Obama Exposed

[hblask 1]

You are blowing everything out of proportion. If you have a critical condition, you don't have to wait. But, if it can wait, then you can wait. If they didn't remove your appendix, which I guess was infected, it would have burst and you would stand a great risk of dying.Hospitals have to evaluate how urgent you are in need of surgery, and act based on their decision. This is my father job to coordinate at his hospital. He evaluates the need for orthopedic and neurologic surgery, because this are his fields of specialization, other doctors evaluate other types of patients and my dad makes the final decision based on their reports.Where you live in a country is also a major factor, just like others have mentioned. Especially in a large country like the USA the difference between the numbers of hospitals in specific regions can be huge. If there are few hospitals, the waiting list will of course be longer. This has nothing to do with social or private health care.

The other surgeries I referred to were not emergency surgeries, and there was basically no delay in getting them schedule; none took more than two week, nor has any other medical treatment I've ever needed taken longer than that. Compare that to the socialist, oops, I mean single payer, systems where 4-6 month waiting lists are not uncommon.I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Now, if you wanted to argue that it is worth making the 99% who can afford health care in the US wait 6 months for treatments that take two weeks now so that the 1% who can't afford it can have equal access to 6 month waiting lists, then at least you are arguing reality. But claiming that the systems are equivalent is just plain silly.

[Nimue1995 1]

One of my posts above is heavlily annotated, look back and check it.I pay for health insurance what it is worth to me. Canadians don't have that choice; they pay what a politician thinks it is worth. As for paperwork, I have none except signing some forms on my first visit to the doctor.If you would like to believe "a couple of friend's anecdotal evidence" over the well-documented failures of every socialist system in the world, I think that says a lot more about you than it does about the world.

Since there's still some socialist systems in the world that are not failed I'd say that statement was incorrect. What about the guy from Norway? Are you saying he's a liar and whatever source you have is the truth? You've still not given any credible sources for your information. Plus who's saying that we're going to turn the whole government into a socialist system? The capitalist system of health care has failed miserably in this country unless you're rich enough to afford it. People are going to India and South America for surgery because they can fly there and still pay less then they'd pay in the United States. Sure the U.S. has the best health care in the world for the few but not for the majority. I live in a rural area that is 30 miles from the nearest hospital. And yes there's a wait for any semi-elective surgery in either of those hospitals. And I don't see that changing all that much under a government paid health care system except that people won't have to go bankrupt to pay for it.

[gobears 0]

The other surgeries I referred to were not emergency surgeries, and there was basically no delay in getting them schedule; none took more than two week, nor has any other medical treatment I've ever needed taken longer than that. Compare that to the socialist, oops, I mean single payer, systems where 4-6 month waiting lists are not uncommon.I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Now, if you wanted to argue that it is worth making the 99% who can afford health care in the US wait 6 months for treatments that take two weeks now so that the 1% who can't afford it can have equal access to 6 month waiting lists, then at least you are arguing reality. But claiming that the systems are equivalent is just plain silly.

Cmon - I knew that wasn't true before I looked it up. From wikipedia.Coverage gapsEnrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.[4] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. Some states (like California) do offer limited insurance coverage for working-class children, but not for adults; other states do not offer such coverage at all, and so, both parent and child are caught in the notorious coverage "gap." Although EMTALA [1] certainly keeps alive many working-class people who are badly injured, the 1986 law neither requires the provision of preventive or rehabilitative care, nor subsidizes such care, and it certainly does nothing about the difficulties in the American mental health system.I believe in universal health care for children until they turn 18 - they shouldn't be punished because their parents can't afford health care. Also, in California, if you're in a PPO, then the waiting times are pretty decent; however, many folks are in HMO's such as Kaiser Permanente and the wait lines there are pretty bad. The HMO premium is close to 1/2 that of a PPO so I can see why many employees choose that but it does result in long waiting times for elective surgeries or non-emergency surgeries.

[El Guapo 8]

Cmon - I knew that wasn't true before I looked it up. From wikipedia.Coverage gapsEnrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.[4] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. Some states (like California) do offer limited insurance coverage for working-class children, but not for adults; other states do not offer such coverage at all, and so, both parent and child are caught in the notorious coverage "gap." Although EMTALA [1] certainly keeps alive many working-class people who are badly injured, the 1986 law neither requires the provision of preventive or rehabilitative care, nor subsidizes such care, and it certainly does nothing about the difficulties in the American mental health system.I believe in universal health care for children until they turn 18 - they shouldn't be punished because their parents can't afford health care. Also, in California, if you're in a PPO, then the waiting times are pretty decent; however, many folks are in HMO's such as Kaiser Permanente and the wait lines there are pretty bad. The HMO premium is close to 1/2 that of a PPO so I can see why many employees choose that but it does result in long waiting times for elective surgeries or non-emergency surgeries.

Until a couple years ago I have had Kaiser, and my wife still has it. No probs ever. I need and MRI, I get it, My mom got cnacer recently in surgery in <2 weeks after getting 7 different opinions. My wife needs in, shes in that day. There are some headaches as with all insruance companies, but they are over exaggerated IMO

[gobears 0]

Until a couple years ago I have had Kaiser, and my wife still has it. No probs ever. I need and MRI, I get it, My mom got cnacer recently in surgery in <2 weeks after getting 7 different opinions. My wife needs in, shes in that day. There are some headaches as with all insruance companies, but they are over exaggerated IMO

That's good to know - some of my friends were nurses there and they told me not to go to Kaiser but that was awhile go. On the other hand, someone that I work with has Kaiser and she's always complaining about scheduling problems (they do seem to yank her around) so she obviously colors my opinion also. I'd just rather pay more for the PPO and have more options.

[Nimue1995 1]

In our state, we have quite a bit higher uninsured: From a study done by the State of Montana and the University of Montana:The uninsured: Montana's health insurance coverage rates are among the worst in the nation.by Seninger, Steve^Sylvester, James T.^Herling, Daphne^Baldridge, John Montana Business Quarterly • Winter, 2003 • Health Care Montana has always ranked near the bottom in cross-state and national comparisons of health insurance coverage. Current estimates suggest that anywhere from 14 percent to 19 percent of Montanans have no health insurance. During the winter of 2003, the Montana Department of Health and Human Services and The University of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research conducted two surveys designed to help fill major gaps in the state's knowledge of its uninsured population. The Montana Household Survey and Montana Employer Survey were then bolstered by a series of 30 interviews with "key informants" statewide--health care providers, clinic and hospital administrators, private business people, farmers, ranchers, insurance executives, and community leaders and advocates who have contact with Montanans who are either uninsured or at high risk of becoming uninsured. At the time of the surveys, 19 percent of Montanans, or about 173,000 people, were uninsured. Slightly more than half (51 percent) of those surveyed had employer-based health insurance. Individual health insurance policies covered 9 percent of the state's population. And Medicaid and the Children's Health insurance Program (CHIP) covered 6 percent, a rate that was lowered somewhat by counting people who were dual-enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare. Finally, 15 percent of Montanans were insured under Medicare. Uninsured rates for the non-elderly population are a more accurate measure of the health insurance gap in Montana, since nearly everyone 65 years of age and older has health insurance through Medicare (Figure 1). Montana's uninsured rate is higher when the elderly who are covered by Medicare are taken out of the sample and population numbers. Twenty-two percent of Montana's non-elderly population has no health insurance--public or private. Employer-based insurance covers 58 percent of Montanans under age 65, compared to the national rate of 67 percent. Individual health insurance coverage is 10 percent in Montana, compared to a national rate of 7 percent. Medicaid and CHIP account for 10 percent of the state's non-elderly health coverage. Health insurance rates by age show considerable differences between younger and older Montanans (Figure 2). Thirty-nine percent of young people between 19 and 25 years of age have no health insurance. Montanans 26 to 49 years of age have an uninsured rate of 24 percent, while 14 percent of older residents between 50 and 64 years of age have no coverage. Children--ages 18 and younger--have an uninsured rate of 17 percent, one of the highest such rates in the nation. Sources of insurance vary by age. Fifty-seven percent of children 18 years of age and under have insurance coverage through employers, primarily based on their parents' employment. About 16 percent of Montana children 18 and under receive health coverage from Medicaid or CHIP, one of the highest coverage rates of any age group. Household income levels are a major determinant of health coverage. As would be expected, lower-income households have higher rates of uninsurance. About 43 percent of Montanans in households with incomes below the 2002 federal poverty level ($18,100 for a family of four) have no health insurance. Alternately, Montanans who live in households with incomes more than twice the poverty level have a relatively low uninsured rate of 13 percent. A number of uninsured rates show racial, geographic, and employment variations in health care coverage. American Indians under age 65 had an uninsured rate of 38 percent, compared to 20 percent of non-elderly whites and other races. Following Census Bureau methods, the Indian Health Service was not considered a source of health insurance since it is not available to all Indians or in all areas, and its availability and level of service is contingent on federal budget decisions. Montana's uninsured rate of 21 percent in urban areas was slightly lower than the 23 percent rate in rural areas. Uninsured rates varied over different employment categories. The uninsured rate for self-employed Montanans was 24 percent, compared to a 19 percent rate for other workers. Unemployed people had an uninsured rate of 41 percent. Full-time students had a 27 percent uninsured rate, while disabled and retired people had uninsured rates of 12 percent. Montana's uninsured, then, are most likely to be: * white (86 percent of the uninsured); * adults over 25 years of age (67 percent between the ages of 26 and 64); * high school graduates or better (92 percent); * single or divorced/separated (31 percent + 15 percent for combined 46 percent); * living in households with incomes more than twice the federal poverty level (45 percent of the uninsured); * self-employed or employed by someone else (77 percent). The majority of uninsured Montanans are employed. In the 2003 survey, 24 percent of the uninsured were self-employed and 51 percent worked for someone else. (For uninsured children, these statistics refer to the primary wage earner in the family.) A high percent of employed Montanans who were without insurance were in permanent jobs (84 percent) and were employed by small businesses with 10 or fewer employees (56 percent). Industries with high numbers of uninsured workers included agriculture, construction, government, hospitality services (motels, casinos, convenience stores, and gas stations), and other services such as repair businesses and retail trade. Insurance Costs and Coverage The high cost of health insurance and health care are pervasive themes in many of the responses from the interviews. Medical debt is one direct impact of high health insurance and health care costs. The household survey asked respondents about their unpaid medical bills during the past 12 months. Uninsured people were more than three times as likely to have medical debt (21 percent) compared to those with health insurance (7 percent). Average medical debt was $2,500 or higher and represented as much as 16 percent of household income for the uninsured. Average debt was high for every insurance coverage category. Montanans with medical debt had, on average, $2,546 in unpaid medical bills over the past 12 months. Average debt was slightly less for those with health insurance ($2,506) and increased to $2,700 for uninsured people. Publicly insured individuals had the highest average medical debt: $2,828. Medical debt attributed to out-of-pocket health care was 13 percent of household income statewide. The debt-household income ratio dropped to 9 percent for people with health insurance. The uninsured had medical debt equal to 16 percent of the household's income. Publicly insured individuals had medical debt representing 25 percent of their household income (Figure 3). Health insurance premium costs can dramatically impact household budgets. How much choice uninsured persons have to buy or not buy health insurance coverage is an important behavioral aspect of the issue. Some uninsured people have to choose between spending their income on health insurance and paying for housing, groceries, and other basic necessities. However, advocates of the choice explanation argue that some uninsured people choose to spend their money on snowmobiles and other consumer luxuries rather than on health insurance. The "snowmobile" hypothesis of discretionary choice and household spending was examined by asking respondents in the household survey which statement best applied to them: Do they choose not to buy insurance because they are healthy and would like to spend their money on other things that are not absolutely needed? Or must they use all of the money they have for absolutely necessary things like food, clothing, and housing instead of health insurance? Ninety percent of the uninsured said their lack of insurance was either forced or the result of a lack of money after paying for basic life necessities such as food, clothing, and housing. This response pattern was reinforced by the comments of focus group participants who said high premiums were beyond their monthly income (Figure 4). The impact of health insurance costs on household budgets was explored through several other questions in the household survey. Montanans were asked if they could afford a monthly premium--and how much they could afford to pay. Eighty-one percent indicated that they could afford a monthly premium, with $96 the amount considered affordable. Individual Health insurance Coverage Individual health insurance policies covered 10 percent of non-elderly Montanans in 2003. Here's the breakdown: 57 percent of those policies covered an entire family, 18 percent were individual policies, and another 25 percent were individual policies provided by someone outside the immediate household. Nearly all of the individual insurance policies required a deductible. Slightly more than 40 percent of the policies included prescription drug benefits. About 10 percent had a dental benefit, and 10 percent reported having a partner who got their insurance through work. Premiums varied greatly. The average monthly premium was $265 for a single individual policy. The average for family coverage in the individual insurance market was $418. Average deductibles were $3,283 for a single individual policy and $3,136 for a family policy

[hblask 1]

Since there's still some socialist systems in the world that are not failed I'd say that statement was incorrect. What about the guy from Norway? Are you saying he's a liar and whatever source you have is the truth? You've still not given any credible sources for your information. Plus who's saying that we're going to turn the whole government into a socialist system? The capitalist system of health care has failed miserably in this country unless you're rich enough to afford it. People are going to India and South America for surgery because they can fly there and still pay less then they'd pay in the United States. Sure the U.S. has the best health care in the world for the few but not for the majority. I live in a rural area that is 30 miles from the nearest hospital. And yes there's a wait for any semi-elective surgery in either of those hospitals. And I don't see that changing all that much under a government paid health care system except that people won't have to go bankrupt to pay for it.

The socialist systems that still exist in the world are having terrible problems, the worst of which is the long waiting lists. All of them have it. Most have doctor shortages and obsolete equipment.And as I said earlier, I have a post earlier in this thread with references. I'm not sure what more sources you want. The guy from Norway has a few anecdotal stories; I posted footnotes quotes from reports from a variety of think tanks and the government's own reports on themselves. At this point, I'll just have to write you off as a kook if you think one guy from Norway saying "I don't hate it" is better evidence than a series of well-documented quotes.I never said this was an attempt to turn the whole government socialist, although the people who promote socialized medicine tend to support that goal, too. If we ever go back to a capitalist medical system in the US, I suspect it will work as well as it did back before the government decided it could run it better. Non-capitalist elements in the US system: the AMA monopoly; the FDA limiting information and options between doctors and patients; a tax code that favors certain types of health care at the expense of others; a tax code that favors people joining employee sponsored plans rather than shopping on their own; medicare and medicaid, which limit the amount that doctors are able to charge (including disallowing discounts based on need). When all those are fixed, the free market can begin to work again.My mom is in her 70s and lives in a town of population of less than 400. She has had many medical problems over the last decade, and never had any problem with treatment. I grew up in that small town and never once heard of anyone having trouble getting treatment for any issue, major or minor. Is it uniform nationwide? Of course not, just as it is not uniform nationwide in the socialized medicine countries. But if you look at aggregate data, it's not even close as to which system works better.

[hblask 1]

Enrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.[4]

I love this statistic, and the fact that people report it as a crisis. If you analyze those numbers, only a tiny fraction of those people actually have no healthcare. The majority of them are people in transition from one job to another, who have no healthcare for a weekend or a week or two, by choice (they could've chosen COBRA). Another big chunk is people who qualify for gov't coverage but don't bother applying. Another big chunk is people who make over $50K/year and have chosen to allocate their resources elsewhere, such as bigger cars and houses. Another big chunk is young people for whom purchasing healthcare makes little sense, such as college students at colleges with free clinics. If you subtract out all those people, the actual number is relatively small.

I believe in universal health care for children until they turn 18 - they shouldn't be punished because their parents can't afford health care.

In the US, children who's parents cannot afford healthcare have a large number of programs available to them. Anyone who has a child that is not getting care over cost worries is an idiot. I have two children that were in the hospital for 3-4 month stretches, and there were people coming out of the woodwork to help with the financial concerns, and I'm not even poor. Politicians and socialist-leaning media love to report as if there is a children's medical crisis, but the facts are that there just plain isn't. Anyone who is not getting treatment under current programs would not get it under ANY program.

Also, in California, if you're in a PPO, then the waiting times are pretty decent; however, many folks are in HMO's such as Kaiser Permanente and the wait lines there are pretty bad. The HMO premium is close to 1/2 that of a PPO so I can see why many employees choose that but it does result in long waiting times for elective surgeries or non-emergency surgeries.

This is exactly the way it should be. People should be able to decide what is important to them. And most importantly, companies and customers should be allowed to *experiment* with various options so that the free market can decide what values are most important. The problem with socialized medicine is that it gives a one-size-fits-all answer for a problem that has many solutions. This one-size-fits-all solution then limits creative solutions, whereas if people are allowed to experiment, the problem is constantly undergoing adjustments to search for better solutions. (FWIW, this is the EXACT reason the Soviet Union and every other socialist country failed, and the reason EVERY massive socialized intervention into any countries economy has been such a disaster).

[hblask 1]

The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.

According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2) In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3) And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.These days, federal law requires that any hospital must provide care to anyone who comes within 250 yards of an emergency room - regardless of ability or willingness to pay. (6) 14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. (7) They represent %31 - nearly one third - of the uninsured in America. At Parkland Hospital in Dallas where President Kennedy was rushed after after being shot, the ER is a primary source of health care for the poor. Many Parkland patients have Medicaid while others have no health insurance. Yet, they're treated the same. They get identical care from the same doctors - regardless of ability to pay.(8) The U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants who don't buy health insurance but still get health care. There are estimates that about maybe ten million - possibly more - of the uninsured are in fact undocumented workers or at least people who are foreign born. The rates of un-insurance for people that are foreign born is much higher than native born Americans and so - that will always be a problem. And, of course, if you can get something for free, why would you buy insurance? We create a disincentive - to have people walk through the ER and try to get charity care simply because they can. In fact, the U.S. even provides free medical care to people who still live inside Mexico. Residents of Mexican border towns like Naco, Sonora are able to request "Compassionate Entry" at the border crossing where they are picked up by American ambulances and taken to emergency rooms like the one at the Copper Queen Hospital in Bizbee, AZ.(9) In 2004, The Copper Queen had uncompensated care costs of nearly half a million dollars due to compassionate entry patients.(10) So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often. (11) A small minority of people slip through the cracks through no fault of their own - however in any nation there is a group of people who refuse to participate in society or take responsibility for their own well-being. Even if our government attempted to force them to receive regular health care, many wouldn't comply. . (2) See Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor and Cheryl Hill Lee, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005," U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, P60-231, August 2006, Table 8 (sub heading Household Income), page 22 ( http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf) (3) ibid (4) ibid (sub heading Age) (5) Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, It has spending for age 25 to 34. Unfortunately, it does not break down age 18 to 24 - but we can reasonably infer that spending for people in their early 20s is similar to mid-20s. (http://www.bls.gov/cex/2005/CrossTabs/agebyinc/x25to34.pdf) ://http://www.bls.gov/cex/2005/CrossTa...pdf) ://http://www.bls.gov/cex/2005/CrossTa...pdf) (6) Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) FAQ, (http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm) (7) The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association estimates that nearly one-third of the uninsured already qualify for public coverage such as Medicaid or S-CHIP. See "The Uninsured in America," BlueCrossBlueShield Association, excerpt available at: http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/who-are-the-uninsured/uninsured_sec1.pdf ://http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsure....pdf ://http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsure....pdf (8) John Goodman, Five Myths of Socialized Medicine, Cato's Letter Winter 2005, page 1 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf) ://http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoslette...pdf) ://http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoslette...pdf) (9) "Catastrophe in Care", June 2, 2005 Leo W. Banks, Tucson Weekly, (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:69346) ://http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/C...346) ://http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/C...346) (10) ibid <a name="11">(11) David Gratzer, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), page 87.

[hblask 1]

The uninsured: Montana's health insurance coverage rates are among the worst in the nation.

And yet people voluntarily live there. This means either that the people who live there don't think this is a serious issue to their quality of life, or at least that they feel other issues are more important. I support their right to make this choice; just don't come trying to destroy my healthcare because some people make bad choices.

Twenty-two percent of Montana's non-elderly population has no health insurance--public or private.

These numbers are pretty equivalent to the scare numbers debunked in my post above.The rest of the article discusses the fact that (*gasp*) different people at different phases of their life make different choicse (OMG CRISIS CALL OUT THE BUREAUCRATS!).There article also has, lurking in the background, the problem that experimentation is discouraged because of all the federal rules regarding healthcare. I agree that this is a problem in serious need of repair.As to the general problem of small towns, the doctor I had growing up wrote a book when he retired. For a couple of decades he provided excellent affordable care to people of all means. Why did he quit? Because federal medicare/medicaid rules made it illegal for him to vary his prices based on need, and the amount of paperwork for the federal gov't meant he would've had to hire another person just to deal with bureaucrats, so instead he quit. From other people I've talked to who grew up in small towns, this story is pretty typical -- a small town doctor who charged based on ability to pay is driven out of business by federal laws that make such practices illegal.Again, if this is what we are talking about in regard to a healthcare crisis, I agree, we need to go back to free markets.

[Johan 0]

This is exactly the way it should be. People should be able to decide what is important to them. And most importantly, companies and customers should be allowed to *experiment* with various options so that the free market can decide what values are most important. The problem with socialized medicine is that it gives a one-size-fits-all answer for a problem that has many solutions. This one-size-fits-all solution then limits creative solutions, whereas if people are allowed to experiment, the problem is constantly undergoing adjustments to search for better solutions. (FWIW, this is the EXACT reason the Soviet Union and every other socialist country failed, and the reason EVERY massive socialized intervention into any countries economy has been such a disaster).

Where do you get this from? You seem to mix the old system of the soviet union in to modern social health care. If a country is poor, of course the health care system won't be good. The government can't afford to spend "enough" money, and the people who live in the country won't make enough to pay for health insurance/treatment. Poor countries does not get a discount on medical equipment, and it's expensive.And can you explain why you think health care in America will become so terrible if it's turned into social health care? The hospitals will still have the same doctors, same budgets and same capacity. One of the biggest differences will be that private companies won't be left with an enormous profit. Either more money will be spent on health care, or you will pay less for the same care.The fear of everything "social" is something I guess americans are stuck with after all the propaganda from the cold war.If our health care system in Norway is as terrible as you say, I would imagine it would be difficult for us to be one of the best countries to live in in the world. We have been on the top of the list for 6 years, but on the list for 2007 we are bumped down to second place, behind Iceland.The government controls health care, education, retirement homes, kindergardens, the largest industry in the country etcetc. I would say we are doing pretty good, even if the government is in control.If you believe your own government is the problem, you should perhaps try doing something about it. If you can't trust the government to control health care, you can't trust them to do anything imo.

[Johan 0]

As to the general problem of small towns, the doctor I had growing up wrote a book when he retired. For a couple of decades he provided excellent affordable care to people of all means. Why did he quit? Because federal medicare/medicaid rules made it illegal for him to vary his prices based on need, and the amount of paperwork for the federal gov't meant he would've had to hire another person just to deal with bureaucrats, so instead he quit. From other people I've talked to who grew up in small towns, this story is pretty typical -- a small town doctor who charged based on ability to pay is driven out of business by federal laws that make such practices illegal.

If you visit your doctor here, small town or not, you only pay a small amount, and the government covers the rest. There is also a "top amount" you pay. If you are retired, you never have to pay more than 200 NOK a month, even if you visit your doctor every day. 200 NOK =37$. I would say that is manageable for everyone. If you consider the cost of life, the amount in the US would be much, much lower.

[El Guapo 8]

I'll give you a first hand example of what Henry is talking about and how easy it really is. My wife and I are both slef employed. In 2004 we bought a house, got married, and got pregnant (in that order). We were both less than 2 years into our respective professions and did not have medical coverage, because we decided to allocate that money somewhere else {We fell into the category of making over 50k a year and just not spending the money on insurance(we were not planning on getting pregnant and are realtively healthy and at the time 28 and 24 respectively).}Well pregnancy is a pre-existing condition and normal prenatal care and delivery is about 10K =/-. If it is a C section or there are issues it can be much much higher. So after a little research, we figured out that Kaiser accepts two person group insurance, we wrote a group policy on my wife and my for her business saying that I do the books and we paid $460 a month and had out son no problem. After this we switched to a Blue Cross PPO which was about $400 a month for the 3 of us. When we decided to have another child we switched my wife back to Kaiser because it is all inclusive, which is good because she has kidney stones and has passed 5 this pregnancy. (She was sue Fri BTW and is now overdue and is currently passing a Kidney stone, we had to go to hospital Thursday night because she had blood in the urine) we were triaged and in within minutes of getting there.)Right now my wifes policy is 240/month because it is an HMO, mine is 134 and my sons is 101.As soon as she has the baby, since we are not having anymore, we will put her back on PPO and the new baby and most likley stay there forever. So for a car paymnet I get full coverage on my whole family.

[Loismustdie 0]

Where do you get this from? You seem to mix the old system of the soviet union in to modern social health care. If a country is poor, of course the health care system won't be good. The government can't afford to spend "enough" money, and the people who live in the country won't make enough to pay for health insurance/treatment. Poor countries does not get a discount on medical equipment, and it's expensive.And can you explain why you think health care in America will become so terrible if it's turned into social health care? The hospitals will still have the same doctors, same budgets and same capacity. One of the biggest differences will be that private companies won't be left with an enormous profit. Either more money will be spent on health care, or you will pay less for the same care.The fear of everything "social" is something I guess americans are stuck with after all the propaganda from the cold war.If our health care system in Norway is as terrible as you say, I would imagine it would be difficult for us to be one of the best countries to live in in the world. We have been on the top of the list for 6 years, but on the list for 2007 we are bumped down to second place, behind Iceland.The government controls health care, education, retirement homes, kindergardens, the largest industry in the country etcetc. I would say we are doing pretty good, even if the government is in control.If you believe your own government is the problem, you should perhaps try doing something about it. If you can't trust the government to control health care, you can't trust them to do anything imo.

Are you even reading his posts? Let me throw this out there. You are.... Norway. I am relatively well read, keep up with world news, and let me tell you what I hear about Norway. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. On a world scale of 1 to 10, you rate a 0. So, maybe, what you think works for you, would not work for us, just on basic sheer size. Lets put it this way- a sheepherder herding 600 then 6 million. For the 6 million, there is a good chance that many of those sheep would want other choices of things to do. Baaaahhhhhh. On a serious note, there is so much truth to what Henry is saying it is freakin pathetic. Take an 18% number, and it sounds SOOOO scary, and then you break it down to what that 18% represents and it actually makes sense, that is what SHOULD and WILL happen in a free market system. This can be applied to so many things. For instance, not everyone should own a car- or a house(we have seen what happens in that scenario). People should be free to make the choices that they want, and to be as stupid as they want. Nobody is bringing this up, but shut down the border and this is no longer even half of an issue. Quit dicking around and just shut it down already. I was thinking about this last night and it boggles my mind how so many people love to be critical of the U.S. while at the same time millions are doing there damndest to get here, because we suck sooooo bad. The evidence is in the desire to be here. How much more clear does it need to be? Even with all of our issues/pseudo issues, we ****ing ROCK this planet like me when my wife is dressed up schoolgirl.

[SlapStick 0]

Nobody is bringing this up, but shut down the border and this is no longer even half of an issue. Quit dicking around and just shut it down already. I was thinking about this last night and it boggles my mind how so many people love to be critical of the U.S. while at the same time millions are doing there damndest to get here, because we suck sooooo bad. The evidence is in the desire to be here. How much more clear does it need to be? Even with all of our issues/pseudo issues, we ****ing ROCK this planet like me when my wife is dressed up schoolgirl.SW

FYPI hope

[Loismustdie 0]

In our state, we have quite a bit higher uninsured: From a study done by the State of Montana and the University of Montana:The uninsured: Montana's health insurance coverage rates are among the worst in the nation.by Seninger, Steve^Sylvester, James T.^Herling, Daphne^Baldridge, John Montana Business Quarterly • Winter, 2003 • Health Care Montana has always ranked near the bottom in cross-state and national comparisons of health insurance coverage. Current estimates suggest that anywhere from 14 percent to 19 percent of Montanans have no health insurance. During the winter of 2003, the Montana Department of Health and Human Services and The University of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research conducted two surveys designed to help fill major gaps in the state's knowledge of its uninsured population. The Montana Household Survey and Montana Employer Survey were then bolstered by a series of 30 interviews with "key informants" statewide--health care providers, clinic and hospital administrators, private business people, farmers, ranchers, insurance executives, and community leaders and advocates who have contact with Montanans who are either uninsured or at high risk of becoming uninsured. At the time of the surveys, 19 percent of Montanans, or about 173,000 people, were uninsured. Slightly more than half (51 percent) of those surveyed had employer-based health insurance. Individual health insurance policies covered 9 percent of the state's population. And Medicaid and the Children's Health insurance Program (CHIP) covered 6 percent, a rate that was lowered somewhat by counting people who were dual-enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare. Finally, 15 percent of Montanans were insured under Medicare. Uninsured rates for the non-elderly population are a more accurate measure of the health insurance gap in Montana, since nearly everyone 65 years of age and older has health insurance through Medicare (Figure 1). Montana's uninsured rate is higher when the elderly who are covered by Medicare are taken out of the sample and population numbers. Twenty-two percent of Montana's non-elderly population has no health insurance--public or private. Employer-based insurance covers 58 percent of Montanans under age 65, compared to the national rate of 67 percent. Individual health insurance coverage is 10 percent in Montana, compared to a national rate of 7 percent. Medicaid and CHIP account for 10 percent of the state's non-elderly health coverage. Health insurance rates by age show considerable differences between younger and older Montanans (Figure 2). Thirty-nine percent of young people between 19 and 25 years of age have no health insurance. Montanans 26 to 49 years of age have an uninsured rate of 24 percent, while 14 percent of older residents between 50 and 64 years of age have no coverage. Children--ages 18 and younger--have an uninsured rate of 17 percent, one of the highest such rates in the nation. Sources of insurance vary by age. Fifty-seven percent of children 18 years of age and under have insurance coverage through employers, primarily based on their parents' employment. About 16 percent of Montana children 18 and under receive health coverage from Medicaid or CHIP, one of the highest coverage rates of any age group. Household income levels are a major determinant of health coverage. As would be expected, lower-income households have higher rates of uninsurance. About 43 percent of Montanans in households with incomes below the 2002 federal poverty level ($18,100 for a family of four) have no health insurance. Alternately, Montanans who live in households with incomes more than twice the poverty level have a relatively low uninsured rate of 13 percent. A number of uninsured rates show racial, geographic, and employment variations in health care coverage. American Indians under age 65 had an uninsured rate of 38 percent, compared to 20 percent of non-elderly whites and other races. Following Census Bureau methods, the Indian Health Service was not considered a source of health insurance since it is not available to all Indians or in all areas, and its availability and level of service is contingent on federal budget decisions. Montana's uninsured rate of 21 percent in urban areas was slightly lower than the 23 percent rate in rural areas. Uninsured rates varied over different employment categories. The uninsured rate for self-employed Montanans was 24 percent, compared to a 19 percent rate for other workers. Unemployed people had an uninsured rate of 41 percent. Full-time students had a 27 percent uninsured rate, while disabled and retired people had uninsured rates of 12 percent. Montana's uninsured, then, are most likely to be: * white (86 percent of the uninsured); * adults over 25 years of age (67 percent between the ages of 26 and 64); * high school graduates or better (92 percent); * single or divorced/separated (31 percent + 15 percent for combined 46 percent); * living in households with incomes more than twice the federal poverty level (45 percent of the uninsured); * self-employed or employed by someone else (77 percent). The majority of uninsured Montanans are employed. In the 2003 survey, 24 percent of the uninsured were self-employed and 51 percent worked for someone else. (For uninsured children, these statistics refer to the primary wage earner in the family.) A high percent of employed Montanans who were without insurance were in permanent jobs (84 percent) and were employed by small businesses with 10 or fewer employees (56 percent). Industries with high numbers of uninsured workers included agriculture, construction, government, hospitality services (motels, casinos, convenience stores, and gas stations), and other services such as repair businesses and retail trade. Insurance Costs and Coverage The high cost of health insurance and health care are pervasive themes in many of the responses from the interviews. Medical debt is one direct impact of high health insurance and health care costs. The household survey asked respondents about their unpaid medical bills during the past 12 months. Uninsured people were more than three times as likely to have medical debt (21 percent) compared to those with health insurance (7 percent). Average medical debt was $2,500 or higher and represented as much as 16 percent of household income for the uninsured. Average debt was high for every insurance coverage category. Montanans with medical debt had, on average, $2,546 in unpaid medical bills over the past 12 months. Average debt was slightly less for those with health insurance ($2,506) and increased to $2,700 for uninsured people. Publicly insured individuals had the highest average medical debt: $2,828. Medical debt attributed to out-of-pocket health care was 13 percent of household income statewide. The debt-household income ratio dropped to 9 percent for people with health insurance. The uninsured had medical debt equal to 16 percent of the household's income. Publicly insured individuals had medical debt representing 25 percent of their household income (Figure 3). Health insurance premium costs can dramatically impact household budgets. How much choice uninsured persons have to buy or not buy health insurance coverage is an important behavioral aspect of the issue. Some uninsured people have to choose between spending their income on health insurance and paying for housing, groceries, and other basic necessities. However, advocates of the choice explanation argue that some uninsured people choose to spend their money on snowmobiles and other consumer luxuries rather than on health insurance. The "snowmobile" hypothesis of discretionary choice and household spending was examined by asking respondents in the household survey which statement best applied to them: Do they choose not to buy insurance because they are healthy and would like to spend their money on other things that are not absolutely needed? Or must they use all of the money they have for absolutely necessary things like food, clothing, and housing instead of health insurance? Ninety percent of the uninsured said their lack of insurance was either forced or the result of a lack of money after paying for basic life necessities such as food, clothing, and housing. This response pattern was reinforced by the comments of focus group participants who said high premiums were beyond their monthly income (Figure 4). The impact of health insurance costs on household budgets was explored through several other questions in the household survey. Montanans were asked if they could afford a monthly premium--and how much they could afford to pay. Eighty-one percent indicated that they could afford a monthly premium, with $96 the amount considered affordable. Individual Health insurance Coverage Individual health insurance policies covered 10 percent of non-elderly Montanans in 2003. Here's the breakdown: 57 percent of those policies covered an entire family, 18 percent were individual policies, and another 25 percent were individual policies provided by someone outside the immediate household. Nearly all of the individual insurance policies required a deductible. Slightly more than 40 percent of the policies included prescription drug benefits. About 10 percent had a dental benefit, and 10 percent reported having a partner who got their insurance through work. Premiums varied greatly. The average monthly premium was $265 for a single individual policy. The average for family coverage in the individual insurance market was $418. Average deductibles were $3,283 for a single individual policy and $3,136 for a family policy

Again... we have told you a few times that your problems with Montana are self inflicted. You already admitted that. You are in a tough spot, no one is denying that, but a tough spot does not damned legislation and change. A child gets kidnapped, do we implant every child with a lo-jack? No. Please do not take this as me not empathizing with you, I do, I cannot imagine the thought of possibly losing my wife mid 50's. That being said, it could happen. So, I have different types of medical coverage that I pay for, 2 life insurance policies,actually 4, shit it might be 5 at this point. I don't remember. They cost me next to nothing, I don't even think about it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit- that means you may not get it. That's an intangible no one likes to talk about. You have the right to pursue, to chase, to dream and to try, attempt. That's it. There are no guarantees. That is life. I can tell you this, I work in the securities industry and I can't think of off the top of my head even one company based out of Montana worth investing in. Guapo, can you? I think that's a fairly good indication of a lack of growth and industry. It is pretty, though. I could see myself retiring there, I have been there before and I loved it, but I mwould make my money elsewhere first.

[Loismustdie 0]

FYPI hope

Not even close. Everybody loves to hate the U.S., but nobody is lining up to leave, they are lining up to get in. That's a pretty simple equation.

[SlapStick 0]

Not even close. Everybody loves to hate the U.S., but nobody is lining up to leave, they are lining up to get in. That's a pretty simple equation.

I wrote out a rather long reply and then replaced it with this :You are an idiot.

[Loismustdie 0]

I wrote out a rather long reply and then replaced it with this :You are an idiot.

So nothing to say. Got it. Once again, LMD for FTW. To easy.

[Nimue1995 1]

Again... we have told you a few times that your problems with Montana are self inflicted. You already admitted that. You are in a tough spot, no one is denying that, but a tough spot does not damned legislation and change. A child gets kidnapped, do we implant every child with a lo-jack? No. Please do not take this as me not empathizing with you, I do, I cannot imagine the thought of possibly losing my wife mid 50's. That being said, it could happen. So, I have different types of medical coverage that I pay for, 2 life insurance policies,actually 4, shit it might be 5 at this point. I don't remember. They cost me next to nothing, I don't even think about it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit- that means you may not get it. That's an intangible no one likes to talk about. You have the right to pursue, to chase, to dream and to try, attempt. That's it. There are no guarantees. That is life. I can tell you this, I work in the securities industry and I can't think of off the top of my head even one company based out of Montana worth investing in. Guapo, can you? I think that's a fairly good indication of a lack of growth and industry. It is pretty, though. I could see myself retiring there, I have been there before and I loved it, but I mwould make my money elsewhere first.

Which is what anyone with any money here does. But they stll want the services they had in the place they came from. I'm not bitching about that. We live 30 miles from a reasonable size town. Yes we chose that. BUT last time I looked Montana was still part of the United States so I figure we have a reasonable right to make our voice heard on the issues that concern us. And this happens to be one of them. It's all very easy for you to say move, but are you really ready to have the population of Montana invade your state? Obviously not from your remark about immigration. Regardless this is the UNITED STATES and we're one of them. And the government of the United States has an obligation to the people of Montana same as it's obligation to your state or any other state. Your solution that everybody here move out is stupid and ridiculous. By the way Glacier Bank is based out of Montana and if you'd bought into it with your IRA in the mid 90's as I did you'd have seen that stock hmm let's see it went from $11.00 per share to $36.00 per share and then split 2 for 3 and last I looked it's back up in the mid $20s again. You might want to look into it. Unfortunately for us it doesn't do us one spitting bit of good now. We have timber and agricultural industries and mining as well. Which is part of the problem in that they're extractive industries which are not well known for sticking around after the resource runs out. In fact most of them just leave their messes for us to clean up. And then the mining companies can't understand why we have banned cyanide mining in this state TWICE now. I could tell you a great deal about the industries that have come and gone here and what they left behind for this state to clean up. Consider W R Grace and the mess they left in Libby including a populace with asbestos exposure and they're trying to slither out of paying for any of it even though it's been proved that they knew that asbestos was causing health problems in their employees long before anyone else found out about it. But of course those people should have just moved instead of trying to make a living working for a company that in the end screwed them not only out health but out of life itself. Yeah industry's real good a regulating itself. Don't even tell me that unregulated capitalism is the answer to everything. If that were the case then we'd be right back to when industry first discovered all the precious metals that they could extract from Montana and they'd continue to leave their messes behind. NO THANK YOU!

[Nimue1995 1]

Are you even reading his posts? Let me throw this out there. You are.... Norway. I am relatively well read, keep up with world news, and let me tell you what I hear about Norway. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. On a world scale of 1 to 10, you rate a 0. So, maybe, what you think works for you, would not work for us, just on basic sheer size. Lets put it this way- a sheepherder herding 600 then 6 million. For the 6 million, there is a good chance that many of those sheep would want other choices of things to do. Baaaahhhhhh. So Norway is an example that's working so let's put Norway down as a nothing country and bash it since we can't bash anything else. You really do think people are a bunch of sheep that'll believe anything you feed them if it sounds good enough. HA On a serious note, there is so much truth to what Henry is saying it is freakin pathetic. Take an 18% number, and it sounds SOOOO scary, and then you break it down to what that 18% represents and it actually makes sense, that is what SHOULD and WILL happen in a free market system. This can be applied to so many things. For instance, not everyone should own a car- or a house(we have seen what happens in that scenario). People should be free to make the choices that they want, and to be as stupid as they want.Obviously you missed this part of the report I posted so I'll be nice and repeat it for you:Health insurance premium costs can dramatically impact household budgets. How much choice uninsured persons have to buy or not buy health insurance coverage is an important behavioral aspect of the issue. Some uninsured people have to choose between spending their income on health insurance and paying for housing, groceries, and other basic necessities. However, advocates of the choice explanation argue that some uninsured people choose to spend their money on snowmobiles and other consumer luxuries rather than on health insurance. [i]The "snowmobile" hypothesis of discretionary choice and household spending was examined by asking respondents in the household survey which statement best applied to them: Do they choose not to buy insurance because they are healthy and would like to spend their money on other things that are not absolutely needed? Or must they use all of the money they have for absolutely necessary things like food, clothing, and housing instead of health insurance? Ninety percent of the uninsured said their lack of insurance was either forced or the result of a lack of money after paying for basic life necessities such as food, clothing, and housing. This response pattern was reinforced by the comments of focus group participants who said high premiums were beyond their monthly income (Figure 4). [/i]The impact of health insurance costs on household budgets was explored through several other questions in the household survey. Montanans were asked if they could afford a monthly premium--and how much they could afford to pay. Eighty-one percent indicated that they could afford a monthly premium, with $96 the amount considered affordable. However the usual insurance premium was way above that figure:Premiums varied greatly. The average monthly premium was $265 for a single individual policy. The average for family coverage in the individual insurance market was $418. Average deductibles were $3,283 for a single individual policy and $3,136 for a family policy Nobody is bringing this up, but shut down the border and this is no longer even half of an issue. Quit dicking around and just shut it down already. I was thinking about this last night and it boggles my mind how so many people love to be critical of the U.S. while at the same time millions are doing there damndest to get here, because we suck sooooo bad. The evidence is in the desire to be here. How much more clear does it need to be? Even with all of our issues/pseudo issues, we ****ing ROCK this planet like me when my wife is dressed up schoolgirl.

What's your solution to shutting down the border? Easy to say, hard to impliment. Another example of a short sound bit that sounds good but in practice is impractical without billions of dollars fed into it. Billions I might add that are being spent in Iraq and could be spent here to beef up our borders and keep the friggin terrorists out instead of fighting a neverending war. But seriously do you really think that we can keep people out? It would take a Soviet style Berlin wall to do it and do you really want that on our border? What do you suggest, we just have towers every so often and shoot the bastards if they happen to get into the "no man's land"? First time a border patrolmen did it what do you think would be the outcry from both us and the rest of the world? Especially since you'd probably have the press corps descend on the guy's family and they'd be tearfully telling how all the guy wanted was a chance to work. Again it's pie in the sky unless you want to turn the United States into a military state. Which by the way, I do see coming eventually.

[gobears 0]

Bunch of stuff from Stuart Browning

All I'm saying is that there are gaps in the coverage Today - Nimue's story is an example of it and you can find those stories everywhere. Cobra is an expensive option if you're laid off as when I was moving between jobs, I got to see what it would have cost for Cobra and it was close to 1K/month.Some of my friends who were out of work for awhile end up going for catastrophic coverage for their families but it doesn't cover preventative care of course. There are 30 million Americans under the poverty line and many more that are struggling so asking all these people to "move" is just retarded. For every one person who can move, you can probably find others who can't and it's impossible for all these people to move. It's similar to Sam Kinison's joke of asking poor Africans to move out of the desert, it's funny but in reality, where will they all go?Although I do agree that in most instances, big government is bad - in the two areas of pollution control and health care, we can find a better way. By allowing the free market to dictate everything, saving and treating lives comes down to $ and cents and a for-profit industry is going to choose profit over lives in many cases. If you're ok with that, then that's fine.I'm not sure what the solution is - private choice has to be included in whatever plan is out there and if you're rich enough, you should be allowed to buy any plan that you want and not wait. However, for the gaps in coverage that are out there, we can do better.

[hblask 1]

Although I do agree that in most instances, big government is bad - in the two areas of pollution control and health care, we can find a better way. By allowing the free market to dictate everything, saving and treating lives comes down to $ and cents and a for-profit industry is going to choose profit over lives in many cases. If you're ok with that, then that's fine.I'm not sure what the solution is - private choice has to be included in whatever plan is out there and if you're rich enough, you should be allowed to buy any plan that you want and not wait. However, for the gaps in coverage that are out there, we can do better.

Big government is what ruined healthcare in this country. Prior to WWII, doctors made housecalls, and anyone who wanted medical treatment could afford it. Insurance was cheap and flexible. Then the government implemented wage and price controls. So if you can't give an employee a raise, what can you do to attract good workers? You increase benefits. The government treated employer spending on healthcare as a tax break to the employer, whereas privately purchased insurance was not deductible. So basically, the government forced employers to give workers their raises in company-sponsored health insurance. So what? Well, now, instead of hundreds of millions of people making individual choices, you have a few HR people making choices for large groups. This led to insurance companies cutting down the number of choices they offered. Now, with fewer targets, insurance companies became targets for regulation. Shortly after that, Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, limiting not only the maximum doctors could charge, but also the minimum that they could charge. To recap: price controls moves coverage from individuals to groups; groups get regulated; shortly thereafter price controls are introduced, limiting supply.So yeah, I think we should go back to the only medical system that ever worked: free markets. Most of us have never experienced them, but there were remnants of them in my small town growing up, and my parents raised 13 of us under free market care, despite us living well below the poverty line.

[Loismustdie 0]

What's your solution to shutting down the border? Easy to say, hard to impliment. Another example of a short sound bit that sounds good but in practice is impractical without billions of dollars fed into it. Billions I might add that are being spent in Iraq and could be spent here to beef up our borders and keep the friggin terrorists out instead of fighting a neverending war. But seriously do you really think that we can keep people out? It would take a Soviet style Berlin wall to do it and do you really want that on our border? What do you suggest, we just have towers every so often and shoot the bastards if they happen to get into the "no man's land"? First time a border patrolmen did it what do you think would be the outcry from both us and the rest of the world? Especially since you'd probably have the press corps descend on the guy's family and they'd be tearfully telling how all the guy wanted was a chance to work. Again it's pie in the sky unless you want to turn the United States into a military state. Which by the way, I do see coming eventually.

Sealing the border is as easy as this: Deputize anybody who is willing and go door to door and street corner to street corner and look for illegal immigrants. It may take a year or two, depending on how many you deputized, you could even get the national guard involved. Door to door. Criminal record? Bye. Single male? Bye. Get in line. Family here? Well, you can stay, if you have a job where you are on the books somewhere, with various stipulations. No job? A complete drain on the system? Bye, you and your family. It's harsh. It sucks, but no worse than the guy who steal three times in California and has to go to prison. People make illegal choices- there are consequences. To any and all of them. I don't care what the rest of the world says. You mean the rest of the world that has much, much stricter immigration policies than we do? Let them pretend that we should be put in this position, that it is perfectly o.k. to have our society literally be over run by millions of people that do not give a shit about something as simple as, I don't know, learning the language of the place you live. Every country in the world is much less giving, and has much stricter policies than we ever have. We are not saying you cannot immigrate. It's a part of our culture. Are we are saying is do it legally and have some respect, honour the country in which you want to be a part of. Period. Some would say that is not christian- they would be wrong. God commanded us to obey and respect our government and it's laws, these people have no respect and nothing invested. Make them invest.

[Loismustdie 0]

Big government is what ruined healthcare in this country. Prior to WWII, doctors made housecalls, and anyone who wanted medical treatment could afford it. Insurance was cheap and flexible. Then the government implemented wage and price controls. So if you can't give an employee a raise, what can you do to attract good workers? You increase benefits. The government treated employer spending on healthcare as a tax break to the employer, whereas privately purchased insurance was not deductible. So basically, the government forced employers to give workers their raises in company-sponsored health insurance. So what? Well, now, instead of hundreds of millions of people making individual choices, you have a few HR people making choices for large groups. This led to insurance companies cutting down the number of choices they offered. Now, with fewer targets, insurance companies became targets for regulation. Shortly after that, Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, limiting not only the maximum doctors could charge, but also the minimum that they could charge. To recap: price controls moves coverage from individuals to groups; groups get regulated; shortly thereafter price controls are introduced, limiting supply.So yeah, I think we should go back to the only medical system that ever worked: free markets. Most of us have never experienced them, but there were remnants of them in my small town growing up, and my parents raised 13 of us under free market care, despite us living well below the poverty line.

I love you. There, I said it.