe the Supreme Court will make this clear in a few weeks).

I know this is complicated Rusty, but I think if you put the time in and read this a few times it might start to sink in:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Rusty, if you'd be so kind as to send me your mailing address I'd be more than happy to send you a copy of The Constitution. As a bonus, because your economics needs work as well, I'll include a copy of the fantastic book Economics In One Lesson.

Rusty, the government may require you to carry insurance on your car, however it does not require you own a car. This argument is hollow because you can opt out, the only way to opt out of the health insurance under the affordable care act (aka obamacare) mandate is to die.

Let's start with #3 first. Just who do you expect to subsidize for your affordable health care? The state can't provide you any benefits whatsoever without first sticking its hand in another person's pocket and taking a few dollars so you can't your [insert state -provided benefit here].

#2. Have you ever investigated why health care costs are rising so rapidly? I'm going to give you a clue about where to start your search for answers: GOVERNMENT.

#1. Why should some other person be penalized because you got sick?

It doesn't really matter why a person is overweight. Do you think your heart cares WHY it has to pump harder to account for your extra mass? Are you kidneys going to give you a break because it's your thyroid and not just a general love of food that's caused you to be overweight?

The fact is that being overweight is one of the leading risk factors for other (serious) illnesses. Overweight people incur more health care costs. Insurance companies are well aware of this.

Now, who should foot the bill for these additional costs? You, or someone else?

"why would I pay for health insurance if it doesn't help me when I am sick"

BINGO. why should anyone have to pay for health insurance that DOESNT HELP THEM? why should my dollars be used to insure someone else? same theory applies.

I'm not sure why you would care if I get sick. I also don't quite understand what new tune I'll be singing. I've been sick in the past and will likely be sick again in the future...but I purchase health insurance to protect against these expensive, unexpected occurrences.

Furthermore, in this country, as things currently stand, someone like you (who apparently has risk factors for serious illness yet doesn't want to purchase health insurance) is covered by laws which require hospitals to treat sick patients that show up at their doors.

Does the phrase "personal responsibility" mean anything to you?

I know you're overweight because you said so on this very thread. And being overweight is most assuredly a risk factor for other illnesses.

I also know that you're a single mother of four children...again, you said so right here. That's a risk factor for being poorer than if you were a married mother of four.

It's not evil to not want the government to take my money and give it to those that would rather sponge off of society. The fact that you don't seem to mind tells me you don't seem to care about the long-term consequences of that.

1. With the government taking a lot of your money in taxes, that leaves less money for you to provide for yourself and your children, both now and in the future.

2. When government subsidizes a particular behavior, you can expect to see more of that exact behavior. Often these behaviors have terrible effects on society. So government, in effect, subsidizes the destruction of our own society.

Now, if you feel the need to help someone voluntarily through charity, good for you. Nobody on here is talking about not helping people in need...we're objecting to government FORCING us to help people in need.

Is it moral to rob someone of their money? Is it moral to rob someone of their money in order to give the money to a third person that you think needs the money more than the original owner of the money?

One more thing...how do you know I've never had a serious illness? Answer: You don't.

Richard- Do you know why I am single? because the man I was married to for 20 years, the man that was the father of my 4 children, got sick and died in my arms. I have been thru this whole insurance mess. I have been thru the issues with pre-existing conditions, and insurance companies dening needed studies based on what they say is medically neccessary. So to me, you are talking to deaf ears. And since you insist on commenting on everything I say, I will just say this.........I don't care about anything you say. I don't agree with anything you have just said. So lets agree to disagree.

The good news is, if you're not happy with your insurance company you're free to find a new one. Of course, that wouldn't be true with government run healthcare, but since the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare later this month, we won't have to worry about that.

It's still early, but this is easily the dumbest thing I've read all day: "We shouldn't have sick people suffering FOR ANY REASON!!!!!!"

The world and the people the inhabit it are fragile. If you want a world without sickness or suffering, I have some bad news for you...you're not going to find it on earth. Ever.

If you want a world with LESS sickness and suffering, the very best hope you have is for smaller government and less government regulation, because government is the source of more suffering on earth than any other single cause.

Shanna, this is a very emotional topic for you. People would not make you as angry if you said you were a widowed mother of 4. When you say you're a single mother or 4, it has a completely different connotation. Next, you mentioned something about taking an animal to the vet. No one is required to carry pet insurance. If your animal gets sick, you pay for it to get better. There's no government entity forcing me to pay for your sick animals, and that's a good thing. In the same way, no one should force others to pay for what someone else should pay for themselves. I think that's the biggest issue here. Have you talked to child-less people who pay school taxes? Or homeschoolers or people who send their kids to private school? Everything the government touches is more expensive, by a factor of at least 3, than when the private sector does it. Why do we spend $10,000 per kid to get a completely sub-par public education? It makes no sense. Providing "free" health-care/insurance will end up with the same result. Taxpayers will be paying 3x as much & getting 1/3 of the benefit. This whole mess with the "free contraception" just proves that this debate has nothing to do with healthcare. Why aren't your synthroids going to be "free"? Or cancer meds? Why does it have to be contraception? If people want/need to pay for something, then they can pay for it. I'm happy with my current health insurance, why should I be forced to buy something that's completely subpar?

Missy, it is an emotional topic for me.
1. I have been thru the crap that the insurance companies, that I pay very good for, can put you thru

2. I work in the healthcare field and I see how people get screwed and don't get studies that they need.

3. I never said A...that i want free healthcare or B.....nor did I say I was for mandatory insurance.

What I said is that IF YOU WANT IT, it should be more AFFORDABLE. Right now people can't pay $1,000/month extra for insurance. To me, that's a mortgage payment not an insurance premium. People want it but can't afford it. Then they don't get regular check ups and then they end up with a serious illness that could have been prevented. Then they may qualify for medical assistance, which we all pay for, to pay for the serious illness that could have been prevented if they could have afforded the insurance in the first place.

4. And as insurance premiums increase at a very large rate every year, the coverage you receive is less. You can shop around.......but most people can only afford it thru thier employers and if that's the case, then you're stuck with what they offer.

5. I never said that everyone should be on a government insurance company. But if the government wants to offer an option to take, why not? You dont have to take it but its there if you want it.

and for the vet, my point was, we treat animals better than we do other humans.

and what does it matter if i am a widow or just single?

Well then, they never should have never started paying for routine check ups to begin with. You give it to me and say "isn't it nice? Now I am going to charge 3X as much to keep it." If it's just for emergencies and for unexpected events then keep it that way. But it's not like that, is it? And it's not my fault its not like that, is it? This was going on long before I was even born. It is what it is and what it is is totally messed up and needs to be fixed. My way.....your way.....congress' way....God's way......some way......it needs to be fixed.

Your post can be summed up with the following definition of a word that sounds like your name.

blithe: lacking due thought or consideration

It appears that your parents were quite prescient.

Now, on to your insanely false premise that the US is the is "the only Country without health care." Where is the world would you get the idea that the US does not have health care? There are laws in this country that force...that's right FORCE...a hospital to treat a sick person that has no ability or intention to pay for the care that he will get when he presents himself at the emergency room. I'd like to find out what type of business you're in and see how'd you'd like such a requirement applied to you. Should a hungry person be allowed to show up at any grocery store or restaurant and demand free food? Should home depot be required to provide free tools for those that can't afford them? Should a lawn care company be forced to mow the lawns of people that can't afford to pay them?

And one more thing...not only are you completely wrong about the US being "the only Country without health care," it's even worse than that. In spite of the strong arm of government regulating the healthcare industry nearly into submission, the US manages to be a world leader in healthcare. People from your favored countries with so called "free healthcare" routinely come here for treatment. Why would they do that?

Richard, this was supposed to be a civil discussion. You're post is offensive.

I guess in your world truth is offensive. The fact is, what you read was the toned down, polite version of what I wanted to say about one of the dumbest posts I've ever read, on any forum anywhere.

Go ahead and bring religion into it Chet. That suits me just fine, as religious charity is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the actual system you are defending.

Do you honestly think that voluntary charity is the same thing as the govt taking my money under the threat of jail (and ultimately death) in order to redistribute it in the worst possible manner, with the worst possible unintended consequences, and the worst possible outcomes? Many years ago when charity was real and not monopolized by the government, those providing the charity could impose certain rules and yet still, strangely enough, the recipients actually seemed grateful. Not so much anymore now that receiving "charity" from the government has been declared a RIGHT by the govt.

Maybe more people would be willing to participate in real charity if governments at all levels weren't constantly putting the screws to us by taxing virtually every single product we buy and every single activity we perform...to the point that probably not a single person in the entire country knows exactly how much money in taxes they pay.

And one more thing..."third world status" is the natural state of nations. The past 200 plus years have shown that the most effective way to climb out of that pitiful status is a free market system. Yet here you are supporting a system (socialism and its relatives) that has time and again either kept countries at third would status or pushed them back into it.

No Chet, what is wrong with this country is too many people thinking "there ought to be a law" to support their point of view. Healthcare is not a national issue, it is a local one and forcing a one size fits all solution on everyone doesn't work. It only leads to partisanship and the growth of the political class that promises to implement these small minded solutions. Both sides are guilty of it in our two party system. The bottom line is the law is force and if you are OK with forcing someone to buy one thing, you are OK with forcing them to buy everything, the principle is simple and clear. Christians are charitable because they choose to be, not because of a law, and freedom of choice is a higher principle to uphold, than coerced charity will ever be.

Chet, why do you keep saying we live in a third world culture? You've obviously never been to a 3rd world country and it's extremely insulting that you keep saying that, and it makes no sense. It's also obvious that you've never been to a communist or previously communist county either, because if you had, you wouldn't be whining that your taxes are too low. You do realize that you and anyone else who thinks that are more than free (yes, FREE) to write as many checks for as much as you want to the IRS, or the State of MD, or the county, and tell them that you want your extra tax payments to go to whatever program you wish. It's funny that you never hear about people actually doing that, they would rather talk about no one else paying their fair share. That makes no sense either. Lead by example. I have no idea how old you or your parents are, but I can definitely say that my taxes are more than double what my parents were "at this point." But I can also say that most things that remain in the free market are a million times better than when my parents were at this point, and the things that have remained in the govt. sector are 10 times worse at this point. I can compare both health "care" (even though I believe we're all talking about insurance) and education.

nice try Missy, but I am nearly sixty and all you have to do is look at tax rates. When I in high school highest federal tax bracket was 70% today it is 35%. The median income tax brackets were 22% then and 15% now. the relevant rates for 2x the median were 29% then and 15% now.
To answer your other question I have been in several third world countries and fought in one that was taken over by the communists so I have seen and lived in more then a few third world countries. I do lead by example dear, I pay my taxes owed, I don't go to illegal tax shelters, and i volunteer for my community, I even volunteered for the military before the pay rates were livable. Your taxes in dollars may be 2x but your income is 4x your parents unless you have really slipped.

Chet: Citing the tax rates says absolutely nothing about who was paying those rates.

First of all, at a 70% federal marginal tax rate, almost nobody paid it. Who would be dumb enough to work those extra hours or days...so that 70% of those wages could be sent to the federal govt (and some more on top of that to the state govt)? That's the reason that whenever marginal tax rates are reduced overall govt revenue increases...resources that people were not using in order to avoid paying outrageous marginal tax rates are freed up and put to productive uses.

Second, inflation has pushed many current workers into higher current brackets. It's what's called bracket creep. It's great for the politicians because it's a tax increase that they don't have to vote for. It happens automatically with inflation.

Also you might have forgotten about is the drastic increases in social security taxes over the years.

And the addition of state sales taxes in many states probably slipped your mind.

And you might not have considered the costs of regulations.

Because it's so difficult to track all the various ways govts tax us (income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, phone taxes, electricity taxes, fees, tolls, licences, registrations, regulations, etc.) the best way to measure things is to look at overall govt spending. And for that there is no denying that the overall trend of the past hundred years is a gigantic increase in govt spending at all levels of govt.

Please show me the 8 million children that didn't have access to healthcare before obamacare.

"One made 29% of the comments and more than that of the words and sarcasm, but little, if anything, constructive." - Perhaps that's me you're referring to. In my defense, there's quite a bit of misinformation that needed correcting (for example, see the first sentence of this post).

Let it run throught the free market system seems to be the theme-answer to your question. But congress & you don't like the answer, so you think it's not an answer. That happens to me, too. I ask a question, don't like the answer, can't understand the answer, and keep asking the question.
Since congress doesn't like the answer,either, nothing gets done. But it's not because of what you see on this thread.

More misinformation: "It took a lot of words before Hertz stated that he is against all forms of public health care or insurance."

Please tell me where I said that. I guarantee you that you have misunderstood and misquoted me, likely because you have your own preconceived ideas of what is right (your way of thinking) and what is wrong (my way of thinking), and couldn't possibly approach the subject with an open mind...despite your best efforts at trying to make us think that with the very premise of your article.

Apology to Hertz. I should have attributed that to McGibblets. "Rusty, I'm not sure what part of my very first post is not clear. There should be no 'health care bill'." So, Hertz, is there anything that could be of value in health care legislation even if the government were not administering it?

Imagine a world where healthcare is completely unregulated by government. Now imagine passing some sort of healthcare legislation. How long will it be before govt is "administering" healthcare from the sidelines through legislation? Not long. We started down that road in earnest in the 60s, so 50 years after starting down the road to healthcare fascism we reached our destination with Obamacare. Unfortunately we'll still be there, though to a lesser extent, when the Supreme Court sends Obamacare to a well deserved legislative grave later this month. Keep in mind that Obama's not solely to blame. Every president since Johnson, and practically every member of Congress since then, has helped pave this road to hell.

So, if you're talking about federal legislation, my healthcare legislation has actually already been ratified...220 years ago: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And one more thing Rusty. One of your principles appears to be liberty. How do you define liberty?

Here's my suggestion: Change the tax rules to make medical expenses fully deductible, instead of subject to a limit based on income. My personal opinion is that no one in Washington really cares about the whole health care problem if they don't address the deductibility of it on the tax return. And the limit rate is going from 7.5% to 10%, so basically, anyone who has a lot of medical expenses and can deduct them, will not be able to deduct 2.5% of them next year. Imagine what your tax return would look like if you could deduct 100% of it.

I am well aware of that. My hypothetical situation was in response to Rusty asking "So, Hertz, is there anything that could be of value in health care legislation even if the government were not administering it?"

The reality of the past 200 years proves that if govt starts to pass legislation on an industry...it will soon enough overwhelmingly control that industry.

Talk about a broken record...Pot, meet kettle. Your starting point for any discussion is that we need government to do X, Y, and Z. Check your premise Vaughan...because it's wrong. We need government to pick up our trash? And take care of our kids? Improve our collective lives? Really? The world doesn't need Vaughan to assemble "good ideas." The world is capable of organizing things on its own, sans government and sans Vaughan, a hell of a lot better than you & your big government-loving friends. Haven't you noticed that everything the government touches it destroys? They have a monopoly on first class mail delivery...and not only can't they turn a profit, they can't come close to breaking even. They've spent trillions of dollars on a way on poverty...and yet poverty never goes away. The war on drugs? They can't even keep drugs out of the hands of people in jail. They reward awful behaviors like not working and teenage girls having children...while penalizing (taxing) work and marriage. These are the fools you want to "improve our collective lives?"

One of the reasons I sound like a broken record is I'm trying to get you to understand economics. Your complete lack of understanding of basic economics should embarrass you. Yet, not only aren't you embarrassed by it, you embrace it, and go around posting things on the internet, showcasing your startling ignorance for the world to see. If you want to have a reasoned discussion of health care, first learn some basic economics.