Government has no place in the doctor's office

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Comment

By Gordon Sinclair

Comments about single-payer health care system from the uneducated or party affiliates on both sides can be great political diatribes.

Some of you appear to be willing to entrust your health care to the government. Would those people allow control of all aspects of their lives to our government? Are they willing to give up freedom of choice, allowing our government to control what type of car we drive, what we can or can not eat, what we can wear and where we can live? All in the interest of our health?

The false notion that “not everyone is covered medically” can be dismissed. Our government has given us the bankrupt Medi-Cal/Medicare system, remember? Oh, by the way, this is for everyone within our borders.

Now, the Democratic majority wants to expand governmental health care at a cost more than one trillion dollars, by their own estimates, only covering one-third of the so-called uninsured. Oh, by the way, this also includes all the people in our borders — the government likes to include non-U.S. citizens when it provides figures of the “uninsured.” Also, it includes the younger population that have chosen not to become insured until they need it. Independent estimates are that the program will cost more than three trillion dollars.

When some of the other options are added, we cannot afford that now! Change we can believe in? Who mare you going to believe?

Our government is more interested in control of our hard-earned dollars than our health care. To help pay for this socialized medicine run by bureaucracy, the government intends to tax us for the health care provided by our employers. What do you think the employers are going to do? Under this plan, employers will stop your health care benefits before you can say “Change you can believe in.”

Your private insurance will not be able to compete with the government. The government has unlimited dollars — your dollars in the form of taxes. You will be forced to accept government-controlled health care.

Our government will add taxes on energy, food, all products and carbon dioxide emissions?

You have heard of the cap-and-trade bill, HR 2454?

The notion that CO2, which makes up only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere, could add to any change in our temperature is silly. Would regulation of carbon emissions include monitoring our breathing? The estimated result of HR 2454, if passed by the Senate, is that it would cost $3,000 per family.

Look into the costs, wait times and delayed treatments for the sick, including cancer patients in England and Canada. See a real eye-opener on the costs of government health care.

Why do people from all over the world come to the United States, including from England and Canada, for their major health care?

Do you trust your government to control your health care and the costs?

Under the past Republican president, our government rushed through a $700 billion bailout bill through a Democratic majority House, which did not take time nor have the opportunity to read the measure. Who is watching out for you?

Our government has lost or cannot account for $300 billion-plus of the $700 billion? I do not have the space to address our bankrupt Social Security system, the government gift that will soon stop giving. The present Democratic majority complains of the $700 billion-plus deficit inherited from the previous administration, but now has doubled the debt and is not happy with the results, so they are proposing another trillion dollars. Do you enjoy trying to call someone in our government — like the post office, DMV or IRS — and have to listen to multiple recordings before you hang up knowing nothing more than you did before calling? No accountability with the people in the government.

Do you want a bureaucrat directly involved with your medical history and physical, or do you want your private doctor to be involved?

(Sinclair lives in Napa.)

72 comment(s)

krusty wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:27 AM:

" Who do you think controls my private doctor, Mr. Sinclair? My doctor is controlled by Kaiser. Kaiser is a for-profit company interested in making as much money as possible. That doesn't sound like a company whose number one interest is my health. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 9, 2009 4:34 AM:

" Managed to squeeze many myths and inaccurate talking points into that small space anyway.

As for the title, the government won't be in any doctor's office any more than the managed care companies currently are, reaping profits at the expense of the ill.

Here's a talking point for you: I get my mail delivered every day but Sundays & Holidays. I think health care should be, at the very least, equally accessible to all.

If government-sponsored health care is just one possible option for making sure health care is available, what's not to like about it? "

kevin wrote on Jul 9, 2009 4:50 AM:

" Excellent letter Gordon!

The only additional point I would add is to note that in addition to government run Social Security being bankrupt, the government run Medicare and Medicade are also bankrupt.

I think I see a pattern here... "

1Napanow wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:16 AM:

" Mr. Sinclair has forgotten to add the bogey-man under his bed to this laundry list of fears. Perhaps the NRA will come to his house and take care of that. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:33 AM:

" Do you want a bureaucrat directly involved with your medical history and physical, or do you want your private doctor to be involved?

I agree, Gordon.

Right now you have a corporate bureaucrat between you and your doctor. What are you going to do about that? Call them up and complain about it and then...? Hire a lawyer? Take them to court?

What you describe already exists with for profit corporations in the health care industry. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:42 AM:

" I love being called uneducated by people who show no talent for logic.

"Some of you appear to be willing to entrust your health care to the government. Would those people allow control of all aspects of their lives to our government?"

How does the first statement equal the next? How is a government option worse than the current private option? Kaiser controls my health plan. Why they be different than medicaid - which controls the health care of nearly everyone over 65?

"The false notion that “not everyone is covered medically” can be dismissed."

How is that? Did 46 million people just vanish? Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

What does cap and trade have to do with this? The fact is that this is just another anti-Obama screed. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:26 AM:

" The liberals who want socialized medicine are the same liberals who couldn’t even give money away and collect the payments…..the same liberals who ruined our energy independence pandering to environmentalists…

The first they did after taking over Chrysler was to cut some of the most successful dealers, who not too surprisingly were virtually all Republican donors. What do you think that’s going to cost the public after they win their class action suits?

Everything they’ve touched has been ruined….they’ve even managed to bankrupt the country in 120 days. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:46 AM:

" Pure fear-mongering.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical problems for people who thought they had 'health insurance'.

Currently every doctor has to find out if the myriad of confusing plans will pay for the treatments he or she thinks is best for the patient.

Today there is a person who makes more money if payment is denied in the doctor's office right now.

I want the healthcare deniers removed from doctors offices all over the nation even if that means having the government write the check instead of executives who get paid billions ripping off doctors and patients.

I have a Canadian mother and lots of family in Canada AND I lived there under the Canadian system so I can directly report from my own experience that Canadian system is MUCH better.

Since I was not a Canadian citizen I was not covered, but healthcare for an UNCOVERED person was still better and cheaper than the deductibles and copays down here.

My Canadian wife who had diabetes, had better care including the latest tests and home testing equipment, and used the best insulin and injection equipment from America and paid $3 per prescription to the drug store which had couriers delivering drugs to keep the store stocked three times per day.

My Canadian relatives would spit in the face of anybody who tried to take their healthcare system away from them.

Don't listen to the lies of Republican thinktanks funded by corporate lobbyists who let 20,000 Americans die each year in a 'Murder-by-Spreadsheet' plan to fatten their profits.

~Ruff "

telebender wrote on Jul 9, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Single payer works fine for the military, the Senate & the House of Representatives...I just want what they have!

I have private insurance through my job, but I still had to pay 30% of my annual salary this year extra because of bogus policies that let the insurer take my money but not pay for what I need. If I get really sick, they'll just dump me.

Mr. Sinclair & others who agree with him are too mathematically challenged to realize that the actual out of pocket cost to all us won't change, we're already providing care to the indigent the most inefficient way right now. "

nightwatchman wrote on Jul 9, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Hey look everyone- it's our daily NVR op-ed with fake numbers that Rush Limbaugh pulled directly from his nether regions!!! Editor, what is your fact-checking policy for these? It's really getting out of hand.

Does it matter to you at all that your Op-eds print fake numbers? That $3,000 per family figure for cap and trade was pulled from a single paper, the author of which says the GOP is using improperly and out of context. The non-partisan CBO had it at $170 per household. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:59 AM:

" Mr. Sinclair says:
Our government has given us the bankrupt Medi-Cal/Medicare system, remember? Oh, by the way, this is for everyone within our borders.

Medi-Cal is a California health system. To qualify you must show your birth certificate, income tax filings, have only $5,000 in resources, and turn over your social security payments. Medicare is for those who paid into the system and are over 65. This is a federal program.

Displays of dishonesty or misinformation negate the entire letter. "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:14 AM:

" a teacher-

If logic is your gig, correct the number of uninsured you quoted. After all, it includes 12-20 million illegal aliens who are already getting free health care.

i for one think that the joy the posters here are enjoying over government health care is scary. If you do not choose to use the Central Governments option they will fine you $1,000.

Funny, I always thought the Government worked for us, not against us. Government employees handing out health is totally laughable. I guess that's why the Senate Blue Dogs are going to put off considering it until the end of thje year. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:36 AM:

" "If logic is your gig, correct the number of uninsured you quoted. After all, it includes 12-20 million illegal aliens who are already getting free health care."

Really?

How do you know?

Where did you get your facts?

Oh, you just "know" it. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Actually, Freeport, 80% of the uninsured are Americans. So that would be 38 million Americans. Half of illegal workers work for companies that provide health care.

We've told you this in previous posts. "

Raven wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:42 PM:

" I love fiction early in the mroning

as an example...

bankrupt Medi-Cal/Medicare system,.....so tell us...when was the last time either program defaulted on any obligation?..after all, that is the definition of bankrupt...and medicare manages to do its job with about 5.6 admin costs versus anywhere from 9 to 16 percent for private health insurance companies.

and freeport, once more....the only people who possibly could face a fine would be those who refuse to get ANY health insurance...

and there is the CBO report that came out Monday that says the health care reform could save us nearly 57 billion in health care costs in the first 10 years....and we know how 'biased' the CBO is.... "

poohmama wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:47 PM:

" Go ahead pull your own teeth, then kill yourself for $100.

I told my doctor that no matter what happens with health reform, he should do whatever he needs to do for his own family. He said if it goes through people won't be able to get hip replacements, pacemakers, transplants or other major health care.

If you have a Kaiser doctor and plan, you authorized it. Buy into a different plan, if you don't like it.

alucawanza is incorrect regarding Medicaid, only referencing some ABD provisions. Medicaid is a series of aid paid pending lawsuits. It is a mess. It has many exemptions & exclusions. Medicaid bases its payments on 50 yr old data. Change that and things would improve. It won't though, because it isn't the change Obama was talking about.

Medicare is hooky-bobbed to a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable (especially when 46 million plus "future" taxpayers were aborted).

Cap and trade comes into the picture because it will effect production and manufacturing of medical products, medicines, and medical research & development. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 9, 2009 1:31 PM:

" Regarding your comment" "it includes the younger population that have chosen not to become insured until they need it. "

Do you think the younger generation "chooses" to not become insured? IF they are lucky enough to find a job, it will probably be part-time. That's one method that businesses use to get out of health insurance coverage. Your thought of it being a "choice" is bothersome.

I will agree with you on one matter though: we cannot afford to insure non citizens. If they are coming to this country to work, they should be allowed to enter the country ONLY if they have a job lined up which guarantees health insurance coverage. Businesses are profiting off of cheap labor. The burden should not be passed onto taxpayers. Those who hire non citizens will have to pay for their healthcare costs. Perhaps this will encourage hiring unemployed citizens.

Additionally, we need to take ownership of our healthcare. A high annual deductible for anyone over twelve years of age would encourage healthier lifestyle habits. We are going to be paying BIG time for the medical care of the fast food generation. We should be taxing junk food and putting the money into the healthcare fund to care for these people down the road.
But we need to maintain a high deductible to remind them that it's not free and that poor healthcare choices are not without financial consequence. "

poohmama wrote on Jul 9, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Just an FYI: MediCal is Medicaid. Medicaid is Federally funded. In California Medicaid is called Medi-Cal due to changes made to the Federal program as a result of welfare rights activist lawsuits. The changes were additional benefits in most cases. If you go to another State you may find yourself only receiving basic benefits. This flexibility is built into Aid programs for best systems delivery to a specific population need. Also in California SSI Recipients are ineligible for food stamps because California chose to increase cash benefits to cover food needs, If you go to another State expect your SSI benefit to drop and you will be able to receive Food Stamps. It is possible to return to only Federal funds issued to reduce the State's budget. Current SSI recipients would probably get half the cash they do now, but could recieve Food Stamps. Medi-Cal could change once the litigation problems are resolved. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jul 9, 2009 5:10 PM:

" Anti-choice advocates of forced pregnancy favor government's involvement in decisions that ought to be made solely by doctors and their patients.

If one believes that government has no place in the doctor's office, one ought to be pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Otherwise, one is guilty of a blatant form of hypocrisy. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 9, 2009 5:57 PM:

" Mrs Ruff and I have 'health insurance' through an employer plan. We pay extra to have a PPO plan that let's have a little more flexibility.

But the 'best' plan still stinks. We pay more in co-pays, deductions and denials year after year. And every year we pay more and more for less and less 'coverage'.

And the employer pays more too.

Anybody with a brain knows that this situation will not last.

More and more employers are dumping employee benefits, especially healthcare.

The last time we were on COBRA the payments were an astounding $1,500 a month for two adults and one college student.

The Republicans rant and rave but, in the end, offer no solutions beyond calling everybody who wants better as 'socialists'.

I've seen Canadian healthcare up close and personal, and it's far better than stuffing healthcare deniers wallets with money that could actually take care of the sick.

~Ruff "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:23 PM:

" poohmama
Medi-Cal is a program my mother was on for about a year in a nursing home. I went through the application process for her and administered to her care during that time. The letter addresses Medi-Cal. That's what I was addressing. I know nothing about Medicaid. I have had no experience with it.

I stand by what I said about Medi-Cal. I've been there. The application process was thorough. I had to get bank statements, IRS filings, birth certificate, and fill in a myriad of papers. Her SSI was turned over to Medi-Cal and she received a monthly allowance of about $40.

According to the letter: Oh, by the way, this is for everyone within our borders.
Not so. You must qualify. If you have over $5,000 in resources you will NOT qualify. You may keep your house and car. They aren't counted. So the letter is inaccurate. That was my only point. The letter is inaccurate. When there is one misleading statement in a letter the whole thing is suspect. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:16 PM:

" Is the U.S. proud to claim that it's #1 in terms of per capita health care spending?

United States: $5711
Denmark: $2743
France: $3048
Germany: $2983
Italy: $2314
Japan: $2249
United Kingdom: $2317

The ugly truth is that, all too often, health care decisions are being made those outside of the doctor's office right now! "

steph wrote on Jul 9, 2009 9:40 PM:

" So which is it, MJH? Are the insurance companies spending too much on healthcare, or not enough? "

les wrote on Jul 9, 2009 9:47 PM:

" We are being snookered into thinking we and the doctor get to decide what is the best treatment. The reality is your treatment is being determined by a corporate beaurocrat who is looking at actuary tables and profit margins. More and more treatment will have to be pre-authorized by the insurance company. The only way you and your doctor can make the decisions today is if you don't have insurance. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:09 PM:

" The not so ugly truth is that the US currently has the best cancer survival rates in the world.
Averaging the rates for men and women, the top five performers are as follows: United States (64.6%), Sweden (61.0%), Iceland (59.8%), Finland (58.5), and Switzerland (57.9%). The worst performer was Scotland. England was fifth from the bottom.

How does Canada stack up?

For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Early diagnosis and treatment is crucial for cancer patients, however long waiting periods in countries like Great Britain are very common. Americans are more likely to get drugs quicker than other countries, also improving survival rates.

From a report in the Annals of Oncology from two Swedish scientists found:
"Cancer patients have the most access to 67 new drugs in France, the United States, Switzerland and Austria.
Erlotinib, a new lung cancer therapy, was 10 times more likely to be prescribed for a patient in the United States than in Europe. One of the report's authors, Nils Wilking, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, explained that nearly half the improvement in survival rates in the United States in the 1990s was due to “the introduction of new oncology drugs,” and he urged other countries to make new drugs available faster."
I am sure many of you have been touched by the long tenacles of cancer, as has our family. I am thankful we live in the US. I don't want socialized medicine. Our system is not perfect, but turning it over to the government would be a grave mistake. "

boomtho wrote on Jul 10, 2009 12:29 AM:

" ruff - are you suggesting we also invite canada into the doctor's office? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 10, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Steph-A Lancet study of worldwide cancer survival rates puts the rate in the 80% range in North America, Europe Australia and Japan. It is much lower around the world. It's the first ans so far the only one. Their conclusion is that economics drives survival rates.

They put survival rates highest in the USA. However, they also noticed a huge disparity between the survival rates of blacks and whites, averaging 7 to 14%. Access to health care was noted as one explanation.

The Lancet study says part of the differences between North American and European survival rates is methodology, but part is a lack of investment in tool. They agree with you, in part. However, the problem is this, While it's true that we have the most advanced medical tools in the world, if you don't have access health care, you can't use those tools. If you have cancer and you have no health care, it will probably kill you.

We have the best health care money can buy.

This past year I got to watch cancer play out in a personal way. Someone near and dear to me has just finished up a year of treatment. She was very nearly bankrupted by her treatment. The financial effects will probably take years overcome. THAT doesn't happen in countries with public health plans.

It seems unwise to me to have a population fearful of being bankrupted by the inevitable illnesses of age, especially when we have the medical knowledge to mitigate much of it. What is the point of having the best medicine if it's increasingly out of the reach of the population. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 10, 2009 9:59 AM:

" The question is teach, if the US is leading the world in cancer survival rates, why turn the system over to the government? The government does nothing efficiently or well. Why not institute changes in the current system. The problem with socialized medicine in other countries is that patients cannot initially be seen as fast nor do they get in to see the next (usually oncology) doc in a timely manner, therefore prolonging treatment and causing the likelihood of the tumor to metastasize. In addition, the leading and most up to date drugs are not offered as quickly in countries that offer socialized medicine.

Why pattern our health care system after countries that are lagging behind us in patient care? "

wined0wnnapa wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:14 AM:

" we seem to have a lot of experts here, so I have a question. How can I get the most high quality health care while paying the little to nothing for it. "

Raven wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:21 AM:

" patients cannot initially be seen as fast nor do they get in to see the next (usually oncology) doc in a timely manner

and neither can those who have either inadequate insurance or no insurance at all...... "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 10, 2009 11:09 AM:

" So Raven, using your logic we should destroy a successful system because it is not absolutely perfect and not everyone has absolutely free access to medical treatment? "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 10, 2009 3:45 PM:

" http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Barry's Quotes on Health Care
(notice the second quote about getting the same coverage as congress)

Zero fines & no mandate for small business. (Oct 2008)-now $1,000 for not using Gov't plan
Reduce premiums and uninsured get same coverage as Congress. (Oct 2008)
No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (Oct 2008)
Ban insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. (Aug 2008)
Include everyone who wants insurance in national pool. (Aug 2008)
I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama’s plan costs less than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)

Barry: Do as I say, Not as I Do! "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jul 10, 2009 4:34 PM:

" The U.S. does not have an excellent health care system.

Citizens in the U.S. pay more for health care, and gets less in return, than citizens in many other countries.

The U.S. is not a country that ought to be bragging about the health of its citizens! "

a teacher wrote on Jul 10, 2009 6:45 PM:

" cab-e-girl: The difference between cancer survival rates in North America and Japan, Europe and Australia is significant, but not huge. They are roughly comparable.

In the USA, if you have not got health care insurance, you have no access to cancer treatment. Cancer treatment is extremely expensive. I know, I have been seeing the bills for the last year. What good is the BEST treatment in the world if you can't afford it?

Today I was listening to "Talk of the Nation" which focused on the Health Care debate. One commentator pointed out that the difference between Europe and the USA is insecurity. Here in the USA we live with the anxiety that an illness can bankrupt even the most careful plans. They don't have that anxiety in Europe. They also don't worry about poor health care. For all the complaints, Europeans aren't clamoring for a change as we are. They like their way.

BTW-I don't buy the "government can't do anything right" speech. It simply isn't true "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 10, 2009 8:02 PM:

" BTW Teach, I wish your dear friend the best and a successful recovery and I will remember to say a prayer for your friend.

One of our adult children was recently treated for a very aggressive bone cancer at the age of 25, so we too have been affected by cancer, as have many, many others. Fortunately, he received excellent care in Boston. Because his cancer was so aggressive, a delay in treatment could have meant the difference between the tumor metastasizing and not. This is my greatest complaint with socialized medicine and the statistics and findings support my complaint. Many cancer patients that are citizens of Great Britain and Canada complain that they have to wait for procedures that are readily available in the US and in fact they opt to come here for the treatment and pay for it. This should at the very least cause you to question the single payer system. Is health care expensive? Absolutely, mainly because so many do not pay for their services and are not covered by insurance. Hospitals are forced to write off the cost of treatments not paid for by those who actually are receiving the care, so the cost is handed down to those who actually pay.

Take a look at the MA plan that is offered to uninsured MA residents. California should be looking at a similar system. If you are below a certain income level, coverage is free, but it is very affordable for those with modest incomes. You also must be a U.S. citizen/national, or legal alien. Seems very reasonable to me.

http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ "

Raven wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:42 AM:

" cab-e-girl, who said anything about destroying a system...this is about adding the millions of uninsured to that system...and saving more than 57 billion in the first decade according to the CBO...

looking back at the debate over medicare in the 60s, it is amazing to see the same tired old arguments still being used. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 12, 2009 12:12 AM:

" I too am concerned that people will not be able to receive timely treatments. I have heard many stories of patients traveling to the United States because they could not get in to see the doctors in their countries for diagnosis or treatment. I have heard that one of the new advisors to the President has said something like, we cannot afford to treat all people. The bottom line is that those with disabilities, or those who are terminally ill may not be able to receive treatment that others would be allowed to receive. At our house, my family works to live within our budget. How can our country pay for the trillion dollar insurance plan which is proposed without ruining the economic landscape for our children and grandchildren? Americans have shown through their donations to other countries and to those within our country that they are generous. We do want to help those in need. However, we need to find programs that are well thought out and that will not ruin us economically. It would be refreshing to see all of us working together instead of trying to tear each other's arguments apart. I treasure America and the ideals upon which our country was founded. A country which is bankrupt will not have the ability to protect its freedom. Kudos to Gordon Sinclair to having the courage to submit a letter describing why he is opposed to single-payer health care system. "

suze wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:25 AM:

" I do not agree with Gordon Sinclair. Many posters here use statistics to frame their opposition to any form of government run health care. Statistics are rather like rumours, they do not tell the whole story and tend to get embellished with the telling.

I have a lot of family in the UK and no one has had a problem with being seen or looked after (despite cancers) by the National Health Service there.
Yes, if you decide you would like an ugly mole removed or want a knee replacement, get in line. Unless you have money to go abroad and get it done fast, you will have to wait; but my ex hubby, who developed inoperable cancer of the esophagus, received speedy, cadillac care to an excellent result.
Other relations were all looked after in their age related demise. No one had to part with any money out of pocket for their care.

I think this could be a first class opportunity to put an excellent system in place in the USA. Clinics could do so much to care for and educate low income folk in their health care, ultimately saving taxpayers' money.
The UK also has private health insurance for those who do not want to wait or want optional care. However, if you are low income, you also have access to health care.

We need to do something here, it is just plain uncivilized not to take care of your sick and needy. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 13, 2009 11:03 PM:

" I am enjoying some of the comments that have been posted. I am thrilled that the young man was able to travel to Boston and receive care that has benefited him. I wish him well, and God bless his family. God bless America. "

les wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:29 AM:

" Those folks who are arguing against a govt backed HC ins are buying the insurance company's arguement hook line and sinker. Insurance companies are rejecting treatment for people today. Insurance companies are interested in improving their bottom line and the return to their share holders not your health. Look at the costs of running say CIGNA. over 20% of their income goes to sales commissions and administration of policies. Compare that to Medicare where the admin costs are 3%. My parents are on medicare and never have to wait in lines, they have never had the govt tell them they can't have a treatment. It is way less expensive than a comparable private ins policy. Conservatives have bought the now published insurance company strategy to get rid of public HC. They and several in this blog are using the same terminology as the insurance company strategy recommends. "

if you can't beat 'em... wrote on Jul 14, 2009 9:26 AM:

" FYI--Kaiser Medical Group is a non-profit. And the doctors/providers don't get paid more in correlation to how much treatment they give (or withhold). "

wyngyrl wrote on Jul 14, 2009 12:59 PM:

" I'm fortunate enough to have health insurance thru my employer. But if I were to lose my job, I would also lose insurance coverage. I could use COBRA for 18 months, at approx. $600 per month. Since I'm in my 50's, I'd have several years to wait until Medicare. I would not be able to get private insurance because of some very minor health issues, which the insurance company would consider red flags. If I were to have a health emergency during those years, I would lose everything I've worked for over the past 30 years - house, car, 401ks and bank accounts. But God forbid that the government should step in and try to help. Guess we'd rather see bankruptcy than cut into insurance company profits. "

DJ-LLsyawlla wrote on Jul 14, 2009 1:01 PM:

" What we need the government to do,is something they don't seem capable of doing, democracy, insurance plus public option probably is doomed to fail. Read this
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

"Studies have shown that costs of care varies in the United States, with little link to quality of care. Low-cost areas have been shown to have the same or better health outcomes from treatment than high-cost areas. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 14, 2009 3:48 PM:

" "a teacher" July8, 2009 6:42 AM asked, "What does cap and trade have to do with this?" . . . another anti-Obama screed." Here is another question. If Government health care was one of the proposals of the presidential campaign, why did it have to be part of the emergency stimulus package which just had to be passed within a few days? It seems to me that the health care issue is one which should be well thought out and understood by all who are going to vote on it for the welfare of the entire country. I feel that it was rammed through with many legistlators not even able to read through it or adequately focus on its consequences or worth. Cap in trade is a proposal of which many Americans are probably not even aware. I am concerned Americans are not being given the opportunity to hear information about issues through the media before bills are passed. First HealthCare and now something else. I have written to both Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein, and have received form letters back addressing me as Mr. not Mrs. and feel that my concers not being addressed. Blogs are nice, but it would be nicer to have an actual conversation about how we can positively influence and preserve the democracy we have. Viewing the photos and descriptions of what a few murderous people did to Indians living near Eureka, California and the subsequent treatment the tribes had on reservations and schools that prohibited their language and culture being taught, I was filled with a sorrow. Later that day, I realized that the freedom we used to enjoy is being changed so rapidly, that I am almost in the same boat. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 14, 2009 4:06 PM:

" les wrote on July 14, 2009 8:29 AM something like "conservatives and several in this blog are using the same terminology the insurance company strategy recommends." I for one, have not happened to read any information put out by the insurance industry on this subject. Interesting that I may have used the same terms for the topic.
I am happy to spend my own money to take care of children without snacks at school, I do not begrudge anyone getting health care they need. I also do not want to have a board as they do in Great Britan to determine that some treatments will not be covered. It would be very sad if my father had not received a heart by pass. He had contributed to our success in World War II and had been a productive member of society during the rest of his life.I shudder to think that under government health care, the remaining ten to twenty years of his life would not have been possible. He was able during this time to give his guidance and love to his family and influence our lives in a positive way. The value of life is far to great to with hold services to some due to age or disability. Our government cannot afford to treat all, but do you want the government to determine who gets treatment and wo does not? Take care, and God bless you all. I don't want to wake up one morning and think I just sat there as the people in Nazi Germany when Hitler came through to get the Jewish people. By the way, I am of German descent. "

wyngyrl wrote on Jul 14, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Mohter & Grandmother: How did your father pay for a heart bypass? I'm not being disrespectful, just wondering. If he had private insurance, he was very fortunate. If he had Medicare, he was very fortunate. I assume he couldn't pay for heart surgery out-of-pocket.

And why do pp assume that health care reform automatically means health rationing? Don't we already have health rationing if pp can't afford treatment? "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 14, 2009 5:36 PM:

" I just found a website for US Senator Kyle from Arizona. He has proposed a health insurance bill that the American Medical Association has supported. He also has several articles which explain much that I have been trying to express. I would highly recommend a visit to read his letters about health care, and also cap and trade. In the cap and trade article he cited Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein who stated that if cap and trade legislation passed it would cost a family of four $1,600. If the family was earning $50,000, they would be paying $3,000 in taxes. The extra $1,600 cost for the cap and trade would increase their taxes by about 50 percent. In the article about Health Care, Senator Kyl explains how people in various government run health care systems have been denied the medicine they needed because of cost. He also explains how many private businesses may drop the healthcare they have now and opt for fines instead of offering their employees healthcare coverage. Also, he states senior citizens "want Congress to strengthen Medicare, make it more efficient, and, most importantly, make it solvent. They want it to serve as intended – to pay for the health care of seniors. They do not want the program’s resources raided to pay for a massive new government plan for the 47-million uninsured, plus the 119-million currently insured, but soon-to-be displaced into the government system." Senator Kyl began this letter with, "As Congress begins its work on legislation to reform the nation’s health-care system, it should keep one key question in mind: How can we reform the system so that everyone has access to high-quality health care without changing what works for millions of Americans? fFdJ3 "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:14 PM:

" Dear wyngyrl,
I appreciate your responding to me. I feel like we are starting a conversation. My dad did have Medicare, and I think he paid some himself and also had supplemental insurance, because he tried to always provide for himself and the family. Yes, we were lucky. It seems that if you can't get medical coverage paid for on your own, there are people in the community who will pitch in. For exampleour community did a lot of fundraisers for one of our friends, who was able to lead a longer life, and give back to everyone by the love and inspiration he shared. I think many of us want to see people covered. Hopefully the bill that Senator Kyl has introduced in the US Senate will be something that will meet the needs of those who need coverage. I hope you will go to his website. I found it today and think he has some good information to share. It is easy to find him if you just enter his name and then click on the health care tab. Here are a few words I found on Senator Kyl website. Take the story of Lindsey McCreith, a Canadian resident who suffered from headaches and seizures. When he went to a doctor in Canada, he was told he would have to wait four-and-a-half months for an MRI – just to see what was wrong with him. Think about this: you’re having seizures and the test that will reveal what, if anything is wrong with you, is going to be delayed by almost five months?!

Mr. McCreith decided he couldn’t wait and crossed the border to a private clinic in Buffalo, New York. God Bless You all. "

wyngyrl wrote on Jul 15, 2009 8:44 AM:

" Thank you for responding. Here are my thoughts: 1) your father benefited from taxpayer funded, government run health care, along with private insurance. Very much like what many responders want to prevent from being offered to the uninsured. 2) Isn't it just a tiny bit shameful that pp have to hold community fundraisers to pay for health care in the United States of America? I believe health care is a basic need, just like food, clothing & shelter. Unfortunately it costs substantially more than those items and is often out of reach for many US citizens. 3) How did Mr. McCreith pay for his treatment at the private clinic in Buffalo? Did he bring a big supply of US dollars, or did the Canadian government subsidize him, or did the American taxpayers provide him with care, or did he just not pay the bill? No one ever includes that info in the "unhappy Canadian" stories. "

Poohmama wrote on Jul 15, 2009 1:47 PM:

" How many of you are aware that current government funded health care programs all have ceilings? When the dollars spent reach that ceiling, the government quits paying for anything. You can be sure any future government funded health care will also have a ceiling. People will be stuck with a single payer not paying anything...& no where to go. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 15, 2009 3:22 PM:

" Wyngirl- Since Mother and Grandmothers father worked for many years, and provided for himself and his family, he paid into Medi-care as do all wage earners. He has earned coverage. This is not a problem for most Americans. It becomes a problem for me when we cover people who have never paid into the system or are here illegally. It's also a problem for me for non-producers or those who work under the table. We should not be providing non-emergency health care to those here on visa's or those here illegally, unless they fund a Health Care policy themselves, which they should be REQUIRED to do. "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Poohmama-

add to that, a $1,000 fine if you do not choose the Central Government's plan. Plus, the taxes you mhave to pay anyway to spoort 12-20 million illegal aliens already receiving free health care..... "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:16 PM:

" MJH-

In this country if you are poor\homeless\illegal immigrant, you get your health care for free. you cannot be turned away...

That is oner of the primary reasons our southern boarders are an endless stream of illegal immigrants. "

wyngyrl wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:48 PM:

" I wonder which is more offensive: an uneducated, low earning sick illegal immigrant stealing free healthcare or a CEO of an insurance company who had earned compensation of $125 million in 2005. (Forbes magazine, United Healthcare) Shouldn't we be able to reach some kind of middle ground so that we're all covered and no one makes an obscene profit off sickness and hardship? "

wyngyrl wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:53 PM:

" Poohmama, private insurance also has lifetime limits on coverage. My friend is battling cancer. His first 10 days of treatment cost $500,000. He's now used up 10% of his lifetime limit in 10 days. If he hits the $5 million limit, he's out and will never get insurance coverage again. What would you recommend? "

Raven wrote on Jul 15, 2009 5:11 PM:

" freeport, again, there would no fine, nada, zip, zero- for not choosing the public plan. The only fine being proposed would be for choosing NO health insurance at all. And the not being turned away applies to everyone.

poohmama, can you show us any health care insurance that does not have a limit on it? let us know so we can all switch to it. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 15, 2009 5:20 PM:

" I just called Barbara Boxer, Senator Feinstein and Representative Mike Thompson at the Capitol Switchboard to leave messages regarding a bill which will be used for health care to help pay for abortions in Washington, D. C. The number to contact our representatives is 202-225-3121. I urge anyone who desires to save our health care dollars to call and urge their reprsentative to vote no on HR3170 which is going to be voted on tomorrow. I just want to add that I am sorry. to correct myself, I found out last night that my dad actually used his private insurance and paid the balance himself for his heart surgery. He had been working for 43 years at the time of surgery. Yes, we are lucky he had insurance. I will be investigating the fact that most people are actually covered by Medical. Thank you to the Register for opening this channel of communication to the public. I appreciate the many comments everyone is contributing. "

Mother and Grandmother wrote on Jul 15, 2009 6:30 PM:

" Dear Friends,
I just wanted to let you know that when I wanted to contact Senator Feinstein after her Washington Office had closed, I was able to reach her office in San Francisco, 415-393-0707. Also, I have made the websites of Rep. Mike Thompson, Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Diane Feinstein favorites on my computer so I can easily contact them regarding health care. Another website which may be of interest is National Review Online. There is an article by James R. Edwards, Jr. entitled "Importing the Uninsured." "

Raven wrote on Jul 16, 2009 9:08 AM:

" from the state's web site...
If you are enrolled in one of the following programs, you can get Medi-Cal:

* SSI/SSP
* CalWorks
* Refugee Assistance
* Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance Program
* In-Home Supportive Services
(IHSS)

You can also get Medi-Cal if you are:

* 65 or older
* Blind
* Disabled
* Under 21
* Pregnant
* In a skilled nursing or
intermediate care home
* On refugee status for a limited
time, depending how long you
have been in the United States
* A parent or caretaker relative of a
child under 21 if:
The child's parent is deceased;
doesn't live with the child, is
incapacitated, or is under
employed/unemployed

* Have been screened for breast
and/or cervical cancer "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:16 AM:

" Thousands of American citizens die each year due to lack of health care.

Thousands of American citizens declare personal bankruptcy due to their inability to pay bills for health care.

If you're prescribed medication, how does one get it if one can't afford it? Many in the U.S. don't fill their prescriptions because they can't afford to do so.

The largest provider of not-for-profit, single-payer health care in the U.S. is the U.S. military. (We already have socialized health care for some!)

Why should only those 65+ enjoy Medicare?

I support Medicare for all! "

misfit wrote on Jul 18, 2009 8:26 AM:

" If anyone thinks that there aren't wealthy, for profit only, minded executives standing between them and their doctors now, they are sadly ignorant. "

Homeboy wrote on Jul 18, 2009 11:46 AM:

" To educate "krusty" and "a teacher", Kaiser is non profit, ran by the doctors, who direclty listen to you as patients.

To educate "a teacher" and "Raven", a lesson in logic, can what you eat, what you dirve, and where you live have anything to do with your personal health? The difference between the private sector for health care, Medicade, Medical and Mediacare are all paid for by the tax payer. The government has mismanaged all of the "Medi"s-" and including social security as noted in Wall Street Journal, "For Medicare, the threshold when benefits exceed program income occurred last year. For Social Security, that threshold will be crossed in 2017, one year earlier than the 2018 date projected in last year's report." All soon to go "bankrupt" at that pace.

Hey "dellasumbrella", hope in the near future you do not look for your mail on Saturday! "

a teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2009 7:21 PM:

" Well, homeboy, I never claimed Kaiser was anything. I just pointed out that same criticism leveled at a "public option" can be leveled at non-public options. Perhaps you should take up reading.

I reject your statement that "The government has mismanaged all of the "Medi"s-" and including social security". Your only evidence is that they are running out of money. That is evidence of, among other things, underfunding. "

Raven wrote on Jul 19, 2009 2:40 PM:

" Thank for the education there homeboy, but I wrote about what you drive, eat or live and health care where?

As for mismanagement, medicare admin costs are at about 5 percent, private funded care runs from 8 to 16 percent....so what mismanagement are you talking about? (btw, the CBO disagrees with you about medicare, but what the heck) "

Homeboy wrote on Jul 19, 2009 9:27 PM:

" HI Raven,
Included you in the response for logic dictates what ever we do, it can affect our health. The other response more specifically, your comment on bankruptcy, figuratively speaking when the income is less than the expenses, with time the system will go bust.

Check out "The Council for Affordable Health Insurance" January 10, 2006: It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sectorinsurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s
administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic
reporting and tracking systems used by the government.
This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are
included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs,
about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are
included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted
money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars. "

Raven wrote on Jul 20, 2009 2:24 PM:

" homeboy, that is where I got the costs I cited but thanks...and again, is medicare is meeting its obligations, then it cannot, by definition, be bankrupt. "

kevin wrote on Jul 20, 2009 8:18 PM:

" It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854 "

homeboy wrote on Jul 21, 2009 8:17 AM:

" "a teacher" we can see why the California Puplic School system is in the present condition, close to last in the ranking. When the CPS system was near the top, the funding was much less! It seems that your solution to any promblem including the Medi's is to through more money toward mismangement, due to "under funding". When you have a systemic problem, exmaple the public school system, Medi's and GM, more funding will not help correct a flaw in basic business model. Bankruptsy is meant to change the organization in order to achieve a better business model. The public school system stays afloat by the government making it a monopoly, partly by heavily regulating the private competition. Will the government protect the government health plan in the same manner? Read on!

The Medi's are staying afloat by rationing, not paying the cummunity standard, taxing the working class and denying community standard treatment.
Similar to the other government ran concerns, including government controlled health care, as "Kevin" just commented on and many are now discovering by actually reading the proposed bill, excluding the Congress...they seem to pass bills without reading them. Obama's transparency, rush bills through before anyone can digest them. We trust the people representing us and responsible for passing bills that always pass the cost on to the tax payer? "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 21, 2009 8:39 AM:

" Thanks Kevin for picking up on the Investors Business Daily article. Once again, this makes me realize our main stream media is burying very important information.

Below is a quote from the Heritage Foundations Web-Site. Of course you lefties will discredit the Heritage Foundation as a right wing organization. I suggest all Americans go to their web site, as all of us will be effected by this ridiculous Marxist ploy.

"With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

If he is not famililar with the plan, who's running the country?

BTW Raven, I thought you have had horrible care as a Veteran? If this is true why in the world would you be promoting government care? "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 21, 2009 8:48 AM:

" I hope this ridiculous bill will go down in flames. Thanks to the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee has canceled its Tuesday debate and vote on healthcare legislation but has kept a Wednesday meeting on its schedule.

The Democratic-led committee has been struggling to keep a group of fiscally conservative Democrats on board with the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year healthcare overhaul. The group, known as the Blue Dog Democrats, has said they cannot support legislation that would increase the massive federal budget deficit." "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Don't know where you got the idea I had horrible care as a vet, cab-e-girl, I know I never said that. I have been lucky enough after I left the service to have health care coverage and not need to use the VA system. What is horrible is those who seem to have no qualms flinging our military into wars around the world and opposing spending to take care of them when they return wounded, both physically and mentally, that is what i find horrible.
My health care while I was in the service, was excellent, and if that is an example of govt run health care, we need more of it.
I support better, affordable health care for all, if that includes govt plans, okay...it it can be done without govt plans, that is great too' but so far all I hear from those opposed is 'don't do anything'.... "

Homeboy wrote on Jul 23, 2009 12:01 AM:

" "Raven" when you site any infromation to strengthen your argument, you should always reveal ALL of the information, unbiased but thanks...and again the Medi's are surviving only because they ration the health care (denies health care), pay much less than the standard of compensation and are subsidized from the working class in the form of taxes. For your benefit, we will call all the Medi's including Social Security "pre bankrupt", you will certainly understand this. Oh by the way they are all under the control of our "government". "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: