" I'm sorry that you and all the people you know are afraid that tyranny creeps in the shadows of the health care bills going through congress, however, the Constitution also gave us a representative government. Myself and many others were opposed to invading Iraq, but the majority of our representatives voted for the war which killed and maimed more Americans than 9/11. It also cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

Now it appears that the other side is in power and we want to spend a trillion dollars over 10 years to ensure that all Americans have access to health care and don't have to sell their homes to pay for an unfortunate accident. It seems that a majority of American are in favor of the public option and perhaps we will get it.

The last I checked Canadians and Britains are not debating about whether to adopt our system of health care. I'm sure they have many complaints about their system, but their doesn't seem to be much support for adopting our system of health care.

Tort reform may save 2% in health care costs. Allowing tax deductions for major health care expenses will not help the middle and lower class. Hopefully the bills going through Congress will reduce Medicare fraud, but that alone will not help to insure more people unless we expand Medicare which you are opposed to. The reason we have come so close to adopting a rational and human system of health care is because the opposition's arguments have lost momentum in the face of out of control health care costs that fewer and fewer Americans can afford. "

" I could not agree more. Only the government would fix a small leak in the roof by tearing the whole thing off.

Thanks Rick, well said. "

" Very, very well stated, Mr. Protz. Please again emphasize the two questions that need answering now: 1) Why is this huge nation-changing effort being forced upon 300 million people so quickly? and 2) Why wait to clean up the $500 billion waste which they claim will help fund this fiasco?!
I absolutely agree that this legislation flies in the face of all common sense that was used to create this great nation. The goals are worthy and mostly achievable, but not by this method. This bill is an arrogant decree that they know, better than we, what we want and need. Don't be fooled into thinking so. Just wishing for it to be so, will not make it happen no matter how hard we try. It requires hard work and much discussion about the nuts and bolts of this machine we are redesigning. This takes time and a certain setting aside of politics, something that has yet to occur. "

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

watch thiseport by 20/20 and you will see what they have not told you... "

" Todd Adams, well bless your soul.
Now the "OTHER " side is in power?
I was strongly against our going into Iraq. Mr Protz, is correct...the government does not listen when it has,, what it thinks, is the peons best interests in mind...or anyway that is the cloak it wears when it does these tyranical things. It is for our own good. We cannot grasp the intricacies involved. THEY know what is best for us.
Bush did it by invading Iraq. Obama is now doing it with health care and the attempt to test the waters on how far he can push to silence opinions he does not like.
You really think the "other" side is in control now?
Bless your soul.... all of the Todd Adams in the world.
As long as you think that is what is happening here...that the "other" side is now in control, and things will get better....well, get ready for the ride. It is the same ride we have been on for the last 30 years. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. "

" Todd-


the last polls showed that 56% of Americans do not want forced government health care. They also stated that 70-80% of those people with health care like what they have.

The CBO's cost figures are only for the fake number(45 million not covered at $1.871 Trillion), and do not take into account the the system the government proposes will steer all of us into government health care. What will be the cost once 100, 150, or 200 go on the dole?

I do not trust this government enough to hand over that much power to them. They are a dysfunctional group of radicals who only want more and more power to control us. "

" Very well stated, Todd Adams.

This commentary is more of the same old, same old..... "

" Thank you Mr. Protz. It's not about health care, it is all about control and creating a dependence on government. That's the tyranny of the current health care debate. If we don't accept what Obama wants we are demonized as being partisan and uncivilized and uncaring. The fact that Obama's health care reform is all wrong and is designed to control us and not the expense of health care is apparently not open to honest debate by the left.

The only real problem with health care in the US today is accessibility. Heath care is expensive, it will get more expensive in the future. Government control of health care won't control expenses, government will only raise taxes (example: California's fiscal mess - let's raise taxes to buy more government cars and trucks to store unused in parking lots for years). Government will never be able to say no to spending more tax dollars. That's our job as citizens and voters.

There are better ways to improve health care accessibility than to throw everything away and give ourselves up to government dependency. Improving accessibility and reducing unnecessary expense (tort reform will help more than 2%, rooting out corruption etc.) is the caring and civilized way to solve the problem. "

" I look expecting, no hoping, for new ideas to come from the opponents of the health care reform movement....and so far have been disappointed.


PPF...tort reform will help more than 2%..

you source for that is? The latest studies disagree with you.

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. (NYT) "

" tyranny?

Sheesh. "

" BTW: If "Tort Reform" were such a great idea, why didn't the Republicans do that when they had the White House, House of Reps and the Senate?

Anyone?

(chirp...chirp...chirp) "

" Mr. Protz wrote:
"...we need to remember that sometimes people are simply mistaken. Sometimes they are trying to sell you on something because of their own agenda. And sometimes they are lying." I agree.

And sometimes they are opposed to something "because of their own agenda" or for the wrong reasons.

You ask: "...are the American people asking for a complete overhaul?" My answer is: Yes.

You state: "Most of us are generally content with the health care we have.” As one of those who have my own medical insurance, I am not content with my healthcare coverage.

I used the same primary care physician for two decades; I no longer have a doctor, why? My medical insurance stopped providing care for Napa.

Much of the population, feel the same as I do. We want medical provisions for all the people of these States, not 25%, not 50%, not 75%, but all 100%, as well as, the coverage and doctors to go with it. "

" If individuals complained (to/of the previous administration), that it wasn’t the country of Iraq who caused the atrocities of 9/11 and we shouldn’t declare war on them, those people, voicing an opinion, were called anti-Americans.

The phrase: "after decades of government “education”" distorts the perception as if, our present administration had been in place for decades upon decades; it has been less than 10 months.

Now, while an administration is trying to pick up the pieces, put us back together, and provide a basic need for all of our citizenry, the commentator seeds ideas that our government has: "no honor" our government is: "...a huge and dangerous power" Washington is: taking illegal and immoral actions to deceive us and finally, they are tyrannical.

Hmm. If I’m to be forced into doing something, I’d prefer to give healthcare rather then death.

The author’s thoughts may have been better shared during the previous administration, before the war, the casualties of the 31,545 maimed and/or wounded, and the death of 4,352 of our American military.

With increased brain injuries and suicides (as, a direct result of the Iraqi engagement), as well as, such things as diabetes and obesity within the general population, we ought to decide soon. "

" Tort reform has never been passed by either party because the trial lawyers have the power to cow Congress into doing nothing. Democrats and Republicans alike will do nothing about it until a groundswell of public opinion lets them know we want change.

Tort reform will help more than 2%. While the conventional wisdom will keep on chirping about the actual lawsuit cost, the real cost is in extra expense caused by the threat of lawsuits, and that can only be guessed at. But there is no doubt that tort reform will help more than 2%. And in any case, what's wrong with starting with 2%? It's a good start and far better than giving ourselves into total government dependency.

What's so hard about that? Why put millions of people out of work with higher taxes to pay for government bureaucracy when we only really need to put a few thousand trial lawyers out of work?

I don't know why you're chirping, do you need to see a doctor? Good luck with that if Obamacare passes. Then you'll really hear chirping, waiting for a bureaucrat to process your request for health care "

" Actually, sicko, Bush did propose some malpractice reform...and it was about exactly what we've had in California for the last 30 years, which hasn't reduced health care costs one iota.

That said, it's nice to have yet another tenther's comments be printed by our illustrious local editorial page.

For, oh, the twelve or thirteenth time, the authority for congress to regulate health insurance is the same that allowed Congress to create Medicare, Social Security, etc.

"Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;"

You really aren't going to bring a lot of non-tenthers on board with the logical conclusion of this argument, which is abolishing Medicare and Social Security.

I also still fail to understand how this bill amounts to complete government takeover of health care. The common thread with these folks seems to be that there is some secret plan that none of the media will report except Glenn Beck.

What happens when a bill passes and they are revealed to be paranoid and mistaken? Think any mea culpas will be filling the editorial page of our illustrious local paper?

Me neither. "

" PPF tort reform was passed here in California in the mid 70s....how much has it saved here again? "

" Raven, nightwatchman Texas and I think Florida (I know, shocker right!?!) did the same thing, with the same results. Tort reform doesn't do sqwadush except burn the people that doctors and hospital mess up. That is a fact. "

" Thank you, Mr. Protz for a fine article…and "Sandra" for understanding that the new boss and old boss aren't much different.

Pat Buchanan had it correct when he said that the Democrats and Republicans are "nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey".

We have a one party system that is marching us right boot, left boot, right boot, left boot, toward the same Orwellian end. "

" raven, talking about tort reform is a useless sham unless it is countrywide. Any attorney can find a way to get around that. Why can't Democrats pass tort reform?

nightwatchman (in serial posts that I can't get here): "I also still fail to understand how this bill amounts to complete government takeover of health care."

If you don't understand how government run healthcare with mandatory signups, the SecHealth negotiating rates, punitive penalties for people who do not sign up, healthcare rationing (Britain and Canada do this, it's the only way they can keep any kind of working plan going - how does that help your health care access?), mandated payment from your bank account (so the government can decide if you have too much?) and other nefarious little 'gotchas', then you obviously don't want to know what a government takeover is.

There's one more question for you government control enablers: Not one of you has ever explained how giving the government control of healthcare is going to make it any better than it is now. Please explain why you have this unreasonable faith in government.

Is government control going to keep costs down? Government hasn't ever been able to do that. They talk of $500B savings in Medicare - why not do that combined with 2%+ savings from tort reform? Pretty soon we've got some real savings instead of $1T red ink!

Are they going to make it easier to access? I'll answer that with a question: How does inserting a bureaucrat in the chain make it easier or cheaper?

What you are asking for is something that (any) government in history has been unable to accomplish. I'd like see why anyone believes that government can run healthcare is better. "

" It's simple, really. Universal health care, preferably a primary payer system, will be cheaper for the same reasons that it's cheaper to get insurance through an employer than through an individual plan. The larger the pool of the insured, the more you spread the risk, which drives down premiums.

Second, a larger pool provides more leverage when negotiating with doctors, hospitals, and particularly, drug manufacturers. Prescription drugs in Canada and Britain cost one-half to one-third they do here because they have more bargaining power than we do with the drug companies.

Third, we won't end up with millions of uninsured people who rely on emergency rooms for treatment at twice the cost. The uninsured generally can't pay the cost to treat moderate to severe injuries or illnesses, therefore, the cost is passed on to the hospitals, who recoup some of their loss from the government and the insurance companies.

Lastly, universal health care will save a tremendous amount of money for small and large businesses. These businesses may offer "Gold Standard" plans to their employees, but would no longer be obligated to provide "Standard" coverage. This would make American businesses more competitive against foreign companies who do not have to pay for their employees health care benefits. This could also pull a lot of State and local governments out of the red.

I'm surprised that so many conservatives do not see that universal health care is a conservative value. It's more efficient and cost effective than what we have now. It's simple, really. "

" Point well received, Sandra. Sometimes it's easier to express our opinions in black and white even though the world is much more complicated than that. I'll try to keep that in mind. "

" Looks like the govenment hasn't done a very good job at getting the flu vaccine out to the masses. You're waiting in line just like you will with government health care. They've (CDC) been talking about this flu for months. This vaccine should have been ready for all that need it by now.
You will not see tort reform come from congress. House and Senate are made up of lawyers. Actually a politician is a lawyer who couldn't get a real job anywhere else. "

" but PPF..surely you can find the data that shows just how effective it has been in this state....with over 30 years there is prob at least one study out there that supports your contention.

Colorado did it at about the same time as CA did...so as I said PPF, with a number of states to choose from, I will bet there is a study or two out there to support ya....(surprising how all these supporters for state's right want the fed to step in on subjects they support) "

" raven, surely you understand that a lawyer can find a way around state tort reform - c'mon that's so easy. Any one state study would be seriously flawed.

So, why haven't the Democrats passed tort reform? Answer: they don't want to, and more than the Republicans. "

" Error correction: the last sentence of my previous post should read "any more" rather than "and more".

It's true I usually favor states' rights. Those who want federal control of everything usually don't. In this particular instance it is the only way to resolve the nationwide problem of tort reform. It's amazing how all those who want the federal government to control every aspect of our lives suddenly appear solicitous of states' rights.

Todd, government controlled health care (let's not use the subterfuge of 'single payer' - we all know what that really means) could not possibly be a conservative value. It denies the fact that well managed private enterprise can deliver better, faster, and cheaper than any bureaucracy. Once government becomes involved, bureaucrats will interpret what they think the law really means. Call the IRS and ask the same question a number of times and you will get as many answers as the number of calls. Worse yet, if you follow the IRS advice and it is wrong, you are guilty anyway! Bureaucrats have no motivation to do anything quickly and inexpensively while private enterprise will usually weed out unproductive employees.

What we have is an access problem caused by many factors already stated. This can be cured with some simple legislation, including tort reform. I don't know why anyone would trivialize saving 2+% of total health care costs.

Giving the government control over your health care instead of fixing the basic problems is like taking your car into the shop for a misfire from a broken spark plug wire and telling them to replace the engine. We don't need the engine replaced, we just need a new set of spark plug wires! "

" Nightwatchman - You don't sound too fond of the 10th Amendment. At the time some argued that the Bill of Rights was unneeded, since Congress had been given no authority to do any of the things these amendments say it can't do. Others refused to take a chance, and wanted to make explicit reservations, but didn't want to imply that something not specifically reserved was thus granted. The 10th simply makes clear this basic constitutional principle, so that no one could possibly miss it.
It's true that things have been done which don't really meet this principle, but that is no reason to ignore it again and do something completely outside of any legitimate constitutional basis, which most of us don't want anyway.
The social programs at present involve some $53 trillion in federal committments, and of course that will be impossible to pay. The programs will either have to be severely cut, or taxes will have to be raised to unbearable levels, or the economy will collapse trying to carry the load. Take your pick.
The bills won't lead to a complete gov't. takeover - on day one. But the "changes" will get us there rather quickly.
Don't believe everything the politicians tell you. "

" nwmn - You'll notice the preamble says 'provide for the common defense,' and 'promote the general welfare'. That is a good way to think of it. There is a difference between provide and promote.
Even so, what is meant by the general welfare is clearly described in the rest of Art. 1 Sec. 8. It is clearly talking about 'general' welfare, things that are good for the country as a whole, not specific welfare that was in the sphere of the states, private groups, and individuals. "

" freeport - That's a worthwhile clip. Thanks. "

" Again PPF, tort reform has been passed in a number of states for several decades.....you have the data showing how well it works or doesn't work? why not look and see what the effect has been before expanding it...why the rush, to borrow from the naysayers on health care? "

" Democrats in Congress ought to support single-payer, not-for-profit health care reform.

For-profit health care insurance companies ought to be banned from doing business in the U.S. "

" Redistribution of wealth.

Some people can't afford health care.
One way to get them health care is to make it a law that everyone has to have health care. Those who can afford their own health care will be taxed a sufficient amount that collectively, they will be able to pay for those who cannot afford health care. Instead of just paying for their own family's health care, the working family can pay for the family that is not supporting themselves and not working. This would include all the millions of welfare families America has managed to cultivate over the years.

How many non-working families are there now? Ten or twelve million?

How about this? Why don't we just put everyone back to work on meaningful jobs and let everyone buy whatever insurance they want instead of having health care forced on them by an act of Congress.

Where is the effort by Barack Obama and his lame-brained Congress to put people back to work? Our Nation is facing a financial crisis and all the Adminstration does is to sit around all day trying to figure out more ways to spend the tax-payers' money.

This is not the American way and I will promise you this:

This health care scheme is becoming so complicated and convoluted that each day it is less likely that it will pass.

If it does pass, the 112th Congress of the United States of America will repeal it.

President Obama will most likely become a lame duck president in the third year of his presidency.

Enough is enough! "

" If I were the benevolent dictator of America and meant the country no harm, I would immediately commission all the rest of the available stimulus money to put about 150,000 Americans back to work building about a dozen nuclear power plants. Keep building them until our dependence on foreign oil is nil. Nuclear power is totally environment friendly and the spent nuclear reactor cores are recyclable.

Those of you who worked at Mare Island on the nuclear boats can totally support me on this. A well-shielded and well-constructed nuclear power plant is fail-safe and will not be subject to the China Syndrome if there is adequate control apparatus installed in the design configuration. The problems we've had in the past like at Three-Mile Island, were caused by safety short-cuts and cheap construction. Chernoble disregarded every common sense safety rules that existed at the time. Nuclear energy is safe if used correctly. How many nuclear accidents have occurred on our nuclear powered U.S. Navy ships? Answer: NONE. "

" Raven, here's an idea - let's cut the insurance companies out of the pie by going to user pay for routine health care, and use insurance for major medical - hospitalization, etc. Let's remove antitrust exemption from health insurance companies. Let's get rid of government mandates for health insurance policies. Let people or businesses buy whatever policy they want from whatever provider they want covering whatever they want regardless of state lines. None of that is new, but we could do alot to control costs without a gov't. takeover.

Of course you know the larger cost of medical malpractice is the cost of defensive medicine, not just court costs.

We'd all like to see reasonable reforms aimed at restraining, in fact rolling back, the ridiculous cost of health insurance. You equate an 'opponent of the health care reform movement' with an opponent of health care reform, but it's not the same thing. "

" shareathought wrote on Oct 28:

"I used the same primary care physician for two decades; I no longer have a doctor, why? My medical insurance stopped providing care for Napa.

...We want medical provisions for all ..., as well as, the coverage and doctors to go with it. "


shareathought,

Your medical insurance never stopped providing care for Napa, your Napa physicians decided, on their own, to drop your insurance carrier. They probably did so because they were being poorly reimbursed.

Now there are two possible solutions to your problem:

First the market system: If the free market were allowed to operate, you could simply select a different insurance carrier - one that is acceptable to both you and your doctors. Very clean and simple, everyone is happy. You receive great future care.

Second, the government plan: Your physicians are forced (at the figurative point of a gun) to accept government-mandated reimbursement which is probably lower than the private plan they had previously rejected. Their alternative is to stop practicing medicine. No other choice. Some of these doctors decide it is time to retire. Others reluctantly agree - what else can they do? You subsequently receive limited, bitter healthcare for the rest of your life.

If that is not tyranny, what is? "