http://statenews.com. President Barack Obama will be presenting an hour-long special on health care reform with ABC News on Wednesday, but health care is not what’s being debated on this show. ABC has exclusive rights to broadcast the town-hall-style program, which will consist of the president answering questions from ABC’s prescreened audience. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:50 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40975 Perhaps ABC could broadcast John Stossel’s “Sick in America” episode right after so Americans can compare Obama’s lies about socialized medicine with the benefits of free markets in health care. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:54:12 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40975 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40977 Looks like you forgot all about the Republican propaganda network Fox News. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:25:58 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40977 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40978 fair & balanced – obviously you have issues with Fox news and you are missing the point. FOX news is a cable station that you pay to view, just like MSNBC, CNN, ESPN, and MTV. Giving the White house primetime coverage on your national FREE channel just sounds suspicious. However, we will not know until the show is aired. Just remember if you do not like what you are watching there are plenty of other channels. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:33:26 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40978 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40982 The vast majority of Americans favor a public healthcare option. I’m not even talking about single payer, i’m talking about govt. getting in the game and competing with the private sector. This creates TRUE competition that will help drive down costs, which clearly isn’t happening in the current structure. The problem is that Congress is not getting behind this idea to the point necessary to pass legislation. Thats what this “town hall” is all about. Its trying to show Congress that the people really do want this option..its not about educating the people or spreading the message to the people. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:27:17 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40982 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40984 Sure it would be competition if there were maybe 4 or 5 health care companies but there are over 100 companies (that is one HUNDRED, I did tone it down from a thousand because I wasn’t sure) so the government would be a drop in the bucket as far as the amount of competitions are concerned. Also these companies provide real private sector good jobs, not government jobs. We already have welfare handouts, why not just do McCain’s health care plan; you get $5k and get your own plan. We wont break the bank, and we won’t destroy the private sector. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:38:46 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40984 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40985 The Republicans have a lot to say about health care too, like…. ……. ……………………. Oh, nothing. It’s like the kid in first grade who doesn’t even like apples, but he cries and kicks his feet when his brother—who loves apples—gets one. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:50:45 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40985 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40987 The problem is that none of those 100’s of other companies is contributing to lowering costs & premiums. And what is wrong with government jobs? I got news for ya, government isn’t the same as in the 70s when the regan revolution proclaimed that government is the problem. This decade, its been BIG business that’s been the problem. Thats not All business, but I think Big Business is more problematic that government these days…by FAR. But I digress…the problem with McCain’s suggestion (other than it was rejected in Nov.) is that it does nothing to help reform our system, meaning it does nothing to address the uncontrollable rise in Costs/premiums. With a govt. run plan in play (who isn’t out to get as large of profits as possible, but instead is looking out for the GENERAL population), there is the potential at least for fundamental change in our approach to health care (which isn’t even top 20 in the world) Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:48:16 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40987 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40988 Exactly where do you folks think insurance companies will pare back with this new competition from the government? Executive salaries? Bonuses? Or will it be doctor and hospital payments? I find it hilarious that people will pay a hundred dollars for a sports or concert ticket but bitch and complain about a $100 doctor visit. The expectation for a doctor to be perfect is hilarious too. Americans expect them to always get it right and want to pay them nothing, but when they make a mistake Americans sue the bejeezus out of them. Until we get our priorities straight and start paying doctors and nurses what they’re worth – and change malpractice laws to allow for human beings practicing medicine – we’re hosed. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:56:25 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40988 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40995 If you honestly think the government is “looking out for the general population” then you have a problem. The government is looking to control people to stay in power, which is contrasted by companies wanting to make money; which is the lesser of two evils? I would go with the companies Ok as for change…. what change exactly? A blank check telling people to go in whenever they cough? We need to instill responsibilty through healthy living and ambition not continuing to tax the rich to insure the poor and that is exactly what public health care will do. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:31:40 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40995 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40997 The “government” isn’t some evil entity out to get us. Our govt. consists of officials elected to act on our behalf, and with health care that’s exactly what’s going on. You’re paranoid and delusional if you think the government (again government of the People, thats you and I) has some ulterior motive. Big business on the other hand consists of VERY evil entities out to line their pockets at anyone’s expense. A big part of the change is insuring everybody so that we no longer have uninsured (45M +) vising the ER and having those costs passed on to every one of us via increased costs across the board. Further, if we’re looking to the government for an option, they can help change health care practices by focusing on preventative care (which will save huge amounts of money). Whether preventative care becomes practice (which you seem to agree is a good thing) remains to be seen. But it is undeniable that our current system is broken; the status quo cannot be sustained. There are several potential solutions, but a public option is the most likely to actually pass this summer Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:28:21 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40997 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40998 The company that I intern for has a program where they offer a gym membership for free and sponsors athletic events. They don’t force us to excersise they want to lower health preiumums and increase money (maybe to hire me someday). And making money is not evil, it employs people; so they too have money to buy health insurance, it makes the world go round. Oh and I might be paranoid but you are the delusional one, if you believe that a politician will follow through on every promise; “read my lips I will not raise taxes” a la Bush or “I am going to pull the troops out of Iraq” Obama. This is no different, will we insure every single person… maybe but at what expense? Destorying our economy, having backed up healthcare, no responsibility. If you want preventative care go for a run, go to the local civic center but please don’t think just because the government will give you a competetive deal people will go on board. We need to put the ball in society’s court and not the government. So in summary we (the government) need our health system to stop focusing trying cover everyone and have a simplified; not a 138 THOUSAND page document (a la Hillarycare), inexpenzive program availible. Thats what conservatives believe, you have the power not the government. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:47:54 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40998 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41000 Jake- You are right about the reaction of insurance companies. They will look to cut services well before they cut their own salaries. Your urging to pay doctors more is laugable. They make way more money here than in other countries. It’s one of the reasons doctors from England and India regularly come to practice here. I’m not sure what you advocate we do when a doctor does make a mistake. As you point out, they are human, so they will make mistakes. Who then is supposed to pay the medical costs associated with their mistakes, the loss of income to the family etc? We already have a damage cap here in Michigan for non-economic. Plaintiff’s already have to file a Notice of Intent and an Affidavit of Merit in order to start a suit. What other reform do you recommend? Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:38:21 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41000 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41003 Thats fantastic that your company offers a gym membership. I never said making money is evil, i think that too much of Big Business is evil because those at the top look to maximize profits no matter the cost (if it weren’t for govt. involvement we wouldn’t have minimum wage, child labor laws, health & safety standards, etc.). I never said i think or expect a politician to follow through on every promise, but I do think that the priority to TRY and reform the health care system is motivated by the desire to help the general population, if at the very least bringing down costs to those of us (businesses, employees & other) that are alrady insured, and at best to provide everybody with health care. The idea of health care reform is 1) recognizing that in the current state, costs will be too great/burdensome on businesses and individuals and will be a major drag on any economic prosperity; and, therefore, 2) we need to invest now so that we are able to make health care costs less burdensome so in the long run we’ll have less of our paychecks (and companies’ overhead) going to pay for health care. I understand there will be higher tax rates, but I (speaking only for myself) am willing to pay more in taxes if it means a higher quality of life across the board (remember our health care system isn’t even top 20 in the world) Unfortunately, when we have a systematic problem, the government is the only entity with enough power to stop the inertia and move the system in a different direction. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:33:06 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41003 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41023 Tom: I believe that your good intentions can be clearly seen. And it’s true, you’re likely in the majority camp. If you and your compatriots are all equally “willing to pay more in taxes”, I applaud you. I suggest then you speak to your congressman about starting a voluntary tax to aid those without insurance. That benefits those who want to pay more, those who don’t have insurance, and those who do would rather pay fewer taxes. But, if I’ve guessed correctly, your compassion only lasts as far as you can to burden everyone with your charity. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:08:40 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41023 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41024 The ABC arrangement is clearly an inappropriate entanglement of a news organization that likes to call itself independent and non-partisan, with government. I have written and told them so. It is intended to get out one side of the issue. I’m sure the fact that former ABC ‘journalist’ Linda Douglas is on the White House health care communication staff had nothing whatever to do with this arrangement. ;-) The sycophancy being demonstrated by most of the Fourth Estate for the past five months is breathtaking. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:29:07 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41024 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41026 Chris: So, what if in enroll my kids in private school, should I not have to pay taxes that contribute to the public schools? What if I work from home and never use the interstate? should i not have to pay taxes for that? What if i hire a private security company, should i not have to pay taxes for the local police? We’re already indirectly paying for the uninsured, my hope is that by reforming the system, getting everybody covered, and having everybody help pay with taxes, on balance it will end up costing less Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:57:50 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41026 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41042 Tom W, I find your statements about government involvement creating more competition because they aren’t in it for ‘profit’ laughable. The biggest problem with government is that they are not in it for ‘profit’, so they have no incentive to be efficient. Government programs notoriously overspend and underperform. Government involvement in Business IS most of the problem. They create more paperwork and more bureaucracy, which creates more cost. So, if we have government insurance they will not create lower costs, they will create higher costs, and will ultmately determine what kind of care we will get. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:14:27 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41042 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41044 How many things has government not screwed up? Very few. Look at the TSA. Very little accomplished, so little changed from 9/11, and yet so much spent. Obama is just black Bush. Yay Patriot Act, yay Iraq without protestors. The left/right illusion has won. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:20:33 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41044 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41046 hvt- Shouldn’t you at least wait to see the report before declaring it to be partisan? They aren’t letting republican party ads run, but we don’t know what opposing views will be aired. Are they letting the democrat party run ads? Last time I checked, Obama was the the President of the US, not just of the democrats. It’s hilarious that not long ago republicans were pointing to the fairness doctrine as a socialist control of the press, suddenly they are all for fairness. What do you suggest Obama do? Force them to accept ads from republicans? Force them to devote air time for the Republican plan? Actually that wouldn’t be a problem as there is no Republican plan. I also imagine you spoke out against the sycophant Fox News after Tony Snow became press secretary and when they refused to run ads that were critical of Bush. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:46:20 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41046 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41047 Tom: To your first three points, a steadfast no, you shouldn’t. Beyond the fact that you’re obviously segueing topics, and have a difficulty understanding the definition of a public good (by definition health care is decidedly not). To the point I originally made, why would you be unwilling to gather a group of individuals and volunteer tax money to cover the uninsured? This, of course, is the definition of a charity. Yet your charity only seems to depend on forcing the charity of others. Forcing all of us into one de facto single payer system to make care more affordable makes no more sense than forcing all of us into public housing to solve the homeless problem. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:01:39 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41047 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41048 Private sector efficiency? Don’t make me laugh. How has all of our private outsourcing worked in our efforts in Iraq? paying private soldiers 6 figure salaries, remodeling the same cafeteria twice, straight up Losing hundreds of millions of dollars…the private sector has a role to play, but when it fails (banking, health care) the public sector needs to get involved. If the government can provide a health plan that is cheaper (medicare premiums have grown at about half the rate private insurance has), it will force private companies to change their practices to retain customers. What is wrong with that? Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:01:47 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41048 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41049 Chris: Perhaps we had different definitions of what we consider the public good, and how to go about promoting that. I don’t see you making any point about charity except that, yes charity raise money for specific causes…whats your point? I never once mentioned a single payer system, and i think its extremely unlikely that it would pass. Thats why i was merely focusing on having the government as one of MANY options in the Marketplace (you conservatives like that word dont you?) as a potential catalyst for fundamental change within the health care system. Fact: we can’t afford to continue the status quo in health care. So whats the solution? I’ve been discussing one option, but haven’t seen any other suggestions (except McCain’s $5K credit, which does nothing to address the underlying problem) Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:08:12 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41049 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41050 Tom: The hilarity of the argument against private sector efficiency is astounding. You used all examples of private companies using government money with no bid contracts. You’re surprised they fell apart, there were cost overruns? With the costs coming out of someone else’s pocket, who is accountable? How many billions has the Federal Reserve lost? Check your reasoning. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:12:52 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41050 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41051 Tom: “We can’t afford to continue the status quo in health care” is an exact line from a presidential speech. Isn’t that what you liberals like to do? The point on charity is that, there are people who are very vocal about not wanting to pay for a public option. And yet, because you are so charitable, are willing to use their money to do it. Why can’t those, like yourself, who want to volunteer extra tax money, do so and give whatever it takes to fund the public option? You don’t mention a single player system, because you clearly don’t see the link. A public option, which private sectors cannot compete against, evolves into a single payer system. It’s like competing for mail delivery. How successful is the Post Office? Private sector cannot compete if it’s playing against a player and the referee. The government wouldn’t be lowest cost because it tries to be, it will be mandated to be the cheapest. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:22:27 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41051 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41054 Chris- Again you fail to suggest any reform of your own and fail to dispute the fact that the present system is unsustainable despite repeated requests to do so from Tom. Your use of the postal system is odd given the fact that Fed Ex and UPS effecitviely compete against the USPS. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:09:07 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41054 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41057 Jason: They cannot legally compete with USPS in letter delivery. I’m sure if UPS and FedEx could, they would do better, but as of now, the USPS is raising prices, mitigating a $3 billion loss, all while still paying the postmaster general exorbitant amounts. That’s the point I was making. And I recognize the our current system is flawed, but would say that the solution to health insurance is found in reducing the incidence of loss by the insurance company from frivolous law suits. It’s in not allowing every nickel of payment come directly from insurance companies. Look towards HSA’s. For those who are uninsured (of which I was for the last 6 or so years), encourage tax credits to be used in the funding of HSA’s. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:51:32 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41057 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41061 Chris- Seriously? Your solution is end frivolous lawsuits? Any proposals for doing that? I have an idea, how about we require attorneys to file a Notice of Intent 180 days before they can file a lawsuit. That way the parties can investigate and maybe settle pre-suit. Let’s also require lawyers to have an Affidavit of Merit signed by a board certified physician in the appropriate specialty swearing that the suit isn’t frivolous. Let’s also allow parties to challenge the scientific validity of testimony by doctors and allow the court to throw out unscientific testimony. Let’s throw out any suit that doesn’t follow these procedural requirements regardless of merits. We should also limit non-economic damages. Wait, we’ve done all of that here in Michigan with no impact on health care costs, or medical malpractice premiums. Numerous other states have followed similar paths. Any other suggestions? Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:53:33 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41061 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41069 Tim, Republican plan: http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/06-17-09_House__GOP_Solutions__Group__Outline.pdf The only reason you were ignorant of its existence is because of the sycophant MSM’s failure to describe it. What do I expect Obama to do ? I expect him to use the normal mechanisms that have always been available to them. Debate it rather than co-opt the media with an infomercial. There is hope, though, as ABC does have the only White House correspondent amongst the MSM who ever asks a tough, pointed question in Jake Tapper. As to your fairness doctrine comment, its absurd and you know it. The FD is intended to do one thing, shut down talk radio because that’s the only avenue where the conservative message gets out consistently. Can’t have that message getting out, can we? The other side has all the broadcast networks, the major newspaper axis of evil, and two shrinking cable new outlets. But of course, no FD would be applied to those media. Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:53:44 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41069 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41097 As I’m sure you’re aware, being intimately involved in the medical community, that those regulatory changes are moot, as they are often as you stated settled pre-suit. The reason being that if you take up all the costs of litigating using those various avenues, the settlement ends up being large, but short of what it would cost in court. Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:26:29 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41097 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41119 Chris- I can assure you that those are far from moot in regards to their impact on litigation. They are relatively moot in reducing medical malpractice rates and health care costs. If you look at the amount of money spent on health care in our country compared to what litigation costs, it’s a very insignificant number. Even if you eliminated virtually all the litigation it wouldn’t save much more than 10-15%. Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:50 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/41119