Universal Health Care is Not Free

[bonnie]

http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=372

Universal health care is not free

Government-run universal health care always becomes rationed health care!

There are many positive aspects to the American health care system. In fact, Minnesota has been ranked the healthiest state in the nation 11 out of the last 18 years. Even so, there are a number of people advocating a massive overhaul of our system to provide so-called universal health care. No one opposes covering everyone; the real question is, how can we best do it?

Those who think that the "sky is falling" in the health care arena argue that the only way to ensure that health care costs are contained and that all individuals have access to affordable health care is to put the government in charge. They claim that if the government ran the health care system, set the prices and paid all the bills, then everyone would get what they wanted and needed when they needed it, and it would be free!

Rationed care is unacceptable

But since when has anything ever been free? There is no instance in which a government has run a health care program more efficiently than the private sector. The only way universal health care can adequately address rising health care costs is by rationing care. Rationing of care is not an acceptable health care delivery principle, nor is it an appropriate way to contain heath care costs. Read about the often vaunted Canadian Health Care system from a physician who has lived and worked within that system.

Think about it! If you were diagnosed with cancer, would you go to a doctor who was the low bidder in providing your treatment? Universal care ensures that everyone gets the same care but it is all at a much lower level, in order to control the cost. Quality would be reduced to what everyone could afford. Doctors would be required to only use what the government determined was the "best practice" to treat your case, even if it didn't work for you. They would be punished by not being reimbursed for treatments that were not a "best practice."

Private fee-for-service prohibited

On top of all that, you would not be allowed to purchase treatments that would not otherwise be provided, because that would not be fair to those who could not afford to do so. This is called "private fee-for-service." Canadians and citizens of many other countries with universal coverage are not allowed to purchase additional care. That is why so many Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care, even though they have so-called "free" universal health care.

Health care is a complicated issue. There are a number of different solutions to address future challenges as our population continues to age. Health care will always be labor intensive and costly, because it is personalized to the individual. There are times in our life when we use a lot of health care and times when we don’t. The most important health care principle for the pro-life movement is that no one should be denied access to necessary, life preserving health care based on their quality of life.

Concerns with government-run, universal health care:

* Increasing eligibility for government programs won't ensure more adequate coverage

* The government has limited sources of revenue

* Abortion and its role in the health care crisis

* Government control of medical technology = Rationed care

* Real Life Rationing: A Short Course in Brain Surgery (see video below)

[carolaa]

Why all this fear mongering? People who want different care can still be free to choose it.

[bonnie]

Why all this fear mongering? People who want different care can still be free to choose it.

Another fine example of Semmelweis Reflex

Have you ever checked into the fine details of the Obama Health plan? You will not be choosing your own plan for long.

Insurance companies are not a non-profit industry. I know many just want the insurance companies to exist for their convenience and health needs,they need to make a profit to stay in business. The government does not need to make money,they only have to tax you more.

What employer do you think is going to be stupid enough to pay for employee's private insurance when they can dump that and force employee's on the public dole?

The employer can pay 8% of the insurance cost to the government and be done with it. Do you think they will pay upwards of 10,000.00?? conservatively or pay 8% of the cost.

Most business owners are not stupid and have a pretty good grasp of economics

Just think how much the general conference could save under that plan. Would they maintain the expense as it is now or pay the 8% and be done with it

[bonnie]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23853.html

[bonnie]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23853.html

The most potent threat to the Obama administration's fledgling health care plan may come not from the insurance industry or skeptical doctors but from the Congressional Budget Office. Photo: AP

The most potent threat to the Obama administration’s fledgling health care plan may come not from the insurance industry or skeptical doctors but from the Congressional Budget Office.

Earlier this week, CBO released preliminary estimates suggesting that the health care proposals — the most ambitious currently under discussion — from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would cost $1 trillion and trim the number of uninsured by only 16 million.

With a few more reports like this, CBO could quickly prove more damaging to the administration’s health care efforts than could Republican attacks about “socialized medicine.”

The last Democratic president found out the hard way. CBO proved a major thorn in President Bill Clinton’s side when his administration pushed health reform in 1993-94. Because of pay-as-you-go budget rules in place at the time, any new spending proposals had to be matched by offsetting cuts. CBO, under the directorship of the widely respected Robert Reischauer, repeatedly frustrated the administration by casting aspects of the plan in politically unappealing ways. Clinton’s proposed employer premiums were labeled a tax, which then-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour and legions of GOP lawmakers and candidates seized on to repeatedly bash the president.

Sixteen years later, the Obama administration is pushing an ambitious and expensive health care overhaul just months after enactment of its massive economic recovery program that has already caused the size of the budget to explode. As CBO estimates about the high cost of the health care proposal emerge in coming months, Republicans will continue to pound Democrats about the impact on the deficit — the one issue on which the GOP finally seems to be gaining some political traction.

And if the long-term CBO cost estimates climb too high, Republicans might be able to prevent Democrats from using the budget reconciliation process to protect health care from a filibuster in the fall.

The most profound challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care plan that CBO represents is its reputation for nonpartisan economic analysis. Once a figure is floated, it can be difficult for the administration to counteract politically. Trying to dispute technical details from CBO can quickly make voters’ eyes glaze over.

Obama can’t get trapped into a dry debate that is just about the numbers. Whatever form his final proposal takes, his best bet will be to keep public attention focused on the major objectives behind health care reform and the vital changes that will result from overhauling the system. This is what presidents can do well: shape the agenda and define a bill, rather than engage in an econometric numbers game with the experts huddled in CBO.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23853.html#ixzz0JO6tJG75&D

[carolaa]

Why not let the market play out? If companies want to hire the best and brightest, they will be happy to pay for their health insurance.

[Dr. Shane]

If a company provides its employees health insurance, should the employees have to pay income tax of the value of that insurance?

[bonnie]

Why not let the market play out? If companies want to hire the best and brightest, they will be happy to pay for their health insurance.

The best and brightest will have no better insurance than the dullest and lazy.

Insurance companies need to be a viable business. They make a profit. No profit,no private insurance.

You neglected to answer,Why should a employer pay thousands for a employee's insurance when he could pay 8% of that cost and stop providing it?

It isn't going to happen

[bonnie]

If a company provides its employees health insurance, should the employees have to pay income tax of the value of that insurance?

Even tho Obama sharply critized McCain for saying that,he now is

willing to look at it.

Increased revenue has to be gained with what this will cost for poorer health care

[carolaa]

If a company provides its employees health insurance, should the employees have to pay income tax of the value of that insurance?

That's a great question. I think Obama is showing that he is willing to compromise, so we'll see what they do. But I don't have an answer to your question. It would be nice if they didn't tax that perk, but other perks are taxed.

[lazarus]

http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=372

Universal health care is not free

It would be free at the point of access.

Quote:

Government-run universal health care always becomes rationed health care!

Ration: A fixed amount of a commodity officially allowed to a person during a time of shortage.

In my experience of the UK system each person received the amount of care that they required according to their need. To say universal health care always becomes rationed health care is a nice talking point but not supported by any facts.

My mother was able to go to a private doctor if she wanted to.

My sister opted to have a private health care plan.

I have known many people who have had options in the types of cancer treatments they could receive.

I have spent hours in ER's in Maryland 8+ felt like care was being rationed to me!

[bonnie]

Quote:

It would be free at the point of access.

A waiting list is not called freedom of choice and access.

Quote:

Ration: A fixed amount of a commodity officially allowed to a person during a time of shortage.

In my experience of the UK system each person received the amount of care that they required according to their need. To say universal health care always becomes rationed health care is a nice talking point but not supported by any facts.

Within the past year I watched a documentary on health care in the UK. It was not political in nature.

One issue that really comes to mind is the waiting list for some brought in by ambulance.It could span as long as 30 minutes. A wait that would have meant the death of my husband and myself on separate trips by ambulance.

I believe it is the UK that rations kidney dialysis. Over 70 years of age and tough bounce.

Some cancer treatments have been denied to some women recently.

During a round of many tests my husband received there were several of us at Abbott Northwestern(a well known hospital).

Some were not from the states. They were from countries such as Canada. Maybe you think they were there for the scenery.

Some were not eligible for the tests in their own country ,or the waiting list was dangerously slow for some.

I am sure there are some that will "pay" for private insurance where allowed but those that can't pay for it now

will not be able to pay for insurance then.

Quote:

My mother was able to go to a private doctor if she wanted to.

My sister opted to have a private health care plan.

I have known many people who have had options in the types of cancer treatments they could receive.

If you can afford private care while paying for "public" care at the same time,most can't.

Then you need to correct the reporters that for several days running ran with the news story of women being denied cancer drugs.

Quote:

I have spent hours in ER's in Maryland 8+ felt like care was being rationed to me!

Sometimes that can be true,I am sure. It is not a perfect system but then there isn't such a thing. I seriously doubt if you were critically ill as those are taken ahead of all others

[lazarus]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_health_care_better_in_canada.html

It is true that wait times for physician appointments and non-emergency surgery tend to be longer in Canada, which has a government-funded, universal health care system, than in the United States. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the U.S. For emergency physician visits, 23 percent of Canadians and 30 percent of Americans said they could get in to see the doctor the same day, but 23 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Canadians waited more than six days. Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans. In October 2007, the Fraser Institute, a Canada-based libertarian think tank, reported that Canadians waited an average of 18.3 weeks between seeing a general practitioner and getting surgery or treatment.

However, on most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer. It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care, rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries. (For instance, according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Canada has a much higher school enrollment rate than the U.S., though it also has a lower GDP per capita.) But these statistics simply don't support the notion that universal, single-payer health care is crippling the health of Canadian citizens compared with that of U.S. citizens.

[bonnie]

Quote:

It is true that wait times for physician appointments and non-emergency surgery tend to be longer in Canada, which has a government-funded, universal health care system, than in the United States. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the U.S. For emergency physician visits, 23 percent of Canadians and 30 percent of Americans said they could get in to see the doctor the same day, but 23 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Canadians waited more than six days. Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans. In October 2007, the Fraser Institute, a Canada-based libertarian think tank, reported that Canadians waited an average of 18.3 weeks between seeing a general practitioner and getting surgery or treatment.

However, on most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer. It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care, rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries. (For instance, according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Canada has a much higher school enrollment rate than the U.S., though it also has a lower GDP per capita.) But these statistics simply don't support the notion that universal, single-payer health care is crippling the health of Canadian citizens compared with that of U.S. citizens.

I can find as many if not more negative reports concerning the health care of Canada. I know personally some very negative stories concerning the wonders of Canadian medicine.

A cousin of mine lives right across the border from Washington. Want to take a guess where she goes for serious medical issues?

Regardless, why do you suppose we have many that come to the US from Canada for treatment they are either denied or placed on a long waiting list.

That you cannot deny. No one I know chooses to go to Canada or the UK for treatment they are denied here.

I didn't catch a whole lot of Obama's speech last night but there was a little phrase he dropped in there. Something to the effect of giving a pain pill instead of expensive surgery that people should pay attention to

He has also said that he wants to set the price of services to medicare and medicaid. How many DR's are going to continue to accept medicare or medicaid patients?

[bonnie]

At the time of extensive medical testing for my husband he was tentatively scheduled for a new surgical procedure.

We were at one of three hospitals that had the surgery available.

We could not go to Canada for the surgery as the Canadians were coming here.

Most new medical technology is in the US. Ever wonder why that is?

[lazarus]

We can all swap negative and positive stories about health care in different countries. The pointing is that longer waiting still leaves Canada with overall better outcomes. Can you post some facts to refute that?

Quote:

Most new medical technology is in the US. Ever wonder why that is?

I'm not saying that this not true but where did you get that from post a link please.

[bonnie]

We can all swap negative and positive stories about health care in different countries. The pointing is that longer waiting still leaves Canada with overall better outcomes. Can you post some facts to refute that?

Quote:

Most new medical technology is in the US. Ever wonder why that is?

I'm not saying that this not true but where did you get that from post a link please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/busine...and&emc=rss

Economic Scene

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation

Article Tools Sponsored By

By TYLER COWEN

Published: October 5, 2006

Advocates of national health insurance cite an apparently devastating fact: the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet Americans do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese. More Americans lack insurance coverage as well. It is no wonder that so many people demand reform.

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Maso

[lazarus]

Well that's interesting. Americans don't benefit from all that money spent on innovation and research because outcomes are less favorable in the US. Why is that?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well that's interesting. Americans don't benefit from all that money spent on innovation and research because outcomes are less favorable in the US. Why is that?

Maybe we need to reread

Quote:

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The US is the leader in medical innovation.

Quote:

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

Seems US is the leader again

Quote:

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Socialized medicine countries fund your own research. Quit leeching off and benefiting from our expense

Quote:

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

Doesn't sound like this is possible under universal health care.

Quote:

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

What is the problem with costing lives? Everyone will die sooner or later

Quote:

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

Maybe we could have a law that would force those from countries that have socialized medicine fend for themselves.

Leave ours alone so this is not true.......

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer

Seems the answer to your question is answered.

Quote:

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

Without our expense socialized countries may not fare so well.

Leave us to our estimates of increased life expectancy for cardiovascular disease.

Do their own research.Find there own new medical technology.

Quote:

(Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

Sounds like lifestyle choices determine the effectiveness of medical care and innovation. We are still in the lead

Quote:

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

Socialized countries solve your own medical problems and leave ours alone.

Universal health care is touted as the way to go. Do your own research and provide your own care so as not to come here and put more stress on ours. Besides many declare ours a failure.

Quote:

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

Frankly at times I wish we would stop or make it a lot more difficult for others to capitalize on our dime.

[lazarus]

This situation exists because in the US health care is not about health, its about profit. These companies are about making money from the innovation and therefore they will sell their products to wherever they need to. The situation in the US is worse than I thought. I thought you loved the free market?

Quote:

Socialized countries solve your own medical problems and leave ours alone.

These countries pay for it. It's part of the fair exchange of goods and services.

Quote:

Maybe we could have a law that would force those from countries that have socialized medicine fend for themselves.

What???? You want to make a law preventing American companies from selling their innovations to other countries. LOL. So much for your criticizing Obama for his interventionist policies. What happened to the constitution? LOL.

Sister, this is the free market at work.

Quote:

Frankly at times I wish we would stop or make it a lot more difficult for others to capitalize on our dime.

Again, these medical companies are not giving away their innovations. An alternative would be to have a system where Americans can have the same access to the same innovations that other countries provide.

[bonnie]

Quote:

]This situation exists because in the US health care is not about health, its about profit. These companies are about making money from the innovation and therefore they will sell their products to wherever they need to. The situation in the US is worse than I thought. I thought you loved the free market?

I guess that is the difference. I don't expect anyone to start a business and do so strictly for my benefit. Whether it be my health,my employment or my enjoyment.

I am not sure who you are saying "they will sell their product to wherever needed"

I would hope they would be smart enough to go where there is a market.

I do like the free market,nothing about government control enhances free market.

Quote:

These countries pay for it. It's part of the fair exchange of goods and services.

Fair exchange means to me the same quality of care I receive now for paying higher taxes. Ain't going to happen. Thought it rather amusing Obama could not commit to dropping the excellent medical coverage he now enjoys and accepting what he wants the citizens of the US will have shoved at them

Quote:

What???? You want to make a law preventing American companies from selling their innovations to other countries. LOL. So much for your criticizing Obama for his interventionist policies. What happened to the constitution? LOL.

Yes, there are days I would like to see just that. Push comes to shove with those that want to take and take and complain and complain I would still want to see the constitution upheld.

Quote:

Sister, this is the free market at work.

No, what is at work now and will be more so in the very near future is the government market at work.

Quote:

Again, these medical companies are not giving away their innovations. An alternative would be to have a system where Americans can have the same access to the same innovations that other countries provide.

There are some that believe the medical companies should in fact give away their innovations. I don't. Anymore than I choose to give my work away.

Don't know about other americans but I do have acess to the innovations of the US

[bonnie]

I wonder if you were asked the same question as put to Obama what your Honest answer would be.

If you have similar problems as my husband faced,repeated strokes without apparent cause,needing dozens of test to try to correct a problem that would take his life. Would you go to Canada,Europe,Germany,Cuba etc for the tests and required care,expecting to be seen in a timely manner?

Or would you stay in the US for the needed care?

Even tho those nasty medical companies won't give away their technology and you will have to pay for them would you go elsewhere and be put on the waiting list?

Obama is not willing to give his up,politicans for this will not be giving up theirs. Why do you suppose that is as they tell you what a great life saving bill this would be?

[carolaa]

Not many people have as good of a health plan as the President and Congress. They haven't done much to earn it, and yet we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for it. I think we should press them a little on this subject. Why should public servants get such a grand perk? (Not to mention their lifetime salary, but that's another topic.) Think of all the better things that could be done with that money. Besides that, many of those people were wealthy before they got to Washington and could easily pay for their own healthcare plan (and retirement).

[bonnie]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politi...3-48810402.html

Union workers would be exempt from Dem health care tax

By: Susan Ferrechio

Chief Congressional Correspondent

06/22/09 7:53 PM EDT

The best chance for compromise legislation on health care may be a plan under construction in the Senate Finance Committee that would pay for a public plan in part by taxing some worker health benefits.

But the union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax.

With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.

Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.

But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion.

Union workers enjoy some of the most extensive and costliest health benefits, and union officials complained their members would be unfairly burdened by a health care tax because their contracts cannot be changed quickly enough to avoid it.

Union members also represent one of the biggest and most powerful Democratic constituencies and their support of any health care reform proposal is viewed as essential to getting a bill passed in Congress.

Baucus has proposed the tax threshold on health care benefits be set higher than the cost of policies available to federal employees and he has proposed exempting until 2013 those plans negotiated as part of union contracts.

“It’s a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” said Henry Aaron, a health care policy expert at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Critics of the Baucus proposal to exempt unions from a health care benefits tax said the exclusion could be used to lure into unions employees who are anxious to avoid the benefits tax.

Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute, said excluding union benefits is also practical.

“The reality is, unions are in the position where they are going to get hit the hardest on that tax, and they just can’t change it on a dime like everyone else,” Fronstin said.

Baucus is said to be considering a delay for everyone, not just unions.

“And there is precedent for that,” Fronstin said. “When the Clinton health plan was put on the table in 1993, the effective date was 1998. It was giving the industry time to implement whatever adjustments they needed to make.”