Comments on: Presidential candidates need to level with Americans

By: Jeeter

Jeeter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:14:10 +0000

TJ, the insurance companies are GOING DOWN! The first thing we need to do is cut these for-profit insurers out of the equation. These companies lard on both their grossly inflated salaries and their shareholder profits with every dollar we are forced to pay them.

Big Health has gotten too greedy and is MUCH less efficient than the US government at providing insurance. I'd trust Medicare/Medicaid any day over Aetna or the other insurance scam fat cats. It's not a fantasy that we can have 100% coverage at a lower total cost than we have now.

Insurance companies: it's either us or them, and I vote taking them DOWN!

By: Jeeter

Jeeter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:14:10 +0000

By: Jeeter

Jeeter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:14:10 +0000

By: Jeeter

Jeeter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:10 +0000

By: Thomas_James

Thomas_James — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:34:09 +0000

No Barb, I get. Problem is what presidents promise and the reality of what actually happens don't match up. So lets minimize this discussion a little. So what agency is going to oversee all of these changes and enforce all of the regulations you are talking about….and who is going to pay for that agency. Are the insurance companies and the HMOs going to give that money back….NO. It will be more taxes. Real simple formula: MORE GOVERNMENT=MORE TAXES.

By: barbwire

barbwire — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:06:32 +0000

You can read about it here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

By: barbwire

barbwire — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:02:11 +0000

You're not getting it. You already pay for it via higher premiums and county taxes for upaid medical care. The main reason medical care is so expensive is because insurance companies make it that way, as do medical suppliers. Obama isn't proposing that right now, but I am. Single payer is the best way to go but it's hard to get there from here in one jump.

Obama is proposing a transition. One way to pay for some of it is by eliminating the “Medicare Advantage” program that pays insurance companies and HMOs to “oversee” Medicare. Actually they just suck up money and do next to nothing. There are many other ways to save — like having Medicare negotiate with drug companies for better prices like other big groups get in other countries.

Obama has said repeatedly that taxes won't go up for 95% of the people. Unless you make more than a quarter million dollars a year, you won't have to worry.

By: Thomas_James

Thomas_James — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:05:47 +0000

There is a disconnect in what you are saying barb...

you said:
"By not allowing the third party, for-profit insurance entities to siphon billiions of dollar as middle men."

That sounds a lot like regulation, which is a lot different than universal health care. Universal health care like what you and jeeter are endorsing means nationalizing health care. That is a lot different than regulating health care. So my question remains, if you nationalize health care, how are you gonna pay for that with a bankrupt government.

Lets just go ahead answer it for you. Raise taxes! Much higher taxes. More income redistribution right....isn't that what you are proposing.

By: barbwire

barbwire — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:47:11 +0000

The British and Canadian healthcare systems spend stupendously less than we do per person. We're already paying for the health care of the uninsured, but often it's care that ineffective, late and in expensive ERs. The French system has been judged by experts to be the best and I'm sure, being Americans, we could do even better. A significant amount of the fees we pay go to insurers for administrative costs that are WAY higher than Medicare, as well as profits. Drug profits are obscene,

By: Thomas_James

Thomas_James — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:46:18 +0000

I would add that this sounds like such a great a idea since the British and Canadian systems have worked so well. So well in fact that Canadian come to this country for health care.