The federal government contracts out Medicare to CMS, which in turn contracts out to H... Likewise the federal goverment contracts out Medicaid to the various states and they in turn contract out to Welfare, oops, wasn't politically correct---it's called Social Services and they inturn pawn it off to the over-worked employees in the Disability Unit.

The result is an administrative overload resulting in the US Social Security Administration employees telling the public, "We don't handle Medicare or Medicaid except on the days, not ending in "day".

 

Then you've been extraordinarily lucky. But don't blind yourself to what other people are experiencing every day.

 

If that were totally true, then there would be no health care debate, it would have passed 12 years ago.

But it isn't true, it is just a bunch of folks thinking that it is. Like there is a critically limited access to health care, not true. Like the people do not have health insurance solely because they can not afford it, not true. Like the majority of the US voters want this bill to pass, not true.

What most people, me included, are very wary of is another government boondoggle, transferring a huge part of our economy and as industry critical to our well being, to a bunch of proven fuck-ups. Why? Because some things need fixing.

 

Would Americans Welcome Medicare if it Were Being Proposed in 2009?

by Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center August 19, 2009

A look back at the polling from 1964 and 1965 shows the American public giving broad support to the idea of Medicare. In January 1965, Gallup tested reactions to a congressional plan calling for compulsory health insurance for the elderly that would be financed out of increased Social Security taxes; 63% approved of this plan while just 28% disapproved. Harris polling at the time found comparable levels of public support for Medicare...

Broad distrust of government -- which was not evident in the 1960s -- is an important reason why Americans are reacting so differently to health care reform in 2009 than they did in 1965. In 1966, the National Election survey found, as in four previous surveys starting in 1958, a large majority (65%) saying they trusted the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time. That majority held through the rest of the decade but withered in the early 1970s. By 1974, just 36% of the public said they trusted the government. And from that point on, pollsters have never again found anything close to a majority of Americans saying they trust Washington.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1317/would-americans-welcome-medicare-if-proposed-in-2009

-------

In the beginning of the 1960's it was generally agreed that the government under the leadership of the Democrat Party had ended the Great Depression and won the Second World War. In the election of 1964 Lyndon Johnson won 61% of the vote against Barry Goldwater, and the Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.

Unfortunately, the American people lost confidence in the government and the Democrat Party with the failure of the war on poverty. Five years of black ghetto riots from 1964 to 1968 thoroughly discredited the liberal assertion that the way to reduce crime is to alleviate poverty. Race wrecked liberalism.

 

Things have been getting worse for us middle aged worry warts in the past 12 years. If you're over 65, you can retire, get social security, free health care, irregardless of what happens. Us middle aged people could end up without jobs at any moment and will probably not recieve social security like you do when we get old, although we've been paying into it for a long time. The current unemployment benefit we pay into probably won't be enough to bridge us to new jobs and pay for expensive COBRA insurance. Buying my own insurance is not an option because I would likely be rejected.

I never worried about healthcare much until I had a wife and children that get sick allot. When my wife met me 10 years ago, she said I was a die hard republican that would not have bought into the current health reform bill. She said that it took me 9 years to change from a republican to a democrat.

This is not a government boon doggle. It is about taking care of Americans that need help instead of helping foreigners that don't want our help in Iraq and Afghanistan. My generation, the baby boomers, are the one's running this country now. We think it's time for some changes from all the BS that your generation created for us.

 

That sums it up. You ought to become a political speech writer, or at least a slogan maker. :excited::excited::excited::excited:

 

No question that today we have a crises in the health care industry, the question is what to do about it.

This has been debated and discussed to death, but there are only a couple of flies in the ointment:

1) Affordability of health care insurance in tough economic times.
2) Rising costs of health care and pharmaceuticals.

Both problems can be corrected without nationalizing the health care industry via a single payer plan.

One solution is to revamp the insurance industry through better patient driven regulations. Providing taxpayer assistance on a temporary basis for those who are unemployed. Expanding the existing health coverage to the needy.

The next is capping the costs of delivery to actual expenses incurred, monitoring the drug prescription explosion and stopping the proliferation of unnecessary tests, all could be achieved through tort reform.

Results from studies show that a vast majority of the expansion of prescription drugs and testing is due to malpractice fears. We are a over prescribed nation of hypochondriacs, with a medical community complying with every wish.

 

Regulate Guns!

That's a wonderful argument for health care reform! :excited::excited::excited:

 

Rising doctors' premiums not due to lawsuit awards

The Boston Globe
By Liz Kowalczyk, Globe Staff | June 1, 2005

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.

http://www.boston.com/business/glob...g_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

 

Here's another one for you. While lots of people, including quite a few people on this forum, were attempting to outdo each other in terms of "honoring the troops" yesterday, nobody mentioned this report by some Harvard researchers, indicating that 2,266 veterans died last year due to lack of health care coverage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXSJa5eFMuXF2Uxwptns_JOxRcMA

When will we start "honoring the troops" in deeds instead of words?

 

Republicans like to pretend that we can achieve major savings by reducing malpractice awards because trial lawyers are a Democrat constituency, and a major financial contributor to the Democrat Party.

 

It is easier to wave the American flag and shout, "USA! USA!" American flags cost less than universal health coverage.

 

The amazing thing about that is that in order to buy into the conservative mantra, people basically have to agree to constrain their ability to sue their own doctor, and to agree that that's a good thing.

 

That study cited, was five years old, long before the current studies which show a completely different result.

 

Sad but true.

 

Almost as bad as using misleading data to turn the country socialistic.

 

The term, tenguy is social democracy. Get that?
S O C I A L
D E M O C R A C Y.

 

Spell it anyway you wish, it is still socialism.

 

Call it what you will, it works fine in Western Europe and the British Commonwealth.

 

As does capitalism here, despite the constant meddling by the socialists.