Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Umm. Yea. The Military is a great model. Provided all you do is look at the benefits you get and not at the costs which you conveniently don't mention.

I appreciate and respect your service. But your lack of any mention of cost reveals a deep lack of awareness of what your health care coverage costs and maybe how it is paid for. The military spends roughly 600% per person ($118,000 per person average) what private insurers pay. You damn well better get better coverage!

You and the rest of the military's personnel couldn't come CLOSE to paying for your own health care out of your own taxes during your service. The reason you get great health care is on the backs of a huge quantity of people who on average make lots more. This is fine and well deserved for the military. But it's ridiculous to think this scales to a national model! The USA doesn't have a radically larger and richer population to tax as the military does.

Plus, you don't seem aware that the military health care spending is a huge financial boondogle. Don't trust me though... take a look at the GAO Comptroller's Powerpoint... DOD starts at slide 10. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07766cg.pdf

Interesting read there, thanks.

Of course the fact a war was ongoing over the last six years has to account for a lot of that added DOD health expense. The type of injuries coming out of this war (IEDs) have to be very expensive to treat, as well as the usual PTSD cases. So hard to fairly compare civilian health care costs to costs of a military at war. And yes, I saw only 42% of patients were active duty, but that doesn't reflect where each dollar goes. Treating paraplegics is more expensive than say, arthritis. I didn't read it that carefully, they may have shown more detail on expenses of active personel vs retired.

Looks like they've also had to promise better benefits in order to continue to attract enlistments. The real cost of the war shows up in stuff like this, the long term cost of providing all these benefits to service personel. Its nothing new, WWII had things like the GI bill and VA care of course. The expenses don't stop once the bullets do.


As far as medical expenses being that high, this is what I read,

"Enhanced PAY and benefits, including health care costs, increased costs to an average of $111,783 per person" This was for active personnel.

And I'd also refer anyone who thinks we don't need health care reform to this from the same report:

What is to be done?
•The “Status Quo”is Not an Option
•We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs
•GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as
•Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
•Raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level
•Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem
•Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the double digit range every year for the next 75 years
•During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent peryear
•As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough choices will be required

At times I feel that people fighting any change in health care are those at or approaching medicare age who simply have the attitude that as long as they get theirs, screw everyone else. The facts are, we can't survive without changes. The question is what is the best way to go about it?

[drumminj]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

The gov. got involved when private insurers lobbied for them to do so, you guys keep going on about the gov., but a lot if not most everything they've done is at the behest of private insurers.

I wasn't trying to claim that the gov't decided on it's own to do this, or to hold it up as an example of poor-decision making by the gov't (though I'd argue it is - but the bad decision was to listen to the ins companies). My point is that many of the problems in the system right now are caused by the government. In this case, the gov't put regulations into place which led to where we are now. Yes, things aren't ideal now..but one can argue (and I am) that they would be better if we'd go back and un-do the gov't action many years ago, rather than simply take MORE gov't action now.

Most of the money spent on health care goes to a)insurance companies and b) drug companies, with medical equip. suppliers, hospitals, and doctors coming in a very distant 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Adding more insurance companies to increase competition won't fix that issue since the ones that currently exist already collude to keep rates high.

having more competition would put pressure on ins company profit. It'd also allow for a wider variety of more "affordable" options for people, so people could choose wellness insurance, and others could simply choose catastrophic insurance. Don't you know friends who have Geico or some other "small-name" auto insurance because it's cheaper? As a result, the established parties (state farm, all state, etc) need to either increase service or decrease costs to compete. Same would be true with health insurance.

If the gov. does it better for less than the current system I don't really care about this issue.

Better from who's perspective. For less according to who's perspective? Chances are it's going to cost me more than it currently does. And chances are I'll have fewer options as other insurance companies go out of business, or just exit the field because the gov't is competing unfairly.

But that is what a government is all about right? Taxing people to pool wealth to buy the infrastructure/services none of us (perhaps even the most wealthy of us) could afford. I mean, you can't afford the roads or police officers or internet infrastructure by yourself either right? Aren't all those things beneficial to society too, and fundamentally they're all the same thing right (taking your/my/our wealth for public service)?

And I would argue that in most cases this is immoral. There are certain things that are for the "public good", surely..roads, parks, etc. All can get equal benefit from these things. With healthcare, I don't believe that to be the case.

AFAIK this UHS bill won't eliminate drug companies profits, it'll only reduce them and probably not much at that so I don't know why everyone is so worried about this....

Because it eliminates incentive. How much profit is "enough"? Only the risk-taker can adequately determine that.

Plenty of R&D is done in other countries, if you're not in the medical field you won't hear about any of it though.

But who's paying for it? My point is that you can't point at Canada and say "drugs are $XXX there. That means we can pay $XXX as well and everything else will stay the same". It's very possible it won't stay the same, as some research many only make sense if the companies can bank on the margins they get from the US payers. I can't prove that to be the case, and you likely can't disprove it...all I'm saying is that it's likely a faulty assumption to think that capping the retail price of a product won't affect the amount of R&D done into similar products.

[Roughneck]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

One point that I think is not widely understood is the REASON the government wants to control the healthcare system. In Obamas speeches he talks about controlling medicare and medicaid costs before it overwelms the federal budget. How do you think they will accomplish this? By rationing care. They are doing studies as we speak about effective treatments and outcomes. Ohh were sorry your cancer only has a 30% survival rate guess what? maybe we can offer you assisted suicide instead? They can talk boust lowering costs through "reducing waste" blah blah. The real savings is in limitimg the amount of services you will get and lowering how much they pay to doctors and hosspitals. Most people use the most health care dollars late in life where the potential cost of treating someone may not be practical due to life expectancy.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

One point that I think is not widely understood is the REASON the government wants to control the healthcare system. In Obamas speeches he talks about controlling medicare and medicaid costs before it overwelms the federal budget. How do you think they will accomplish this? By rationing care. They are doing studies as we speak about effective treatments and outcomes. Ohh were sorry your cancer only has a 30% survival rate guess what? maybe we can offer you assisted suicide instead? They can talk boust lowering costs through "reducing waste" blah blah. The real savings is in limitimg the amount of services you will get and lowering how much they pay to doctors and hosspitals. Most people use the most health care dollars late in life where the potential cost of treating someone may not be practical due to life expectancy.

You are right about the government wanting to ration care. But why is health care different from any other limited resource? I'm generally on the side of private industry doing a better job than government. But the lines between public and private are really quite blurred. Federal money funds a lot of research and provides a lot of the money going into health care now, so we really can't pretend its just a private vs public question.

We can't afford the health care we have now, privately OR publicly. At least not everyone can. Instead of your scenario offering suicide assistance for 30% survival rate cancer victims, how about another option where the cancer victim can get treatment as long as he can cough up most of the money out of his own pocket? Because now, thats not the case. Now people with the means to pay for the cancer care hit medicare age and they basically can use the government's money while preserving their own to buy second homes, luxury cars, and contribute to their heir's trust funds. Even many so-called wealthy couldn't afford a health insurance premium at age 75 even if it was available. Instead, they get hugely subsidized insurance that is nothing more than a massive ponzi scheme( medicare). All private health care really is now is GAP INSURANCE until people hit age 65. Without medicare it would not work. So its BS to scream for continuing a private system that really isn't completely private. If it truly was private our elderly would have no health care because none could pay for it.

I don't see why we can't have a medicare that pays for a certain level of care and let people who want better care foot the bill if they can afford it. I see nothing wrong with that really. We do not have a right to health care and certainly not to knee replacements, cataract surgery, electric Scooters, and free drugs. All things that were not available 50 years ago yet we didn't consider it some tragedy back then now did we? If the Geezers are not willing to give up something here the socialists are going to ram this down our throats and we'll all be worse off. But that's politically off the table so I think in the end we are all f$#cked.

[mesyn191]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

My point is that many of the problems in the system right now are caused by the government.

And my point is that is a red herring you're chasing after, until you can get private insurers and the drug companies from getting the gov. to twist the laws in their favor many if not all of the problems will ever get fixed properly.

having more competition would put pressure on ins company profit.

Which is why it'd be horrible to do. They're already at the point where they'll deny claims for anything they can think of to get a profit, putting more pressure on their profits will just cause them to go to even more drastic measures.

Don't you know friends who have Geico or some other "small-name" auto insurance because it's cheaper?

Geico is a "small name" insurer?! Maybe not as big as some but they're huge, and cheaper?! They cost me more than my shitty All State insurance.

Same would be true with health insurance.

You're making an apples to oranges comparison if you think this is true.

Better from who's perspective. For less according to who's perspective?

From the perspective of the vast majority (who are poor or middle class in the US). Governments can't make everyone happy you know. The best they can do is work in the favor of the majority.

And chances are I'll have fewer options as other insurance companies go out of business, or just exit the field because the gov't is competing unfairly.

All your choices today for health insurance are either a)crap or b)crappier (unless you've got Tricare that is, but they're a corner case, and must remain so because of cost), those options are not very compelling to say the least and you should be relieved that the burden of making that choice may be removed from your concern. If there were any good insurance companies I could see where you're coming from and would even agree with you, but there aren't, and I get to see personally day in and day out how bad they all are.

With healthcare, I don't believe that to be the case.

Why would having healthcare insurance for everyone not be an overall benefit to society? Or to put it another way, why is society better for having overpriced healthcare ins. that a)many can't afford and/or b)have to make significant sacrifices in standard of living to afford?

Because it eliminates incentive.

How is the UHS eliminating profits (read: incentive) for drug/equip. companies? You know a lot of the profits don't get plowed back into R&D right? They get pocketed by the execs.

How much profit is "enough"? Only the risk-taker can adequately determine that.

But isn't this an immoral argument? Couldn't you justify all sorts of insane prices to increase profits using it? How about affordability, isn't that a factor too?

all I'm saying is that it's likely a faulty assumption to think that capping the retail price of a product won't affect the amount of R&D done into similar products.

I'm not questioning that, I'm arguing that they aren't really doing all that much of it right now or at least aren't doing it on the right sorts of drugs (more and more work is done erectile dysfunction drugs vs. antibiotics for instance) and much of the money they take in is given to execs anyways. If I had any say in fixing things I'd try to find some way to fuck the execs and put more money towards the R&D, hopefully lowering costs at the same time, they're even worse in my eyes than the people who ran AIG-FP.

[MulaMan]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I don't think anyone can argue that we have the best healthcare just the worst (read manipulated) cost structure.

America does NOT have the best healthcare by any measure. Where do you folks get this from? Fox News? Ever lived in another country?

Personally I would measure health care by the health of the population, and America is practically at developing nation levels when it comes to overall health.

For every story (propaganda) about someone waiting for an operation in say Canada or the UK there are thousands upon thousands of nightmare stories in America...

Ever heard about the lady that died this year in a hospital waiting room in America while hospital staff did nothing?

If that happened in Canada there would a 3 week Fox News special on it.

[MulaMan]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Here is the great American Health Care System At Work:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/wai...ath/index.html

Blows my mind that Americans think they have great health care!

Going into an America hospital is as scary as hell, if feels like your are going into a meat packaging plant with lawyers hovering over you at every corner, doctors taking 30 seconds a day to visit, paperwork about to get lost at every turn, new shift of overworked nurses every day, ...

I highly recommend to ANYONE that has a family member enter a USA hospital overnight to NEVER, NEVER leave them alone in there and question EVERYTHING TWICE.

[MulaMan]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

On a different angle, national health care will pay for itself in labor mobility alone.

The huge mega-companies (shells for finance and health insurace and 401Ks) will not be able to compete with faster, more nible companies if they lose thier health care cost advantage to small business.

This idea that Obama's health care plan hurts small business is rubish, it hurts the big business that controls Washington and would actually help free market competition.

[snakela]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Most people use the most health care dollars late in life where the potential cost of treating someone may not be practical due to life expectancy.

This is what baffles me. Why haven't citizens been saving up for this known event? Why haven't insurance companies been doing it on thier behalf? Was there a law against it? Its not like demographics aren't known and nobody saw problems comming with an aging population. Its like the money was all stolen and nobody is asking where it went. Kinda like social security.

[snakela]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Here is the great American Health Care System At Work:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/wai...ath/index.html

Blows my mind that Americans think they have great health care!

Going into an America hospital is as scary as hell, if feels like your are going into a meat packaging plant with lawyers hovering over you at every corner, doctors taking 30 seconds a day to visit, paperwork about to get lost at every turn, new shift of overworked nurses every day, ...

I highly recommend to ANYONE that has a family member enter a USA hospital overnight to NEVER, NEVER leave them alone in there and question EVERYTHING TWICE.

Hey Barack, don't you have a press conference to be prepping for? Quit wasting time on the internet, it will only make you dumber.

[tree]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

single-payer rally
Medicare: Made in America – DC Lobby Day and Rally
July, 30th, 2009, Washington, DC

Download the NEW flyer!
Download Transportation Guide
Find a bus going to DC near you! Updated daily.
Places to stay in DC (hotels, hostels, etc.)

Other Events Around the Country for Medicare’s 44th Birthday
Schedule
Rally starts at 1 pm - 2 pm in the Upper Senate Park - Map Below

9am - 11:30 am Volunteers needed for morning drop to all Members of Congress.

New location to meet! WE WILL NO LONGER MEETING AT THE RAYBURN BUILDING IN THE MORNING. Volunteers for cupcake drop WILL BE MEETING AT:

The United Methodist Office at 100 Maryland Ave N (at the corner of 1st St NE and Maryland Ave NE next to the Supreme Court).

Cupcakes and lobby packets will be available for pick up starting at 9am. See you then!

Email info@healthcare-now.org if you plan to help with the morning lobby visits.

2pm onward - Activists will take to the hill for meetings with Members of Congress. If you need help in setting up a meeting with your Member, please email info@healthcare-now.org. Lobby materials will be available in the Judiciary Committee Room for pick up on the day of the meetings. They will be posted here shortly to download in advance.
Confirmed Speakers at Rally

Jos Williams – President , AFL-CIO Metropolitan Washington Council
Dr. David Scheiner – President Obama’s personal physician of 22 years
Rose Ann Demoro – Executive Director, California Nurses Association
Sidney M. Wolfe, MD - Acting President of Public Citizen
Dr Margaret Flowers - Physicians for a National Health Program
Terry O’Neill - President, National Organization for Women
State Senator Ferlo - Pennsylvania State Senator
Sameer Dossani - Demand Dignity Campaign Director, Amnesty International
Barbara Ehrenreich - Feminist, sociologist, and political activist, and author of nearly 20 books including Nickled and Dimed
Congressman John Conyers
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Congressman Eric Massa
Congressman Anthony Weiner
Senator Bernie Sanders
Jonathan Tasini - Candidate for US Senate Seat New York State
Medea Benjamin – Cofounder of Code Pink and Global Exchange
Tim Carpenter - Progressive Democrats of America, Executive Director
Donna Smith - Community Activist and Legislative Advocate, California Nurses Association, whose story of financial bankruptcy was featured in Michael Moore’s film, “SiCKO.”
Nadina LaSpina - Disabled in Action
More Information

Medicare Birthday PartyCelebrate Medicare’s 44th Birthday by showing Congress and President Obama the people, unions, doctors, nurses, seniors, faith groups, and Americans of every stripe support a single-payer system.

As President Obama says, “We must build on what works and leave out what doesn’t.” Medicare has
successfully provided care to seniors and people with disabilities for almost half a century. Medicare is a truly American-made system that other health care systems around the world have since been modeled after. With little over 3% administrative overhead, we must look to this American solution to our health care crisis.

The best way to save this system is to expand it and make it a truly single-payer system by removing the for-profit interests.

Polls consistently show that the public supports a Medicare for All system, and 59% of physicians support it. In the face of inadequate reform to our health care system, we want Congress to make sure our voice is heard.

The Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care is launching a rally and lobby day on Thursday, July 30th in Washington DC with concurrent actions around the country to bring this message to Washington DC and the Congress.

The Rally and Lobby Day in DC are currently being planned and logistics will be announced soon.

We urge you and your organization to help support this important action in any of the following ways:

1) Cosponsor the event in DC by providing a donation to the effort or providing buses and/or accommodations for your members or supporters to join us for the day. Please complete the cosponsorship form below.

2) Provide a speaker for the rally planned in Washington DC.

3) Personally deliver a message to your Members of Congress on July 30th in DC and/or in the home district of your Representatives that you support expanding and improving Medicare for All.

4) Join the planning committee of this event to add support to the many things that must be done in preparation.

5) Donate to help fund the rally. Send checks to California Nurses Association National Nurses Organizing Committee, National Nurses Organizing Committee 888 16th St NW Suite 640 Washington, DC 20006, memo: July 30th

6) Download the flyer!

We look forward to hearing from you soon about how you would like to get involved!

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

America does NOT have the best healthcare by any measure. Where do you folks get this from? Fox News? Ever lived in another country?

Personally I would measure health care by the health of the population, and America is practically at developing nation levels when it comes to overall health.

For every story (propaganda) about someone waiting for an operation in say Canada or the UK there are thousands upon thousands of nightmare stories in America...

Ever heard about the lady that died this year in a hospital waiting room in America while hospital staff did nothing?

If that happened in Canada there would a 3 week Fox News special on it.

OK, so America does not have the best health care. I won't argue with that since I have never experienced any other system. I also live in chronic pain from a botched surgery 20 years ago so I'm no "defender of the realm".

But which system is better and why?

[Raz]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

You are right about the government wanting to ration care. But why is health care different from any other limited resource? I'm generally on the side of private industry doing a better job than government. But the lines between public and private are really quite blurred. Federal money funds a lot of research and provides a lot of the money going into health care now, so we really can't pretend its just a private vs public question.

We can't afford the health care we have now, privately OR publicly. At least not everyone can. Instead of your scenario offering suicide assistance for 30% survival rate cancer victims, how about another option where the cancer victim can get treatment as long as he can cough up most of the money out of his own pocket? Because now, thats not the case. Now people with the means to pay for the cancer care hit medicare age and they basically can use the government's money while preserving their own to buy second homes, luxury cars, and contribute to their heir's trust funds. Even many so-called wealthy couldn't afford a health insurance premium at age 75 even if it was available. Instead, they get hugely subsidized insurance that is nothing more than a massive ponzi scheme( medicare). All private health care really is now is GAP INSURANCE until people hit age 65. Without medicare it would not work. So its BS to scream for continuing a private system that really isn't completely private. If it truly was private our elderly would have no health care because none could pay for it.

I don't see why we can't have a medicare that pays for a certain level of care and let people who want better care foot the bill if they can afford it. I see nothing wrong with that really. We do not have a right to health care and certainly not to knee replacements, cataract surgery, electric Scooters, and free drugs. All things that were not available 50 years ago yet we didn't consider it some tragedy back then now did we? If the Geezers are not willing to give up something here the socialists are going to ram this down our throats and we'll all be worse off. But that's politically off the table so I think in the end we are all f$#cked.

Thanks for the clairifying overview, Flintlock. I agree with your assesment.

The problem I see with those who want a totally free market approach is that it's not like shopping for a refrigerator or an automobile: when you are ill you don't have the luxury of time, and taking the easiest, quickest and cheapest option could leave you dead. And some people in our society are always going to need help.
It's a complicated problem, though, when we are taxed to pay for alcoholics, drug addicts, smokers, gluttons and the like.

Insurance is "a pooling of risk with a sharing of losses". A basic medical benefit provided by a public plan - hopefully centering on preventative care - leaving room for private insurance for a higher level of care. Do I have that right? As long as small businesses aren't stuck with an 8% penalty (anything above 5% would likely be a job killer) maybe it could work. The private premiums would likely be higher because the pool would be smaller, but the public plan would have to operate much like a strict HMO.

If it left both the well-to-do and the emergency room tax eaters dissatisfied, then it would probably be just what we need.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Insurance is "a pooling of risk with a sharing of losses".

What I'd like to see is less regulatory capture by a few large companies and trade associations, especially big drug, big ag, big insurance, and a couple of outfits such as the AMA.

Big drug can ram through (at an expense no small company could afford) approval of drugs based on results that are not independent of the drug companies influence, where those drugs have limited or controversial affect and seriously underreported side affects. Statins come to mind.

Meanwhile low cost (mucho menos dinero) alternatives are driven from the market by FDA rules, by laws against their stating any health claims, by inability to be purchased on medical insurance, by lack of doctors recommending them, ...

Lower cost insurance with perhaps very high (over $10,000, say) deductibles or stringent coverage limits (say no chronic illnesses) is more or less unavailable because of required coverage laws. Compare this to automobile insurance, where the only thing that is mandated is minimum limits for damage you might do to others. If you want to run your new BMW 850i with no collision insurance, that's your choice. You can still get the minium liability coverage.

Big ag ships increasingly low nutrition food to our stores, in America more so than in Europe from what I read. This leads to massive increases in chronic illness. Proper diet, healthy food and nutritional remedies would go a long way to reducing the incidence of chronic illness, at much less cost. Watch the parade of people going into Wal*Mart someday. It's enough to make a healthy man sick.

I've had troubles over the years even getting legal supplies of some foods and vitamins I seek. For example, raw milk is on limited and varied accessibility, subject to state and federal harrassment. The allowed maximum dosage for a few vitamins, such as potassium and folic acid is below the dose that I consider healthy for most people and way below the dose that I choose to consume myself. For potassium I get the plant food form in powder and make my own capsules, as I choose to take ten times the maximum legal dose in a single pill meant for human consumption. For folic acid I get the "pregnant woman" form, which is legally allowed to be twice the dose and take a couple of them (as an old man, there is zero chance I'm pregnant.)

MSG flavoring is in many foods, unlabeled as such because of some grotesque FDA rules that allows an additive that is 99% MSG and 1% something else to be listed on the ingredients as that something else. See further http://www.msgmyth.com/hidename.htm.

Seriously unhealthy artificial sweetners are allowed decades of profit after getting approval by means only a powerful company with some regulatory capture could affect.

Major medical government bodies, year after year, recommend daily allowances of nutrition that are way below what I consider optimum, for the most tenuous of stated reasons, such as some old test that they interfere with (meannig in some cases -improve- the affectiveness of) some prescription drug. The real reason, in the view of this ever cynical cow, is that high doses of certain nutrients can be affective remedies for chronic ailments that otherwise recommend expensive drugs.

None of my comments above really address the problem of how to pay for our (America's) medical bills. But if we substantially lowered our medical costs for chronic illness, that would sure make whatever solution we do chose alot easier.

However maybe this really is the point. We're being robbed. Our rapidly increasing health costs are not bringing us rapidly increasing health. We are like the branch of a bank that keeps getting robbed, bickering over whether to ask the next bandits to use guns or knives.

P.S. -- A better analogy than choosing whether to have your bank robbed next time with guns or knives would be choosing to provide a back entrance to the vault for the robbers, so that they don't scare the customers. We've determined that the corrupt medicine business is taking too much money from Americans, so that insurance and bills to cover medical costs are making the natives restless. So instead of better health, we shall have "free" medicine -- paid for via a new back door in the Treasury.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I think the real problem with any reform is that its up to Congress and their lobbyists to come up with a solution. Neither has any real motivation to change the status quo. Perhaps a commission of respected experts could be appointed to come up with some recommendations?


Statins nearly killed me. Or at least I felt like it. I had horrible side effects.