Universal Health Care...

[El Guapo 10]

Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Will make it more difficult for working families to deduct medical expenses on their tax return.This one really sucks.

[85suited 0]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...lth_care_reform

Health Care ReformSupport for Health Care Plan Falls to New LowMonday, November 23, 2009 Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan. Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

[dapokerbum 0]

To preface, I didn't read this entire Topic, just the last page. But I had a thought today, maybe it has been covered maybe it hasn't ... Why are we, as a country, debating "Health Care Reform". This actually isn't reform as it is really just a band aid on a head wound. What we need to do is start at the bottom of the entire Health Care system that has been built over the past 40 years and completely rewrite how health care is done. This should be done with the top doctors and top business experts. The doctors can tell rewrite how it should be done and the business people can rewrite how to pay for it. I see a great need for there to be affordable health care, however if we continue to feed the insurance and pharmaceutical companies their HUGE profits how will be able to bring the care we need to the people who need it most.I know there are many non-profit hospitals, but don't you think it would be better if we made every hospital a non-profit? And if not a non-profit, how about a collective? This would ensure that the money that is made ... if any would be distributed back to the people that are part of the collective. I believe they could bring something such as REI's business model to the health care industry. Then people can "pay as they go" to the collective that they are a part of. Say there is a $100 fee to become part of the collective and after that you pay as you go. Then you could re-examine HSA's and hopefully contribute your money to that instead of an insurance plan. THis would all be for "normal" medical care.What do we do now for the "irregular" medical care? This is where I have a hard time coming up with a solution. However, that is where each collective may have in existence a charity fund, to which others may give freely to, you don't have to give ... but there would be tax benefits to this. Also, you would be able to purchase insurance such as AFLAC, which has a continuation type insurance that pays for these types of disaster medical care. Would this work? Where are the holes?Thanks.

[JoeyJoJo 20]

if we continue to feed the insurance and pharmaceutical companies their HUGE profits how will be able to bring the care we need to the people who need it most.

Do you even know what kind of profits insurance companies make? I'm sure Jeepster will be happy to tell you.

I know there are many non-profit hospitals, but don't you think it would be better if we made every hospital a non-profit?

Why?

Also, you would be able to purchase insurance such as AFLAC.

Not if you get rid of their profit.

[dapokerbum 0]

Do you even know what kind of profits insurance companies make? I'm sure Jeepster will be happy to tell you.I don't know the profits from insurance companies (i've heard 3-5%), but i do know that Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of dough. My main point was that in order to bring health care costs down we need to find a way to cut costs in other ways, ie changing the profit margins for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. So passing the buck so to speak from thier pockets to ours ... but the way to do it is to not put a "cap" on how much they make but rather make it easier to get competition in the market. Why? Non Profit may not be the best, but I think a collective might be better than a "for profit" hospital. This would alleviate the collective from answering to shareholders who are only looking at the bottom line. You could still pay top dollar to your Dr.s and Nurses you would just have to figure out how to do it so that there is no profit at the end of the year. think of it as a circus. You have a ringleader, performer, animal trainer, and animal cage clean up. Of course you are going to give more of the money to the ringleader, but you also can know make sure that each of the performers and others get a fair wage without having to separate money out to an outside interest. If there is money left over you can put it into a fund, or ... wait for it ... not charge as much the next year! Not if you get rid of their profit.Well, like I said I don't think you should get rid of profit, just ease restrictions so that there is a fair and balanced way of making money.

Just to add, I am relatively new at this and I am trying to learn as I go. It drives me crazy that there is this huge stupid bill and it seems that no one is really thinking outside the box, so I am trying to think things through. I just want to learn as much as I can from both sides.

[hblask 1]

Why are we, as a country, debating "Health Care Reform". This actually isn't reform as it is really just a band aid on a head wound. What we need to do is start at the bottom of the entire Health Care system that has been built over the past 40 years and completely rewrite how health care is done. This should be done with the top doctors and top business experts. The doctors can tell rewrite how it should be done and the business people can rewrite how to pay for it. I see a great need for there to be affordable health care, however if we continue to feed the insurance and pharmaceutical companies their HUGE profits how will be able to bring the care we need to the people who need it most.

First of all, let's assume this is possible, that you could somehow magically gather all the appropriate people, and they were all being perfectly reasonable and totally immune to the lure of power and profit that attaches itself to every government project like a leech. Let's assume that they could design the perfect system that best meets the needs of everyone in the country, achieving some theoretical maximum utility.The system would be obsolete by the time they left the room.And that is one of the primary flaws of central planning, -- and make no mistake, that is what you are asking for --the problem that the world changes and bureaucracies don't. The way free people and free markets change is via a million tiny decisions made minute by minute. Central planning moves on the scale of years, and even then does not have even a tiny fraction of the information that is conveyed by prices floating freely in voluntary consensual trade.

I know there are many non-profit hospitals, but don't you think it would be better if we made every hospital a non-profit?

The debate of profit vs non-profit is a bit of a red herring. There is nothing magical about non-profits; they still have to raise capital, they still have to pay their employees and maintenance and all the other costs of businesses. It's just a structure designed by bureaucrats to favor politically favored goals. It has nothing to do with actual cost controls or being somehow better or worse than for-profits.

And if not a non-profit, how about a collective? This would ensure that the money that is made ... if any would be distributed back to the people that are part of the collective. I believe they could bring something such as REI's business model to the health care industry. Then people can "pay as they go" to the collective that they are a part of. Say there is a $100 fee to become part of the collective and after that you pay as you go. Then you could re-examine HSA's and hopefully contribute your money to that instead of an insurance plan. THis would all be for "normal" medical care.

It's very possible that if we had free markets in medicine, that this would be one of the preferred structures for care. It may work, it may not. Nobody knows. It may work in small towns and not cities, or vice versa. Trying to claim that this (or anything else) is "The Solution", though, is totally silly. There is no "The Solution", only a bunch of people trying different things at their time and their place. One thing that is clear, though, the best way to stay as close as we can to some theoretical optimal solution is to allow the situation to change frequently as demanded by the end users (you and me). And historically, the only way to do that is to allow free markets to operate, free of the interference of arbitrary limitations of government regulation.One other note on "profits" -- if you look around the world, areas that allow profits to be as large as supply and demand allows live in luxury; areas that do not allow profits or direct them politically live in poverty and hardship. So no, anytime anyone starts talking about removing profits from [health care/oil/food/whatever], it's time to tell them where they can stick their Utopian fantasies.

What do we do now for the "irregular" medical care?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.....

[vbnautilus 49]

What do we do now for the "irregular" medical care? This is where I have a hard time coming up with a solution.

[dapokerbum 0]

First of all, let's assume this is possible, that you could somehow magically gather all the appropriate people, and they were all being perfectly reasonable and totally immune to the lure of power and profit that attaches itself to every government project like a leech. Let's assume that they could design the perfect system that best meets the needs of everyone in the country, achieving some theoretical maximum utility.The system would be obsolete by the time they left the room.And that is one of the primary flaws of central planning, -- and make no mistake, that is what you are asking for --the problem that the world changes and bureaucracies don't. The way free people and free markets change is via a million tiny decisions made minute by minute. Central planning moves on the scale of years, and even then does not have even a tiny fraction of the information that is conveyed by prices floating freely in voluntary consensual trade.Hmmm very interesting, but I still think that it would be a good thing to have a base for a "perfect" system. You can then change things based on market demand. I don't mean that we should give this over to government, because as you say by the time that anything gets done, it will be obselete, but why not have the foundations solid and then we can work out other things along the way.The debate of profit vs non-profit is a bit of a red herring. There is nothing magical about non-profits; they still have to raise capital, they still have to pay their employees and maintenance and all the other costs of businesses. It's just a structure designed by bureaucrats to favor politically favored goals. It has nothing to do with actual cost controls or being somehow better or worse than for-profits.The reason I like the non-profit or Collective idea is that it takes away some of the greed that may come into play during the decision making time. Let's say that the hospital nets 100 million dollars. Well as a for profit hospital the shareholders are going to be excited and want to see a huge % of that money. Now in a collective, as I see it, you would look at that 100 million and divvy it up. Maybe 50% to reivestment (MRI equipment, updating the surgery room, whatever), you take 40% and spread it around to the people that helped make this happen (Doctors, nurses, employess), and then you take the remaining 10% and apply it to the people that are part of the collective (so you and I would get a credit going into the next year for our medical needs). I realize that this may just be a pipe dream and that is why I am trying to get criticism regarding this. I want to know if a system like this would work, but I am not in the medical field. i am a staff accountant and that is how my mind works.It's very possible that if we had free markets in medicine, that this would be one of the preferred structures for care. It may work, it may not. Nobody knows. It may work in small towns and not cities, or vice versa. Trying to claim that this (or anything else) is "The Solution", though, is totally silly. There is no "The Solution", only a bunch of people trying different things at their time and their place. One thing that is clear, though, the best way to stay as close as we can to some theoretical optimal solution is to allow the situation to change frequently as demanded by the end users (you and me). And historically, the only way to do that is to allow free markets to operate, free of the interference of arbitrary limitations of government regulation.One other note on "profits" -- if you look around the world, areas that allow profits to be as large as supply and demand allows live in luxury; areas that do not allow profits or direct them politically live in poverty and hardship. So no, anytime anyone starts talking about removing profits from [health care/oil/food/whatever], it's time to tell them where they can stick their Utopian fantasies.I don't think I was saying that no one should profit, I was saying that no one should profit so Grossly on such a broken system. I understand that you need to have profit to make things work in our free market economy, but it seems to me that when people take advantage of a system, that is where we need to step in and say NO MORE. I'm not sure what you mean by this.....I was talking about cancer and other big ticket items

[hblask 1]

Hmmm very interesting, but I still think that it would be a good thing to have a base for a "perfect" system. You can then change things based on market demand. I don't mean that we should give this over to government, because as you say by the time that anything gets done, it will be obselete, but why not have the foundations solid and then we can work out other things along the way.

But you are just repeating the fallacy: that there is a "perfect" system. There isn't. The problems in Montana are not the same as the problems in New York. In all of history, there is only one system that can adapt to those types of differences in real time: free markets. There is no single answer for all places and times and people. Acting like there is really causes a lot of harm; it's one of the reasons our system is as messed up as it is.

The reason I like the non-profit or Collective idea is that it takes away some of the greed that may come into play during the decision making time. Let's say that the hospital nets 100 million dollars. Well as a for profit hospital the shareholders are going to be excited and want to see a huge % of that money. Now in a collective, as I see it, you would look at that 100 million and divvy it up. Maybe 50% to reivestment (MRI equipment, updating the surgery room, whatever), you take 40% and spread it around to the people that helped make this happen (Doctors, nurses, employess), and then you take the remaining 10% and apply it to the people that are part of the collective (so you and I would get a credit going into the next year for our medical needs). I realize that this may just be a pipe dream and that is why I am trying to get criticism regarding this. I want to know if a system like this would work, but I am not in the medical field. i am a staff accountant and that is how my mind works.

First of all, all this amazing technology that you want to package as a non-profit or a collective only exists because of the free market. Think Yugo vs Corvette. One was the peak of technology under "non-profit" thinking, the other was created by the profit motive. Basically, you seem to be mingling two issues: corporate structure vs profit. Declaring something "non-profit" or "collective" doesn't remove the need for innovation, it doesn't remove the need for capital, it doesn't change anything except who the money goes to. There are examples of co-ops in existence in free markets. In certain cases, they can work quite well. I am all in favor of un-rigging the rules of health care so that co-ops can compete on a level footing with politically connected corporations. But just saying "we're a co-op" or "we're a non-profit" doesn't change the market dynamics of profitability or the incentives of anything, it just rearranges the profits slightly. For example, in a corporation, you may get a 100,000 shareholders sharing the profits of the hospital. Under a co-op, you may get 5000 people sharing the profits. Why is that better, theoretically speaking? How does that promote innovation and cost-saving? How does it ensure higher quality care? How does it do anything except change the specific people who benefit? Couldn't those people just buy shares of the corporation and get their profits that way? If corporations are more efficient, they would actually be better off than with a poorly run co-op. Claiming good intent doesn't solve problems, and sometimes just makes them worse.

I don't think I was saying that no one should profit, I was saying that no one should profit so Grossly on such a broken system. I understand that you need to have profit to make things work in our free market economy, but it seems to me that when people take advantage of a system, that is where we need to step in and say NO MORE.

If you are referring to companies gaming the system by bribing congress to pass favorable laws, then I agree, we need to eliminate that type of favoritism. Outside of that favoritism, how do people make big profits? Mainly, by providing services that consumers want -- you know, saving lives, curing diseases, stuff like that. Seems to me, that's a good thing.

I was talking about cancer and other big ticket items

That's the point of insurance -- all insurance, not just medical insurance. Big ticket items are the *only* sensible reason to buy insurance. Insurance for predictable, small expenses is silly. (Of course, our government requires us to buy it anyway, which is one of the primary areas we could use some reform).

[dapokerbum 0]

But you are just repeating the fallacy: that there is a "perfect" system. There isn't. The problems in Montana are not the same as the problems in New York. In all of history, there is only one system that can adapt to those types of differences in real time: free markets. There is no single answer for all places and times and people. Acting like there is really causes a lot of harm; it's one of the reasons our system is as messed up as it is.

I agree that there is no perfect system. however, I think we can develop a strong foundation for the system. So, you have a foundation that you then build on for New York and you take that same foundation and build what you need in Montana. The point being that there are certain things that have to be done that are harmonious and the rest you can build for whatever the state or city specifically needs. Or is that too difficult to come up with?

First of all, all this amazing technology that you want to package as a non-profit or a collective only exists because of the free market. Think Yugo vs Corvette. One was the peak of technology under "non-profit" thinking, the other was created by the profit motive. Basically, you seem to be mingling two issues: corporate structure vs profit. Declaring something "non-profit" or "collective" doesn't remove the need for innovation, it doesn't remove the need for capital, it doesn't change anything except who the money goes to. There are examples of co-ops in existence in free markets. In certain cases, they can work quite well. I am all in favor of un-rigging the rules of health care so that co-ops can compete on a level footing with politically connected corporations. But just saying "we're a co-op" or "we're a non-profit" doesn't change the market dynamics of profitability or the incentives of anything, it just rearranges the profits slightly. For example, in a corporation, you may get a 100,000 shareholders sharing the profits of the hospital. Under a co-op, you may get 5000 people sharing the profits. Why is that better, theoretically speaking? How does that promote innovation and cost-saving? How does it ensure higher quality care? How does it do anything except change the specific people who benefit? Couldn't those people just buy shares of the corporation and get their profits that way? If corporations are more efficient, they would actually be better off than with a poorly run co-op. Claiming good intent doesn't solve problems, and sometimes just makes them worse.

I get what you are saying. So maybe there is something that says that a certain percent of any profits need to go into redevelopment or into a new wing for the hospital. Or maybe you just need someone at the helm that is actually looking for the greater good instead of lining pockets of shareholders. I just think that there may be outside influences when you have a shareholder that is not directly involved in the hospital and he is only holding the share because he know that it makes money. In turn he could vote for things not because they favor the hospital, but because they favor his checking account. I think that when you have a vested interest in the company via a co-op or collective you are more in control of thinking what is best for the co-op and not necessarily yourself.

If you are referring to companies gaming the system by bribing congress to pass favorable laws, then I agree, we need to eliminate that type of favoritism. Outside of that favoritism, how do people make big profits? Mainly, by providing services that consumers want -- you know, saving lives, curing diseases, stuff like that. Seems to me, that's a good thing.

I'm not sure how to explain it ... let me think of a way.

That's the point of insurance -- all insurance, not just medical insurance. Big ticket items are the *only* sensible reason to buy insurance. Insurance for predictable, small expenses is silly. (Of course, our government requires us to buy it anyway, which is one of the primary areas we could use some reform).

I agree, why do I need insurance for a doctors visit. Why wouldn't I just pay him the $50 for the 15 minutes he sees me every year and devote the rest of my insurance paying just in case I get real sick.

[hblask 1]

I agree that there is no perfect system. however, I think we can develop a strong foundation for the system. So, you have a foundation that you then build on for New York and you take that same foundation and build what you need in Montana. The point being that there are certain things that have to be done that are harmonious and the rest you can build for whatever the state or city specifically needs. Or is that too difficult to come up with?

We used to have such a system. It was called "free markets". It's mostly gone now.

I get what you are saying. So maybe there is something that says that a certain percent of any profits need to go into redevelopment or into a new wing for the hospital. Or maybe you just need someone at the helm that is actually looking for the greater good instead of lining pockets of shareholders. I just think that there may be outside influences when you have a shareholder that is not directly involved in the hospital and he is only holding the share because he know that it makes money. In turn he could vote for things not because they favor the hospital, but because they favor his checking account. I think that when you have a vested interest in the company via a co-op or collective you are more in control of thinking what is best for the co-op and not necessarily yourself.

You keep implying that profits run counter to the greater good, but in all of history, there has never been a better measure of the greater good than profits. If you think about where profits come from in a non-rigged system, it comes from producing the things that consumers want most efficiently. If that happens to be health care, then they *should* make a huge profit. Also, the huge profit is a signal. Is says to investors "that chicken farm you are investing in and earning 3% is no longer a desirable product, because people are demanding more health care". So then, more money flows into health care, creating more competition, which drives down costs. In this way, all goods in the economy compete with all other goods. So now say you have a choice of investing in a chicken farm and earning 3%, or a health co-op, which gives you 10% return (based on the value assigned to the care you receive). Which do you pick? How is this different than just investing in hospital stock that pays 10% and just paying that way? Either way, the doctors are paid the same and have the same incentives to treat you, right? Doctors don't earn more or less because of the structure of the corporation they work for.

I agree, why do I need insurance for a doctors visit. Why wouldn't I just pay him the $50 for the 15 minutes he sees me every year and devote the rest of my insurance paying just in case I get real sick.

This is one of the primary problems with Obama-care -- it makes plans like that illegal. No more sensible insurance, you have to buy the Cadillac of insurance, whether it makes financial sense or not.

[dapokerbum 0]

We used to have such a system. It was called "free markets". It's mostly gone now.

That's like saying America is America because we are a "democracy". We are America because of the constitution and the rights that it gives to it's people. I am saying that we need to have some sort of "constitution" for the health care system and then they can build off of that for each city or state.

You keep implying that profits run counter to the greater good, but in all of history, there has never been a better measure of the greater good than profits. If you think about where profits come from in a non-rigged system, it comes from producing the things that consumers want most efficiently. If that happens to be health care, then they *should* make a huge profit. Also, the huge profit is a signal. Is says to investors "that chicken farm you are investing in and earning 3% is no longer a desirable product, because people are demanding more health care". So then, more money flows into health care, creating more competition, which drives down costs. In this way, all goods in the economy compete with all other goods. So now say you have a choice of investing in a chicken farm and earning 3%, or a health co-op, which gives you 10% return (based on the value assigned to the care you receive). Which do you pick? How is this different than just investing in hospital stock that pays 10% and just paying that way? Either way, the doctors are paid the same and have the same incentives to treat you, right? Doctors don't earn more or less because of the structure of the corporation they work for.

I guess what I am saying is there needs to be more control on what the profits pay for. If you buy an MRI machine and then continually take all the profits out of the company, when it comes time to replace your MRI machine you will have no capital in which to do this. I guess I am saying that there needs to be better business people in place at the hospitals. Maybe they already do this and I just don't know it. If they do then that is a good thing and I am all for your explanation and I am on your side. I just see so much greed that has overtaken so many corporations that I feel the same is true for hospitals.

This is one of the primary problems with Obama-care -- it makes plans like that illegal. No more sensible insurance, you have to buy the Cadillac of insurance, whether it makes financial sense or not.

And that is one of the primary reasons I am against it. We should be able to make the choice to have the health insurance that makes the most sense for the individual.

[akoff 0]

And that is one of the primary reasons I am against it. We should be able to make the choice to have the health insurance that makes the most sense for the individual.

We no longer tolerate individual anything in this country. BHO and his band of Czars will take care of all thinking from now on. Just shut the hell up and get in line the jackass party is in power.

[hblask 1]

I guess what I am saying is there needs to be more control on what the profits pay for. If you buy an MRI machine and then continually take all the profits out of the company, when it comes time to replace your MRI machine you will have no capital in which to do this. I guess I am saying that there needs to be better business people in place at the hospitals. Maybe they already do this and I just don't know it. If they do then that is a good thing and I am all for your explanation and I am on your side. I just see so much greed that has overtaken so many corporations that I feel the same is true for hospitals.

I think if we had open competition in the health care market, this problem would sort itself out. There are reasons for keeping money in a company, and reasons for giving it to shareholders. There is no magic formula that says x% is correct. In some instances, buying a new MRI machine may be the correct choice. In others, not so much. So how do we decide? By running 100 or 1000 or 10,000 independent test runs and seeing which one has the highest long-term profit -- the ultimate measure of meeting consumer demand. Unfortunately, right now, hospitals and insurance companies have so much political power that instead we may get one or two data points for a city of a million. Massive multi-story buildings to warehouse the sick are subsidized by the government. Would they exist without this government protection? If so, why give them an edge? If not, why do we want them? Maybe the model of a hundred little clinics is better? Right now, we wouldn't know. There is not a single area of medical care that is not distorted by intervention in voluntary consensual behavior. Why? So you want a framework? How about "let patients pursue their own self-interest free of the distortions of political favoritism. Let's try that for a decade or two and then, if we problems continue, then we can think about it some more. Historically, though, there's no reason to believe all major problems won't be solved quickly.There are a few areas that would still need discussion, and they are predictable. First is poverty -- what to do about the poor. There are many non-federal solutions to this problem. The second is pre-existing conditions. This one is extremely difficult.

[85suited 0]

Senator Coburn has highlighted the absurdity of the Senate's 2,074 page Health Care monstrosity: 0 — provisions guaranteeing taxpayers do not finance abortion0 — provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care0 — number of senators required to enroll in the new government-run plan8 — number of new taxes created in the bill, according to JCT analysis13 — pages in the bill’s table of contents20.8 – pounds the bill weighs printed out36 — pages in the CBO estimate of the price tag70 — government programs authorized by the bill1,697 — times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to create, determine, or define things in the bill2,074 — pages in the bill3,607 — uses of the word “shall” in the bill$6.8 million — cost to taxpayers per word24 million — people left without health insurance$1.2 billion — cost to taxpayers per page$5-$10 billion — additional funding needed for the IRS to implement the bill$8 billion —taxes levied on uninsured individuals$25 billion —additional Medicaid mandates placed on states$28 billion —new taxes on employers not providing government approved plans$100 billion — estimated annual fraud in Medicare and Medicaid$118 billion —cuts to Medicare Advantage$465 billion — total cuts to Medicare$494 billion — revenue from new taxes/fees levied on American families and businesses$2.5 trillion — cost for full implementation of the legislation$12 trillion — total U.S. national debt

[strategy 4]

.

[85suited 0]

Monday, November 30, 2009http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009....html">10,000 Unnecessary Cancer Deaths (in Britain) Another day, another exposé by a British newspaper about the failure of nationalized health care. This time, it's the left-wing The Guardian reflecting on how delays in cancer care cause 10,000 unnecessary deaths each year compared to other European countries:

Up to 10,000 people die needlessly of cancer every year because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. The figure is twice the previous estimate for preventable deaths....Britain is poor by international standards at diagnosing cancer. Richards's findings will add urgency to the NHS's efforts to improve early diagnosis....[Prof. Mike] Richards found that "late diagnosis was almost certainly a major contributor to poor survival in England for all three cancers", but also identified low rates of surgical intervention being received by cancer patients as another key reason for poor survival rates.Research by academics at Durham University led by Prof Greg Rubin has identified five types of delay in NHS cancer care: "patient delay", "doctor delay", "delay in primary care [at GPs' surgeries]", "system delay" and "delay in secondary care [at hospitals]"....

Since Britain's population is less than one-fifth that of the U.S., the equivalent number of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. would exceed 50,000. The U.S. has cancer survival rates which exceed even the better European countries, so that number may be higher.Keep that in mind the next time you hear Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and others throw around fictitious numbers about how many people die in the U.S. from lack of insurance. And this week as Harry Reid and the Democrats tout how Reid's plan will save families in the "non-group" market $500 on private insurance.Still nothing to see here, move along.

[brvheart 1,768]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...7-73718162.html

[hblask 1]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...7-73718162.html

It's NOT socialized medicine, it's NOT socialized medicine, it's NOT socialized medicine.(Is it true yet?)

[El Guapo 10]

Kaiser just raised my rates 22%, so when is this free medicine going to be available again?

[hblask 1]

Kaiser just raised my rates 22%, so when is this free medicine going to be available again?

This is probably part of the reason why -- making sure some of their costs are covered on the chance this horror passes:http://theconservatives.com/personal-liber...tal-system.html<h2 class="entry-title">Will Health Care Overhaul Destroy California's Hospital System?</h2> By Brian Faughnan | Nov 27, 11:43 AM The answer seems to be yes - unless either an immigration bill amnesties California's illegal immigrants, or California's Senators can keep demanding favors from the White House. From the Orange County Register:

Buried deep inside the 2,074-page Senate bill is a cut in so-called Disproportionate Share money for hospitals that treat more than their share of poor patients."I feel like I've visited every safety net hospital in California now,'' said DeParle, referring to her repeated conversations with Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein on this subject. DeParle said Reid did make some adjustments that will help these hospitals and she expects the two senators will push for more.What DeParle was less talkative about was the fact that a key reason hospitals in California will be potentially more vulnerable under this health reform is because of the way services to illegal immigrants is being handled.The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the Senate bill, an estimated eight million undocumented residents would be left uninsured.That means these folks will likely continue to get their medical care at emergency rooms. And given that California probably has more illegal immigrants than any other state, California hospitals are most at risk.The president, DeParle said, "thinks this is a health care bill, not an immigration bill.'' That's why he made it clear to immigrant advocates that they shouldn't expect anything in this bill.DeParle reiterated Obama's commitment to doing comprehensive reform. If an immigration bill is passed in the next year, that would still give millions of illegal immigrants time to come out from the shadows, get legal status before most health bill reforms take effect. They could then be eligible for government health subsidies and to buy policies in the new health exchanges, which don't start until 2014.DeParle also credited the two California senators with adding an extra year to the time the federal government will pay for the increases in Medicaid that are part of the Senate bill. Now states will be fully funded for that increase for three, not two years.

This is just one more of the 'shell games' Democrats are including in Obamacare. In this case, they're masking the true cost of the bill by assuming cuts in hospital aid that they promise will not go into effect. And why won't they go into effect? Because they promise that the illegal immigrants who receive emergency care now, will soon get the additional care afforded all legal residents.And if the immigration amnesty does not go through? Then Congress will have to decide whether to let California's hospitals go bankrupt, or increase the federal aid beyond what's called for in health care.In other words, the only way Congress can claim not to be hiding the true cost of health care is to insist they're willing to let the California hospital system collapse.Incidentally, this is a shrewd move to build more support for comprehensive immigration reform: anyone who has a stake in the fiscal health of California's health care system would be forced to root for an amnesty. The alternative might be disastrous.

[hblask 1]

Computing the real cost of this health care bargain:http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/...top-6-trillion/Basically, if you count all the hidden taxes and unfunded mandates, the actual cost of the Obama-care is $6 trillion. That's right, $6,000,000,000,000. That comes out to $44,000 per taxpayer. Such a bargain.Of course, BG will pay for about 10 or 20 of us, so it's OK, right?

[strategy 4]

.

[akoff 0]

Computing the real cost of this health care bargain:http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/...top-6-trillion/Basically, if you count all the hidden taxes and unfunded mandates, the actual cost of the Obama-care is $6 trillion. That's right, $6,000,000,000,000. That comes out to $44,000 per taxpayer. Such a bargain.Of course, BG will pay for about 10 or 20 of us, so it's OK, right?

Well this certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[85suited 0]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-in-a-battle-...s-78503217.htmlharry reid in for a battle