Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate, By East TN man.

[Guest jwb68]

You assume he is privileged. Maybe he just works and takes care of his own business. We are not victims of out circumstances.

Tort reform and remove insurance restrictions. The reason these companies can drop anyone they want is becasue they have a suedo monopolies. They don't have to compete with out of state companies and their packages are restricted to mandates. If I could truly shop for what I want I guarantee I could get a better deal.

On a side note, get an HSA and learn what insurance freedom could be. Unless you already have a lot of health issues it can't be beat. UNder $100 a month for me and under $300 for my whole family and I can go to any doctor I want and can negotiate price (usually a 1/3 of billed) becasue I'm considered a cash customer.

I didn't assume he was privileged. He told me he was no longer poor re-read his post. Some people are a victim of circumstances and some people are able to better themselves under the same circumstances. It is funny how that happens. Luck, divine intervention call it what you want to but it is not ONLY hard work although that goes far. You still have to catch some breaks. I just hate the lack of compassion and condescension that gets injected in this issue. Not everyone that doesn't have insurance is a bum or slacker or loser. Some just cant get insured no matter what their circumstances.

HSAs are great. I changed jobs a year ago and had to give mine up. They are not a good option for someone that has alot of monthly expenses though. I wonder what they will look like when someone in their 20s keeps it till they retire. If it grows they are in good shape. It it nose dives like my 401k did last year they wont be. How did that work with kids? Kids are at the doctor so much I figured you might run out of money.

Removing restrictions is a good start. If by tort reform you mean capping awards I am not sure that is a good idea. Doctors do kill people. Its a fact. Not every mistake a doctor makes though should be a lottery ticket for the patient or her family. A dialogue needs to happen between the attorneys, congress and the doctors. Declaring a crisis and a government take over is not the answer.

Edited August 18, 2009 by jwb68

[Mark@Sea]

There are many that do not have the opportunities you do or had. All I am suggesting is that you give it a little more thought than a slogan that might look good on a T-shirt.

Last I heard, recruiters were still open for business. Matter of fact, these days they give some pretty healthy bonuses. I suspect that as ones' willingness to work increases, ones' opportunities bloom accordingly.

[Guest jwb68]

Like I said

[Smith]

I didn't assume he was privileged. He told me he was no longer poor re-read his post. Some people are a victim of circumstances and some people are able to better themselves under the same circumstances. It is funny how that happens. Luck, divine intervention call it what you want to but it is not ONLY hard work although that goes far. You still have to catch some breaks. I just hate the lack of compassion and condescension that gets injected in this issue. Not everyone that doesn't have insurance is a bum or slacker or loser. Some just cant get insured no matter what their circumstances.

HSAs are great. I changed jobs a year ago and had to give mine up. They are not a good option for someone that has alot of monthly expenses though. I wonder what they will look like when someone in their 20s keeps it till they retire. If it grows they are in good shape. It it nose dives like my 401k did last year they wont be. How did that work with kids? Kids are at the doctor so much I figured you might run out of money.

Removing restrictions is a good start. If by tort reform you mean capping awards I am not sure that is a good idea. Doctors do kill people. Its a fact. Not every mistake a doctor makes though should be a lottery ticket for the patient or her family. A dialogue needs to happen between the attorneys, congress and the doctors. Declaring a crisis and a government take over is not the answer.

Compassion is not keeping people in slavery to their circumstances but showing them the way out.

The only way to be considered "compassionate" is to agree with the liberals. Any argument against them is seen as condescension. Explain how that works.

Truth be known, the biggest problem with social reform is we can't call a spade a spade. If it weren't for the free loaders and users Social Security, Medicare, etc would work. Problem is it ignores the reality of human nature. People are the problem, not some inhuman program. Are there people on these programs that are legit? Of course, but they are no where near the majority, nor are the problem.

[Guest jwb68]

Compassion is not keeping people in slavery to their circumstances but showing them the way out.

The only way to be considered "compassionate" is to agree with the liberals. Any argument against them is seen as condescension. Explain how that works.

Truth be known, the biggest problem with social reform is we can't call a spade a spade. If it weren't for the free loaders and users Social Security, Medicare, etc would work. Problem is it ignores the reality of human nature. People are the problem, not some inhuman program. Are there people on these programs that are legit? Of course, but they are no where near the majority, nor are the problem.

There is not one thing here I disagree with except that you have to be a liberal to be compassionate. You are right people are broken. That IS the problem. I would suggest that having no program in place is as bad as having too many. It is just a different extreme.

[Guest thorn]

There is not one thing here I disagree with except that you have to be a liberal to be compassionate. You are right people are broken. That IS the problem. I would suggest that having no program in place is as bad as having too many. It is just a different extreme.

But bringing something that is successful is all that I'd ask. To simply continue or further loot is what I reject. In your words you some how have the ability to ignore all that is already controlled and affected by those that are at the core of what is wrong. Finding a pedestal for you to take issue with one thing that you feel is worthwhile while in turn supporting so much that is wrong is only further example of the problems we face.

Edited August 18, 2009 by thorn

[E4 No More]

To answer your questions in reverse order, the whole idea of insurance is that it is possible to make money based on the statistical certainty that more customers will buy it than actually need it. If, statistically speaking, you are very likely to need it, then you aren't getting insurance (unless your insurer is really stupid), you're paying for the liability in advance.

I've driven semi's, motorcycles, cars and light trucks since I was 15 years old. Not once have I been involved in an accident that was my own fault, but I have been in one that was the other drivers' fault. Happily, for the purpose of this topic, he was uninsured. So you might say that I've paid auto insurance for 30 years to cover some bum who a) couldn't drive and didn't make the financially prudent choice of obtaining insurance against the likely consequences of his inability to operate a motor vehicle. The result was that my insurer gave me nowhere near the amount of money needed to replace my vehicle.

You think I'm happy about this? You seriously think this enhances your argument? Not so, young jedi.

Go back and re-read what I posted. I will not condescend with Star Wars references, but I will point out the fact that I am a political centrist who generally votes Republican to ward off the inevitable accusation of me being a liberal.

The uninsured person who plowed into you did not conform to law, insurance wasn't a priority for him, and you ended up paying the bill for failures via your insurance company. You clearly were not pleased by this.

I have read many posts on various forums from people who do not "need or want" health insurance. Those are the very people who get sick or injured and go to the ER for treatment when something unexpected happens to them. Then when the costs get too much for them they declare bankruptcy. Do you think the hospitals and doctors eat that money? Oh, they write it off as a loss on their taxes, but they also recoup it elsewhere. They do that by charging more to others who do not have a contractual fee schedule. The $60 Tylenol is an example. Then there are the illegal aliens crossing the borders to avail themselves of free healthcare at our ERs.

Insurance companies do their own thing to drive up costs. A healthcare provider has to employ more staff than should be necessary just to handle getting the provider reimbursed from the insurance companies. They pass those costs off too with higher charges as well.

There are many challenges facing the healthcare industry, and the above are just a few: however, I have seen no one from the right side of the aisle doing squat during the past eight years to rectify the situation. This is just one example of why we were stuck with Obummer. Now the right wants to come out like they have all the right ideas? Come on! They had their chance and did nothing.

As I’ve stated before, I do not think this is the final bill: however, I do believe that we will pay the cost for the inaction of the Republican leadership. It's the price we pay for having a silent majority in this country.

Edited August 18, 2009 by SWJewellTN

[Mark@Sea]

How you vote is a personal choice. Not really any of my business.

With 20 to 30 million illegal aliens in the country, and ER's required by federal law to treat anyone walking in the door, the hospital has little choice - pad the bills of the insured to cover the uninsured, or go out of business.

I note the current version(s) of the bill don't require the illegals to buy insurance. This is actually fairly intelligent, since there is little doubt that they would pay as much attention to such a requirement as they did to immigration requirements.

I've now heard two reasons to dun everyone for health insurance - Yours (that everyone will need it eventually, and it is the ones that don't have it that are making it more expensive for the rest of us) and the other version: It will increase the 'pool' of insureds, allowing costs to decrease for all.

I still haven't heard the version that explains how, in this country, forcing someone to buy something they don't want, is a plus for individual liberty. I still haven't heard a version that explains how this won't lead to single-payer (gov't provided) healthcare, or one that explains how, if we just pass such a bill, our experience won't be the same as every other country that has socialized medicine.

Shoot, I still haven't seen someone point to the part of the Constitution that even makes this the business of Congress in the first place.

What I have seen, lately, is that the silent majority isn't so silent anymore. I've seen that people are getting downright fed up with politicians looting the treasury. I think we've got a long way to go before this dog and pony show plays out.

[Guest thorn]

Go back and re-read what I posted. I will not condescend with Star Wars references, but I will point out the fact that I am a political centrist who generally votes Republican to ward of the inevitable accusation of me being a liberal.

Pretty much so I agree, but you say that people shouldn't be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want or need. So I ask you, would you feel the same if somone without auto insurance plows into your vehicle? They don't want it, and they don't need it until it's too late. Yet the government mandates that you have auto insurance to drive a car, (with unquestionable lack of effectiveness).

People shouldn't be forced to pay for what they don't want but have a responsability to pay for what they use or take. The inherent flaw is already in the government itself.

Isn't the whole idea of insurance is that you pay into a pool so that it's there when you need it? So would you agree with the guy in his 20's who has no health insurance, because, "He doesn't need or want it" who goes out mountain biking, cracks his skull open causing brain-damage, goes to the ER who cannot legally turn him away, which is followed up by him declaring bankruptcy because he can't, or won't, pay the hospital bill?

This same person may never have paid enough to pay for his injuries yet he may have been able to afford not to work or take mountain bike trips to South America, Australia, or... how can you give one without taking the other?

The uninsured person who plowed into you did not conform to law, insurance wasn't a priority for him, and you ended up paying the bill for failures via your insurance company. You clearly were not pleased by this.

Clearly the success of paying for something for himself.

I have read many posts on various forums from people who do not "need or want" health insurance. Those are the very people who get sick or injured and go to the ER for treatment when something unexpected happens to them. Then when the costs get too much for them they declare bankruptcy. Do you think the hospitals and doctors eat that money? Oh, they write it off as a loss on their taxes, but they also recoup it elsewhere. They do that by charging more to others who do not have a contractual fee schedule. The $60 Tylenol is an example. Then there are the illegal aliens crossing the borders to avail themselves of free healthcare at our ERs.

They do this because they have to, the affect is what follows.

Insurance companies do their own thing to drive up costs. A healthcare provider has to employ more staff than should be necessary just to handle getting the provider reimbursed from the insurance companies. They pass those costs off too with higher charges as well.

And more government will not cost more?

There are many challenges facing the healthcare industry, and the above are just a few: however, I have seen no one from the right side of the aisle doing squat during the past eight years to rectify the situation. This is just one example of why we were stuck with Obummer. Now the right wants to come out like they have all the right ideas? Come on! They had their chance and did nothing.

You're right about the "right" but in comparison you ignore the numbers and further enable. The right always promises smaller Government but it always grows. They write Bills while heavy handedly taking rights, sometimes slow and sometimes fast.

Looking to fix what is created is not going to stop anything.

As I’ve stated before, I do not think this is the final bill: however, I do believe that we will pay the cost for the inaction of the Republican leadership. It's the price we pay for having a silent majority in this country.

We have to pay for inaction the same as action but only have so much to pay with whether it be money, liberty or freedom - there is a limit to all.

None of this is about "party" but in general the Democrat Party is greatly represented by it's elected officials while the Republican is not. The ownership does not solely lie in the officials but in the people as well.

[E4 No More]

How you vote is a personal choice. Not really any of my business.

With 20 to 30 million illegal aliens in the country, and ER's required by federal law to treat anyone walking in the door, the hospital has little choice - pad the bills of the insured to cover the uninsured, or go out of business.

I note the current version(s) of the bill don't require the illegals to buy insurance. This is actually fairly intelligent, since there is little doubt that they would pay as much attention to such a requirement as they did to immigration requirements.

I've now heard two reasons to dun everyone for health insurance - Yours (that everyone will need it eventually, and it is the ones that don't have it that are making it more expensive for the rest of us) and the other version: It will increase the 'pool' of insureds, allowing costs to decrease for all.

I still haven't heard the version that explains how, in this country, forcing someone to buy something they don't want, is a plus for individual liberty. I still haven't heard a version that explains how this won't lead to single-payer (gov't provided) healthcare, or one that explains how, if we just pass such a bill, our experience won't be the same as every other country that has socialized medicine.

Shoot, I still haven't seen someone point to the part of the Constitution that even makes this the business of Congress in the first place.

What I have seen, lately, is that the silent majority isn't so silent anymore. I've seen that people are getting downright fed up with politicians looting the treasury. I think we've got a long way to go before this dog and pony show plays out.

Agreed, but give them time and they'll go back to sleep. It's the "American Way" isn't it?

As far as the earlier statement concerning the problem of the uninsured, I think we should not allow Americans to bankrupt out of reasonable medical bills. That would not include the over-priced Tylenol or any other inflated charge for service. Those charges should be moderated by a 3rd party based on actual pay-outs to providers in a "Fair Market Value" manner. Securing our borders from illegal entry would certainly curtail part of the problem, but also not requiring hospitals to treat undocumented people with the exception for true, life-threatening, emergency treatment would help as well.

I would open up health insurance to Interstate commerce, and let them live or die on their product, but I'd also regulate their ability to drop people who become too sick, and set guidelines for whom can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. In other words, if they take that "bet" then they follow through with the consequences. I would regulate their ability to play their games with provider reimbursement, but I would also crack down on provider and consumer fraud.

I think that'd be a good start.

[E4 No More]

Go back and re-read what I posted. I will not condescend with Star Wars references, but I will point out the fact that I am a political centrist who generally votes Republican to ward of the inevitable accusation of me being a liberal.

People shouldn't be forced to pay for what they don't want but have a responsability to pay for what they use or take. The inherent flaw is already in the government itself. Agreed, but the flaw is enforcement. See above post.

This same person may never have paid enough to pay for his injuries yet he may have been able to afford not to work or take mountain bike trips to South America, Australia, or... how can you give one without taking the other? That's part of the "bet" the insurance company makes, isn't it? Both sides should be accountable. Without regulation, neither are accountable.

Clearly the success of paying for something for himself. Yes, and also the lack of enforcement.

They do this because they have to, the affect is what follows. In some case, yes, but not all.

And more government will not cost more? Lesser of two evils? Example: If government intervention costs $1,000,000,000, but saves $2,000,000,000, do we not net positive $1,000,000,000?

You're right about the "right" but in comparison you ignore the numbers and further enable. The right always promises smaller Government but it always grows. They write Bills while heavy handedly taking rights, sometimes slow and sometimes fast.

Looking to fix what is created is not going to stop anything. Patch-fixes rarely work, so that means it's not a one-sided solution. The entire system needs to be revamped.

We have to pay for inaction the same as action but only have so much to pay with whether it be money, liberty or freedom - there is a limit to all. Agreed, which is why we must select the lesser of two evils.

None of this is about "party" but in general the Democrat Party is greatly represented by it's elected officials while the Republican is not. The ownership does not solely lie in the officials but in the people as well.

Oh, I certainly agree there, which is why I abhor the silent majority in this country. If they would just get off their a$$es for more than a few minutes to become involved in all politics, there are many problems in this country that could be settled once and for all.

[USMCJG]

Example: If government intervention costs $1,000,000,000, but saves $2,000,000,000, do we not net positive $1,000,000,000?

I'm glad I have health insurance because I think I busted my gut laughing when I read that.

[Guest thorn]

Oh, I certainly agree there, which is why I abhor the silent majority in this country. If they would just get off their a$$es for more than a few minutes to become involved in all politics, there are many problems in this country that could be settled once and for all.

I disagree with you on every premise above.

Agreed, but the flaw is enforcement. See above post. The cause is looking to the government for your needs. The flaw is the involvement of the inept.

That's part of the "bet" the insurance company makes, isn't it? Both sides should be accountable. Without regulation, neither are accountable. Accountability of one should never be the burden of another. Without the insurance the burden would've been the victims - with the insurance the burden was the insurers. I can't use the perp as a example or standard.

Yes, and also the lack of enforcement. There will never be a balance between accidents and irresponsibility to planning and success. No government has ever done this. It's a good dream but...

In some case, yes, but not all. You look for a shift in balance where the net affect will only shift burden. It is only a good example of why America is the best there is - That's all.

Lesser of two evils? Example: If government intervention costs $1,000,000,000, but saves $2,000,000,000, do we not net positive $1,000,000,000? Set aside reality, never mind the cost and consider this - if the government puts you in a cocoon with no freedoms to move and pumps you full of engineered food guaranteeing health and longevity, is it cheaper in the long run?

Patch-fixes rarely work, so that means it's not a one-sided solution. The entire system needs to be revamped. Patch-fixes rarely work but patch infringement does? How do you think we got here?

Agreed, which is why we must select the lesser of two evils. Voting for McCain was the lesser of two evils. It was a mistake made long before the election and there were patches that would've fixed that.

Oh, I certainly agree there, which is why I abhor the silent majority in this country. If they would just get off their a$$es for more than a few minutes to become involved in all politics, there are many problems in this country that could be settled once and for all. None of this is about a "silent majority" it is about a forced acceptance of all the examples given. Looking back in retrospect it's easy to see that it was the wrong thing to do, but to continue to accept your notions would be in fact the same.

Edited August 18, 2009 by thorn

[E4 No More]

I'm glad I have health insurance because I think I busted my gut laughing when I read that.

I'm sure your insurance company laughs at you too.

[E4 No More]

I disagree with you on every premise above.

The cause is looking to the government for your needs. The flaw is the involvement of the inept.

Accountability of one should never be the burden of another.

There will never be a balance between accidents and irresponsibility to planning and success. No government has ever done this. It's a good dream but...

You look for a shift in balance where the net affect will only shift burden. It is only a good example of why America is the best there is - That's all.

Never mind the cost and consider this - if the government puts you in a cocoon with no freedoms to move and pumps you full of engineered food guaranteeing health and longevity, is it cheaper in the long run?

Patch-fixes rarely work but patch infringement does? How do you think we got here?

Voting for McCain was the lesser of two evils. It was a mistake made long before the election and there were patches that would've fixed that.

None of this is about a "silent majority" it is about a forced acceptance of all the examples given. Looking back in retrospect it's easy to see that it was the wrong thing to do, but to continue to accept your notions would be in fact the same.

Where did I give the idea that I am in favor of government run healthcare? The idea is not the problem; it's the implementation. Politics will F'up a good idea in a heartbeat. But what most here seem to not recognize is that the problem was allowed to continue through the administrations of both Democrat and Republican. Where was the outrage before? Why wait until things are so screwed up that they cannot be set straight without major intervention? Where's the frigg'n logic in that? The silent majority has no one to blame but their selves.

EDIT: Isn't it nice to live in a country where we are free to disagree?

Edited August 18, 2009 by SWJewellTN

[Guest thorn]

Where did I give the idea that I am in favor of government run healthcare? The idea is not the problem; it's the implementation. Politics will F'up a good idea in a heartbeat. But what most here seem to not recognize is that the problem was allowed to continue through the administrations of both Democrat and Republican. Where was the outrage before? Why wait until things are so screwed up that they cannot be set straight without major intervention? Where's the frigg'n logic in that? The silent majority has no one to blame but their selves.

EDIT: Isn't it nice to live in a country where we are free to disagree?

There is much to blame on all that voted for Obama and his cronies. It's not even reasonable to blame the "silent majority" for that.

[Guest thorn]

EDIT: Isn't it nice to live in a country where we are free to disagree? Yeah, so long as you know that I'm the one that's right

[Guest jwb68]

But bringing something that is successful is all that I'd ask. To simply continue or further loot is what I reject. In your words you some how have the ability to ignore all that is already controlled and affected by those that are at the core of what is wrong. Finding a pedestal for you to take issue with one thing that you feel is worthwhile while in turn supporting so much that is wrong is only further example of the problems we face.

And you propose to fix human nature how? A solution is what? Or are we going to bitch and moan about "big government" and instead of letting the govenment bankrupt us we are going to let insurance companies bankrupt us instead. It is a fact that health costs are out of control and will continue to rise as the boomers live longer lives and suck more of the resource. Health Care is like anything else it is finite. Saying the system is so broken it cant be fixed is the same thing as Obama's solution. Both "solutions" are B.S.

[Smith]

And you propose to fix human nature how? A solution is what? Or are we going to bitch and moan about "big government" and instead of letting the govenment bankrupt us we are going to let insurance companies bankrupt us instead. It is a fact that health costs are out of control and will continue to rise as the boomers live longer lives and suck more of the resource. Health Care is like anything else it is finite. Saying the system is so broken it cant be fixed is the same thing as Obama's solution. Both "solutions" are B.S.

Cost are not high becasue insurance companies are gouging us. Cost are controlled by the providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) The Medicare sets below market price for their services and the providers have to accept it. They recoup the losses from insurance companies and cash payers. In addition providers can not turn away emergency medical assistance, which also gets passed on. You also have to factor in insurance that doctors have to pay. I had a friend who was an OBGYN/Gen Prac and used to do deliveries. She went to general practice becasue she was paying $250K per year for liability as a OB. In Gen she still had to pay $25K. Tort reform would cut billions out of the cost of health care immediately and get us to where we could reasonably discuss the other issues.

[USMCJG]

Where did I give the idea that I am in favor of government run healthcare? The idea is not the problem; it's the implementation. Politics will F'up a good idea in a heartbeat. But what most here seem to not recognize is that the problem was allowed to continue through the administrations of both Democrat and Republican. Where was the outrage before? Why wait until things are so screwed up that they cannot be set straight without major intervention? Where's the frigg'n logic in that? The silent majority has no one to blame but their selves.

That's the problem right there. The facts don't support the argument. The number of uninsured among all demographics, with the exception of latinos(read: illegal aliens)has gone down over the last few years. At least it has according to the very same Census report that is being used to justify this power grab disguised as desperately needed legislation.

Why is everyone just now becoming outraged because of the cost of health care and the "broken" system? Because the administration and the media are just now telling them that the system is irreparably broken and that they should be outraged. The problem is more an invention of the media than it is an actual problem. Sure, there are problems with the system. But none of them will ever be solved by a huge and inevitably completely government controlled system.

Based on the latest census the real percentage of the population who are uninsured(not counting illegals and those who would rather spend their money on other things- people who make a lot more money than me yet somehow cannot afford health insurance when I pay for mine out of my own pocket)is around 6.67%. And that is a pretty generous estimate. The real number of people who are uninsurable or cannot afford health insurance and are not covered by medicare or medicaid is probably even smaller than that.

Even if the numbers being thrown around were entirely accurate, the number affected would be less than 20%. I don't see any reason for the government to intervene in private industry to protect <20% at the ultimate expense of the other >80%. Not to mention the fact that the government has no legal, Constitutional right to do it in the first place. For those that have insurance but think they are paying too much for it, you can thank the government for that. As has been said and ignored many times before, increased government intervention that reduces competition will always drive up costs. Tort reform would also have a drastic and nearly immediate impact on insurance costs. But can you imagine a bunch of lawyers(aka Congress) voting in favor of something that could actually adversely effect them and their peers, even if it was in the best interest of the people they "represent"?

Cliff

Edited August 18, 2009 by USMCJG

[E4 No More]

There is much to blame on all that voted for Obama and his cronies. It's not even reasonable to blame the "silent majority" for that.

That is complete to say that. It's the silent majority's unwillingness to rise up and disgard the two party system that is precisely to blame.

[E4 No More]

EDIT: Isn't it nice to live in a country where we are free to disagree? Yeah, so long as you know that I'm the one that's right

Hilarious!

Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.

[E4 No More]

Cost are not high becasue insurance companies are gouging us. Cost are controlled by the providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) The Medicare sets below market price for their services and the providers have to accept it. They recoup the losses from insurance companies and cash payers. In addition providers can not turn away emergency medical assistance, which also gets passed on. You also have to factor in insurance that doctors have to pay. I had a friend who was an OBGYN/Gen Prac and used to do deliveries. She went to general practice becasue she was paying $250K per year for liability as a OB. In Gen she still had to pay $25K. Tort reform would cut billions out of the cost of health care immediately and get us to where we could reasonably discuss the other issues.

While I agree about tort reform, I completely disagree with your first statement. Working with insurance companies and having CIGNA employees as patients has proven you incorrect.

[Smith]

What is a reasonable profit margin?

[E4 No More]

That's the problem right there. The facts don't support the argument. The number of uninsured among all demographics, with the exception of latinos(read: illegal aliens)has gone down over the last few years. At least it has according to the very same Census report that is being used to justify this power grab disguised as desperately needed legislation.

Why is everyone just now becoming outraged because of the cost of health care and the "broken" system? Because the administration and the media are just now telling them that the system is irreparably broken and that they should be outraged. The problem is more an invention of the media than it is an actual problem. Sure, there are problems with the system. But none of them will ever be solved by a huge and inevitably completely government controlled system.

Based on the latest census the real percentage of the population who are uninsured(not counting illegals and those who would rather spend their money on other things- people who make a lot more money than me yet somehow cannot afford health insurance when I pay for mine out of my own pocket)is around 6.67%. And that is a pretty generous estimate. The real number of people who are uninsurable or cannot afford health insurance and are not covered by medicare or medicaid is probably even smaller than that.

Even if the numbers being thrown around were entirely accurate, the number affected would be less than 20%. I don't see any reason for the government to intervene in private industry to protect <20% at the ultimate expense of the other >80%. Not to mention the fact that the government has no legal, Constitutional right to do it in the first place. For those that have insurance but think they are paying too much for it, you can thank the government for that. As has been said and ignored many times before, increased government intervention that reduces competition will always drive up costs. Tort reform would also have a drastic and nearly immediate impact on insurance costs. But can you imagine a bunch of lawyers(aka Congress) voting in favor of something that could actually adversely effect them and their peers, even if it was in the best interest of the people they "represent"?

Cliff

You know what they say about statistics?

I knew there were major problems with health insurance long before Obama ran for the Senate. I learned that when I was in practice.

But I'm done arguing. I'll not change your minds, and you certainly have not presented any evidence to contradict my experiences. So let's agree to disagree.