Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes

November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
November 13th, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

National health care is good


Saturday, October 24, 2009 7:13 AM PDT

I have hesitated to write because of the vociferous attacks regarding President Obama's health proposals and the people who support them.

When I came to America in 1963, I was shocked that the richest country in the world didn't have a national health insurance plan. England has had this since 1948.

Individuals can be found to denigrate the health plans of Europe, Scandinavia and Canada, but universal care is something demanded by the majority of citizens. I take umbrage to the misinformation aimed at Britain's national health plan.

My brother, 66 years old (now retired) and living in England, worked for a funeral home. His employer voluntarily paid private health insurance of $182 a month. He recently had a heart attack. He was rushed to the emergency room in an ambulance where he received immediate attention. He had a stent put in and returned home as soon as he was well enough, had visits from the health nurse, was monitored and had follow-up visits with his surgeon. The medications he recited sounded the same as those prescribed in America.

National health covered all the costs. However, his employer's private insurance company sent him a check for $1,400 because he used National Health. Many private insurance companies in England will not cover existing conditions or illnesses brought on by those conditions. Some will cover existing conditions but they pay very little.

Some years ago my daughter had an operation in England. She was hospitalized for five days, had a nurse visit at my brother's home to change dressings and was seen several times during her recovery by the surgeon and general practitioner. The fee, approximately $1,400.

In America, she had a recurrence of exactly the same problem. She had no insurance. Being denied immediate care, she was admitted as an emergency, operated on and sent home two days later with an appointment to see the surgeon in one month. The fee: $7,000.

Falsehoods and negative advertising threaten to scare Americans into believing a public option isn't in their best interests. Without a public option or allowing citizens to buy into Medicare, I doubt things will change. For unbiased information, watch the informative programs and debates pro and con on both KVIE stations.

Barbara Bagley
Lodi

Reader Feedback

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Voter,

You find a 50% tax rate entertaining, Uh? Now I know you're truly a liberal. "

voter wrote on Nov 1, 2009 4:17 PM:

" If you only knew how you keep us entertained, Brian. "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:42 PM:

" Voter,

Once again. I'm not one of your pupils you can indoctrinate. :~ "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:39 PM:

" Voter,

These numbers are what it takes to have this nationalized healthcare. Evidently you're not aware this is what it is in Europe. I thought you knew everything about Obama and how he wants to emulate European economics. I was wrong. "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:34 PM:

" voter wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Just for giggles, Brian, how about you define "the line of socialism" for us? "

-A 50% tax rate for the people of this country is a fair definition of "the line of socialism". You seem prepared to fork over another 20 or 30 percent to get your nationalized healthcare. Oh, I forgot, you insist it's free. "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:31 PM:

" Billy wrote:

You decry "dismantling 1/6 of the country's economy"

-It seems to me your loyalty to Obama
has no boundries. Millions of jobs lost
is of no concern to you. Love is blind. "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:18 PM:

" Billy,

Chuckle. I work six days a week. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:34 AM:

" As usual, Brian, you make no sense at all.

You rant about government intrusion while panhandling for free government handouts. You decry "dismantling 1/6 of the country's economy" while contributing nothing to it yourself.

As always, you exhibit a total logic disconnect; this is why I love seeing your blogs - so people can witness the ignorance for themselves. "

voter wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Just for giggles, Brian, how about you define "the line of socialism" for us? "

Brian wrote on Nov 1, 2009 7:33 AM:

" voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:01 PM:

" "the line of socialism"?

LOL! "

-There you have it folks. Voter is implying there isn't a line of Socialism. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:30 PM:

" socialism
n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need "

voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:01 PM:

" "the line of socialism"?

LOL! "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:54 PM:

" So, in your opinion, what is the 'real' percentage going to be when this mess passes? And how much government is acceptable to you? At what percentage is the line of socialism drawn? "

voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:49 PM:

" Your figures overlap. Some of the healthcare spending is by the government and some of it is private. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:44 PM:

" Please feel free to correct my math, voter. "

voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:39 PM:

" Math and drinking don't mix, sparky.

Your reasoning is erroneous. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:27 PM:

" opening paragraph to this article:
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/government-share-economy.html

'In the U.S. economy, total government spending at all levels represents about 28 percent of GDP. Private spending makes up the other 72 percent.'

from this article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/economy_and_health_care_are_ma.html

'Health care consumes 17 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, which is hardly small change.'

28% + 17% = 45% of our GDP is consumed by the government.

Shall we talk about Socialism now, or after Cap and Trade passes and puts the dagger into our capitalist society? "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:09 PM:

" sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 5:38 PM:

" Isn't 'big government' propped up by the 'big' taxes that the private sector pays to it? "

-Yes Sparky,

But you can't convince Voter that lowering taxes stimulates the economy
and improves the ability of the free markets to innovate and be self-reliant.
Instead, she is also a proponent of dismantling 1/6th of the nation's economy. "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 5:58 PM:

" voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:40 PM:

" You're not making any sense, Brian. The healthcare you depend on is provided by "big government". The private sector is not working for you at all. "

-There you have it folks. You just can't convince some people that big government
isn't the answer. It's because of big government that many can't afford health insurance. If our government
didn't slap so many regulations on the health insurance companies they would be
able to lower their rates. Not to mention how far tort reform would contribute to lower rates too. I suspect voter has many lawyer friends who benefit from the lack of tort reform. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 5:38 PM:

" Isn't 'big government' propped up by the 'big' taxes that the private sector pays to it? "

voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:40 PM:

" You're not making any sense, Brian. The healthcare you depend on is provided by "big government". The private sector is not working for you at all. "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:11 PM:

" And Billy is certain that further government intrusion won't have any negative affects on an already struggling economy. "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:09 PM:

" Billy wrote:

Did the program work OK for you? Do you hate the government for providing it for you? In retrospect, would you rather have just taken your chances and prayed that everything would work out alright?

-Yes, No, No.

I still see Billy is struggling with the fact that BIG government is not the answer to all our problems. I have come to the conclusion that he has no intentions of changing his mind that government intrusion is a better approach than free market economics.
How about that 2.5 percent profit margin
those health insurance companies are making, Billy? Heaven forbid we let them even make that! "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:59 PM:

" Sparky595 wrote;

The liberals love this government insurance idea, however, they have absolutely no clue what they are cheerleading for.

-This is the understatement of the century. Perhaps the libs may eventually come around and realize the population that will be most negatively affect by this bill are Seniors. Oh, but Billy will just say they don't need to live into their 80's or 90's anyway. "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Billy,

Have a nice Halloween. I'll look forward to your next round of ASSUMPTIONS about me. I see you decided to skate around the facts of this health care bill and instead attack me.
Liberals are so predictable. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:56 PM:

" Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:06 AM:"Billy, you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation to why I should join you in being a proponent of dismantling 1/6th of the nations economy."

Hmm... now let me think... you know, Brian, I can't remember when I asked you to join me in anything, much less your assinine claim of destroying 1/6 of the economy. Are you just channeling Fox again?

No, you see, I asked you about the times you, as a destitute father unable to adequately provide for his own children, used the welfare health care system.

Did the program work OK for you? Do you hate the government for providing it for you? In retrospect, would you rather have just taken your chances and prayed that everything would work out alright?

Tell us, Brian, about how the high costs of health care are causing such a struggl- oops, I guess really there *is* no struggle to pay at your house, is there? Nor is there any contribution on your part to "1/6 of the nations's economy" - you use FREE health care, don't you? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:14 PM:

" Brian wrote:

'Billy, you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation to why I should join you in being a proponent of dismantling 1/6th of the nations economy.'

No one else has either. The liberals love this government insurance idea, however, they have absolutely no clue what they are cheerleading for. "

Brian wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:06 AM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:59 AM:

" When will Brian stand tall and, in a loud clear voice, speak up about how his family was saved by public healthcare?

Let's hear it, Brian - let's hear from a man who needed it and has used it. "

-Using public healthcare when it is necessary and being a proponent of the government taking over 1/6th of the nations economy are two different things. Billy, you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation to why I should join you in being a proponent of dismantling 1/6th of the nations economy. "

Aimee wrote on Oct 30, 2009 10:29 AM:

" Lodian, you never said what you thought about the recent letter to the editor which mentioned you by name. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:56 PM:

" Maybe that 'fly' shot will help you because they tend to hover around your posts. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:45 PM:

" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean "flu" shot. And maybe I'll get a fly shot as well...since I'll be there anyway. ;-) "

Lodian wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:44 PM:

" Geez... that reminds me... I still need a fly shot. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:13 PM:

" Aimee wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:53 AM:"Lodian is strangely absent.....maybe on vacation?"

I was thinking the same thing about Brian, then I thought he may be at the free health clinic getting free flu shots for himself and the kids. "

Aimee wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:53 AM:

" Lodian is strangely absent.....maybe on vacation? "

dyan wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:34 AM:

" Liberals are in such denial. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? If you think it's "rich guys," I've got a broken down Bay Bridge I want to sell you. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:59 AM:

" When will Brian stand tall and, in a loud clear voice, speak up about how his family was saved by public healthcare?

Let's hear it, Brian - let's hear from a man who needed it and has used it. "

jeff wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:16 PM:

" No, I'm not, but it definitely seems like you are. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:57 AM:

" The fact that Islam has two factions does not negate the fact that "rule and governance" could be correctly interpreted as synonymous. The Koran is specific -- in my understanding, anyway -- that the infidel ( or non-believer ) must be extricated from the planet so that Islam can rule and/or govern all people -- Still confused jeff? "

jeff wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:53 AM:

" no, it's not. it is a religion, first and foremost, and is not anymore "all about governance" than american evangelicals are. That said, neither can be considered an enitity. unless, of course you want to name an enitity from either sect. but then, you won't be targeting the religion, as you proposed. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:04 PM:

" Jeff: I guess you're unaware that Islam is all about governance. "

jeff wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:13 PM:

" 'Hell, Islam would do a better job than this corrupt govt.'

except that Islam is a religion, not a government or group or entity.

intended meanings aside, would it make sense to say Hell, Christianity would do a better job... "

rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:16 PM:

" Health care is good. The question that remains is, who will administer it? Barack Obama? The federal govt? -- I'd sooner trust the Chinese. Hell, Islam would do a better job than this corrupt govt. Hmmm, could it be that Barack Obama wants us to wish for Islam? One thing is for sure: Barack Obama and his cast of criminals do not have any good will for what made us who we are -- that's right, he hates us! "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:44 PM:

" Hello Aimee, I beleive these are the kind words that you were referring to:

'You see, Lodian (another ideologically blinded and abrasive online commenter), this isn't difficult...' - Gary Bardon "

Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:34 PM:

" Lodian: Did you happen to see the flattering comment made in today's "Letter to the Editor" section concering your online skills?

It's worth a read. "

Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:33 PM:

" Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:23 PM:

"sparkly: No one wants to talk to you. "

I'll talk with 'ya.


Lodian, sometimes, I swear.... "

Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:51 PM:

" Sure, sparkly, whatever you wanna tell yourself. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:27 PM:

" Why would you want to carry on this way? Any honest recollection of past confrontations would expose your feeble attempts at ridicule. You not only come at me in a reckless manner, but you sling your crap at anyone willing to peer in at your infantile spasmosis. Do you really want to debate? then do it. Just don't pretend that the source of your angst has anything to with me -- now go to the mirror, sven. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:46 PM:

" Smart move Lodian because you are out of your league here anyway. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:56 PM:

" Did I say a "12 year old"? Maybe 10 year old. "Oh yeah, well.....". "If I'm a 12yo then your a fetus".

You really don't have anything do you? Aside from your "hammer" which apparently is a metaphore for nothing. I can't believe you think you could use that and no one called you on it. I say Drop it!!!! Do your best. C'm on!

You are imature and have nothing but hate for any and everything that is not you. If you were a child or maybe a teenager it might be understandable, but your a middle aged man and can't even debate the most black and white topics without resorting to ridicule, mockery, and name calling. In the words of goltguy: "Your a Fraud"

Did growing up rich help you craft this mental state, this persona you try to convey of a knowledgable elder gent?

A couple of posts (more like one) and I had your number. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:48 PM:

" Sparky your post of 9:51 is more like it. Some opinion, some truth, but very debatable pro or con. Much better than the name calling.

Although I don't share your position, you raise valid points that are something to ponder. Americans shouldn't be banned from medical care because they are too rich for welfare and too poor to afford coverage. Maybe a public option or some other program could eliminate that gap. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:23 PM:

" sparkly: No one wants to talk to you. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Where are all of the people supporting this letter? Where are all of the liberals supporting this government option? It's as if they are afraid to admit they are for it, or just afraid to offend their base by admitting they're not for it. "

1143 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:53 AM:

" First off: None of the Health Care Plans being tossed around are O'Bama's. He is too busy campaigning and not governing.
Second: Any Health Care Plan that needs to be developed "behind" closed doors by a few politicians is very dangerous.
Third: Any Bill that has a "Public Option"; government program or government over-sight is a joke. This government promised TRANSPARENCY. What do you think? "

rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:29 AM:

" That was rich -- the dignity thing. OK sven, I'm like a 12 yr old? Well, if that's the case then you are like a fetus kicking mommies belly and waiting for the day that you can come out screaming. We've been doing this little dance for a while now; but if can't keep up, you are going to get stepped on. It's funny though, guys like you just aren't satisfied unless someone is stepping on your neck -- stop it! you're cramping my foot. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:51 AM:

" We have watched this administration put stipulations and rules on the banks that got federal money. Obama will dictate how much their salaries will be.

So, when this administration implements a government run healthcare system, isn't it logical to assume stipulations, rules, and dictations are going to result from this program as well?

If you are on the government option and you are considerably overweight, is it really a stretch to think that the government will regulate whether or not you can eat twinkies? You have accepted their government run healthcare plan, so they now have the 'right' to stipulate, rule, and dictate to you how to stay healthy in the same manor they do with government bailed out businesses, right?

This is not just about trying to help the uninsured become insured. It's about the government seizing a huge control over the individual rights of the American citizen. Wake up people. Get your heads out of the sand. Look at the bigger picture here. Don't be a drone. Do a little thinking and research on your own and stop cheerleading for something you don't understand. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:20 AM:

" rant, golt, and now spark:
Have some dignity will you? You sound like 12 year olds, growing up on daddy's dime, crying 'causse you aren't getting your way and look to each other to reinforce your aberrant behavior.

Grow up. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:01 AM:

" You remind of a mouse whose been dragged around so long that he looks like he's been bathing in cat saliva. You're out of you league, and no one wants to eat you -- go to the mirror, sven. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:06 AM:

" Galtguy wrote about Sven:

'I say it again for you. Maybe you will read it this time."

He doesn't read anything anyone writes. Nor will he asnswer any questions, or address any legitimate point you may have.'

I agree completely. I converse with him simply so that he can continue to expose himself as an irrelevant knucklehead here. Every time he posts something, he showcases his ignorance. I enjoy putting the spotlight on that. He is representing the left thinkers here on this blog. He is their leader in this government option debate. Ahhhhh. The liberals must be so proud. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:27 AM:

" Oh, I guess goatguy calls people names to. Come on you two, get out of the cellar.

Maybe rantraves if you were so objectionalble in your posts, someone would actually read them. You should have noticed that I did read your posts as I copied and pasted several examples of your foolish notions.

Maybe goatguy, if you didn't call people names and weren't on this strange boycott against me (of which you are the only one boycotting - that idea worked out well), and had something that wasn't from Rush 24/7, you might have an original idea. And your questions aren't questions. They're statements. You want reactions to your statements, not answers to questions. Putting an "?" doesn't make it a question. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:20 AM:

" Poor rantraves. Take away his "hammer" and all he can do is call people names.

Poor goltguy. No one listens. Go back to golt and read the Bee. Nobody here wants to read your your monologue. "

galtguy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:12 PM:

" You all are being duped. Sven is a fraud. Read what he posts. Seem a little slanted and one sided?

HE'S A FRAUD. "

galtguy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:08 PM:

" Sparky-

"I say it again for you. Maybe you will read it this time."

He doesn't read anything anyone writes. Nor will he asnswer any questions, or address any legitimate point you may have. You're being duped. I've read your exchanges with this idiot and haven't you noticed he talks about everything under the sun EXCEPT what you addressed?

Sven is a FRAUD. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:21 PM:

" I'm kind of surprised at the lack of support for Ms. Bagley's letter from the left side here. It's as if there is not very much support for a government option. "

Aimee wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:06 PM:

" Gator wrote: "...you can take it up with my attorneys Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson".

LOL!! Evidence that there ARE good attorneys out there! Good one Gator. "

Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:11 PM:

" " But Rhodie the government doesn't take half my pay and never will. ("oh don't be so sure about that" - there I beat you to it)."

I know you already said it but thought i would share with the class anyway.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/ "

rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:42 PM:

" sven, here's what you need to do: go back and re-read your arguments ( if that's what you call them ) then look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are not an idiot. "

Gator wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:23 PM:

" So some would like me to share my hard earned money with the less fortunate. Well I donate to several charities every year. After that it’s
my choice what I do with my money. If anyone should have a problem
with that you can take it up with my attorneys Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson
I sure they will make my feelings clear… "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:25 PM:

" But Rhodie the government doesn't take half my pay and never will. ("oh don't be so sure about that" - there I beat you to it).

Second, there aren't 1300 companies competing for mail service.

Now as to the 1300 ins. co.s, and state lines, that would have been a nice little thing to know before posting responses.

So the original claim about 1300 companies and their profit margins does not mean what I presume the poster of record made it out to be. How much else did you leave out?

Hmmm...so much for the boycott gg. Ineffective as usual. "

LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:18 PM:

" Rhodie wrote: "Reform is needed but government invasion (nice image huh?) of the healthcare industry isn't. Tort reform and (what I think would make the biggest diference) investigations and prosecution for price fixing for supplies in the hospital."

I couldn't agree more. What we have is a very sick healthcare system. Its morbidly obese, its choked with regulation, and its full of toxic opportunists.

Rather than eliminate whats making the system sick, the socialists want to put it down, and build a new one in its place.

We need to eliminate waste and corruption within the system. We need tort reform, we need transparency, and we need to allow for consumer choice. Finally, we need some innovation, but first we have to allow it to happen.

Anyway you cut it, replacing this broken system run by thieves and fraudsters, with a new system run by thieves and fraudsters with government offices... wont get us anywhere, not anywhere I would want to be anyway. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:59 PM:

" Gator, you have made a great point that others here are oblivious to. The only thing anyone knows about the 'public option' is that it is called a 'public option'. Their government run healthcare reform has 1500 pages. No one has a clue what the pros and cons are to our entire nation. Yet, they keep cheerleading for it. By the time we all see the effects of this reform, it will be far too late I'm afraid. "

Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:57 PM:

" How about this one, should the US government drop the postal rate to 20cents and raise taxes to pay for the difference?

If the government dropped it's postal rates to to half, what would happen to UPS and the others? On top of the rate drop the new USPO will also require everyone to use the service even if they don't want to. This is what the government is doing with healthcare. Slashing it's costs to profit loss levels and looking for tax dollars to make up for it.

Reform is needed but government invasion (nice image huh?) of the healthcare industry isn't. Tort reform and (what I think would make the biggest diference) investigations and prosecution for price fixing for supplies in the hospital.

Insurance companies and medicare should sue hospitals and suppliers for marking the price of supplies to above market value.

But in no way should healthcare be forced on those that don't want it. "

Gator wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:50 PM:

" I just had a taste of free government health care in Canada.. Basically I call it free my A**. Gas was 4.60 a gallon, beer was 14.80 a 6 pack, Single Beer
In the market 3.10. Breakfast for 2, Bacon and eggs plus 2 coffees anywhere from 26 to 28.00, Pepsi 2.00 This was in Fairmont hot Springs
Radium Hot springs, Golden British Columbia and Banff Alberta. The Country is truly Beautiful but I was glad to cross back over… "

Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:45 PM:

" "Some of us (and this is not absolute) feel those who can could and should contribute a fair share for those less fortunate. "

Sven, would you let the government come in and take 1/2 your take home pay and give it to the less fortunate? Not 1/2? Then what? How much money should the government take from one group who has worked hard for it to give to another group in need? "

Aimee wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:11 PM:

" This is scary, and it comes from a British newspaper. Don't forget the comment section, it's highly instructive.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6833149.ece

Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, this will give you pause for thought. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:11 PM:

" Sven wrote:

'You'd think with 1300 insurance companies in America, you could find a cheaper policy but you don't. How come?'

I say it again for you. Maybe you will read it this time.
'Competition would be if we were able to purchase any plan thru any insurer in any state, much like auto insurance. Some states have few options. If you were free to purchase it from any state other than your own, real competition would happen.'

You can not currently buy insurance across state lines. If they would simply change that, you open up competition to all 1300 companies. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:05 PM:

" "Some of us (and this is not absolute) feel those who can could and should contribute a fair share for those less fortunate." -- Sven31

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx

Erie how similar the two quotes are. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:04 PM:

" With 1300 insurance companies in America, how is 1 more ( government option ) considered 'competition'?

You'd think with 1300 insurance companies in America, you could find a cheaper policy but you don't. How come?

Is this competition or pretend competition? Maybe if the government offers that "1" plan that is cheaper than what all the others have agreed to some of them will see the light and lower their premiums. Makes sense now doesn't it? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:59 PM:

" With 1300 insurance companies in America, how is 1 more ( government option ) considered 'competition'? Competition would be if we were able to purchase any plan thru any insurer in any state, much like auto insurance. Some states have few options. If you were free to purchase it from any state other than your own, real competition would happen.

Again, can anyone explain why the government option is so critical in reforming our healthcare system? "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:57 PM:

" Karl Marx was german. I speak some german, but not like Karl Marx did so I don't know how I could sound just like him.

Have you expended all your -isms yet?
socialism
marxism
totalitarianism

Maybe if you guys put your considerable energy into making this a better country, you could have a feeling of accomplishment rather than a feeling of obstructionism (there's one you didn't think of yet).

Is there anything you guys aren't upset or angry over? It doesn't seem like a good way to live, stress, anger, resentment, more anger, etc. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:36 PM:

" Sven wrote:

'Some of us (and this is not absolute) feel those who can could and should contribute a fair share for those less fortunate.'


Are you familiar with Karl Marx, Sven? Because you sound just like him.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx

Re-distribution of wealth. That is what obama wants. That is why he is a marxist. Sven, sounds as if you are a marxist as well, no? "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:17 PM:

" And what if the "fair share" is greater than what some think is fair? There must be some sort of graduated scale, with some saying 0% and others saying 100%. What if "Obama and his czars" decide that 50% is fair and you think 20% is fair? What if the majority of Americans feel that 30% is fair and you insist that 28% is fair. Will you just not pay?

What real world solution will there be when disputes of this nature arise (as I am sure will happen)? Will you become a tax patriot and refuse to pay taxes?

What about that 3 year old girl who has a brain tumour? Would you (begrudgingly) contribute to that? Urge others not to pay?

Some of us (and this is not absolute) feel those who can could and should contribute a fair share for those less fortunate. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:02 PM:

" Will we get some kind of Washington "fix"? Maybe. But that is not my point sven; my point is that Obama and his czars can not force people to pay more than their fair share. What you don't get is that there is an inherent understanding of "share" based on what the "productive class" decides as "fair". You can upset that balance with layer upon layer of legislation but at the end of the day equilibrium will be found. The alternative sven? It's called "totalitarianism". "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:57 PM:

" And it was Sparky's post and not yours "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:45 PM:

" What are you talking about?
You should resign yourself to the fact that we are going to have national health care. Your "arguments" and "comments" and "anecdotal evidence" are not able to be debated. You're all over the place except that the left, democrats, Obama,... are all to blame because Americans are going to be able to get affordable health care.

How will your veiw of national health care change when you become eligible for medicare. I know it's a couple years since you're only 54/55 yo now, but when you get it, will you be complaining then?

You should listen to yourself: "Americans shouldn't be able to see a doctor unless they can afford it. If it's a 3 year old child with a brain tumour and her father is unemployed, well that's just to bad."

Rich american: "yeah, I got to go in for my 3rd lung transplant, I don't want to quit smoking so I just buy a new set of lungs every three years.. just like tires" "

rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Once again, a post of mine has been removed. I guess you are getting some help from The LNS blog monitor, aren't you sven. Now what was your point? -- seems like you dropped the "hammer" on yourself this time. I make arguments that you can't seem to counter -- that's OK, trying is learning. How 'bout if I make it easier for you? sven, the sky is green! "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:49 AM:

" rantraves, I didn't say your anecdotal evidence wasn't sourced, I said the information on the website regarding Ins. Co. profits wasn't soursed.

You and your hammer again. Go ahead. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Aw look: another pro-industry article from Sparky. "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance"
I notice that they were happy to cite moveon.org as the source for anti insurance information, but didn't say where they got their "real" numbers for insurance co's.

"DO NOT be duped by sven. He is a confirmed FRAUD."
I see the guy from galt is back. Not a lot of intrest in your impromptu poll last week, like none.

How many questions do you need answered today? Maybe if you actually knew so much, you wouldn't have to keep asking everyone for the answer.

This is a nice and expected offering:
"He has his own discussions with his imaginary friends, does not read anything anyone writes, and further will not answer any question you pose. It's like debating a child. Nananana."

Yep. Upper crust all the way.

"Refuse to even acknowledge sven everyone! " The skiy is falling, the sky is falling!! Oh why won't anyone believe me when I say the sky is falling.

Good Luck with your campaign gg.
..or am I just trying to spin you off message. It's working. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:55 AM:

" " I see that Hicks and Jeff both support the government option. Are these the only 2 people that support it out of all who have posted here? I guess it doesn't have much support. "

" Sorry...it was Jeff, not voter. ; ) "
I guess this somewhat nulls your critism of my paying attention.

My mistake. I meant Jeff instead of Brian. Does this mean I can't count on your support for the public option?

rantraves: "As for that ridiculous "pub-op' pole: When asked to define the "pub-op", the people poled haven't got a clue." and your source for this would be.....?

You don't like insurance companies because of the for profit model?"
I never said I didn't like insurance companies because/for their profit model. I didn't say at all that I didn't like them.
"...but the govt loses money."
Maybe I'm wrong here to, but doesn't the government make the money?

"So, let me get this right: you and your buddies are following the guys who lose the money"
Following the guys who "make" the money rantraves, who "make" the money. "

galtguy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:50 AM:

" Sparky-

You're waisting your time with sven. Don't you see that? He's a plant. His purpose is to spin you in every direction, constantly going off topic to distract you into following him off topic.

Don't fall for it.

Refuse to even acknowledge sven everyone! "

galtguy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:46 AM:

" All-

DO NOT be duped by sven. He is a confirmed FRAUD.

He has his own discussions with his imaginary friends, does not read anything anyone writes, and further will not answer any question you pose. It's like debating a child. Nananana.

He's a fraud! "

Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:34 AM:

" But LFT it is more palitable for some to sit back and let the government fix all the problems. It doesn't matter to them that the bigger the government the more debt it takes on and the faster it's fiscal irresponsibility causes catastrophic fallout.

Bigger Gov=more debt=loss of US $ Value= less purchasing power=inflation=higher and higher prices=more costs to do business=more labor cut backs=more poor=more needing government assistance=bigger government...

More low price competition in business is good. More government owned low price competition in business is bad because the losses create debt and more taxes. "

LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:03 AM:

" I am a fiscal conservative.

Our federal government's track record on matters of financial health, is the worst this world has ever seen.

The health insurance industry is screwed up. The health care industry is screwed up. However, if you look under the covers just a bit, you'll see the government already has its dirty paws all over this system.

When it comes to our most precious commodity, our health, we need LESS government not more.

I am against this so called health care "reform".

I am for real reform. Lets start requiring transparency in the financial aspects of health care. Things don't need to cost anywhere near what they do.

Lets enact tort reform, and eliminate malpractice insurance.

Remove barriers to free trade across borders.

If we actually lower costs, then we will all pay less, and more people will be able to afford the care they need.

There are solutions that are far better than just having the government take it over and "fix" it.... "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:05 AM:

" From this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance

'Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.'


'But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?
Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.
The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.'

I guess we need to reform the beer and pizza industry next. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:02 AM:

" Inside the numbers:

16 -- number of posters on this blog

3 -- number of posters supporting public option

0 -- number of posters that can explain how it works "

rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:48 AM:

" One of you is blowing smoke, and the other is eating it -- that wasn't a real question, was it sven? As for that ridiculous "pub-op' pole: When asked to define the "pub-op", the people poled haven't got a clue. Could that be because the "thieves" writing this idiotic bill don't have a clue either? Legislators love to pretend that they know what they're doing; well if that was the case then this govt wouldn't be so completely screwed-up right now -- you know it, and I know it! You don't like insurance companies because of the for profit model? Yes, insurance companies make money; but the govt loses money. So, let me get this right: you and your buddies are following the guys who lose the money -- I guess you're hoping to pick some up as you go along aren't you? "

Uncle Sticky wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:17 PM:

" Compare how much you earn and a health care worker earn, When is the last time you have seen a heath care worker live in a trailer. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:39 PM:

" Sorry...it was Jeff, not voter. ; ) "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:33 PM:

" Sven wrote:

'That makes me, hick and brian for it.'

It wasn't Brian, it was voter. Yet another example of how you don't pay attention. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:32 PM:

" There have been 15 different people that have posted here, sven. 3 have said they were for it. That is 20% in favor, 80% against according to my math. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:27 PM:

" sven wrote:

'First of all, I'm for it. That makes me, hick and brian for it. Include rantraves and yourself against it...viola.60%!!
See this is what happens when you ask for a poll here. Nobody listens.'

You really ought to pay better attention when you read. Not one single time did I ask for a 'poll for or against the public option'. I only asked if there was anyone here that supports it. That is why no one remarked they were against it. Stop spinning words. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:15 PM:

" First of all, I'm for it. That makes me, hick and brian for it. Include rantraves and yourself against it...viola.60%!!
See this is what happens when you ask for a poll here. Nobody listens.
You couldn't do that?

If insurance co.s don't like it, what are they going to do? stop selling policies? I don't think so. Will the top companies go under? Maybe and based on your sides history, you would think that would be good. Others will fill their spots. That's just free market economy.

See you guys get all wired up about this stuff and there is nothing you or I can do to alter it's course. Nothing. You're left counting pages and railing against something you have no control over.

In the end you'll be like a farmer who plows his field a little too early and gets stuck in the mud. You can watch the world drive by, going on with their lives and you're stuck there on your stuck tractor. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:10 PM:

" Barbara Bagley wrote;

'Falsehoods and negative advertising threaten to scare Americans into believing a public option isn't in their best interests.'

Can anyone explain why it IS in our best interest? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:57 PM:

" Sven wrote:

'I don't know what Obama wants. Watch the news. Who can keep up?'

THANK YOU! Finally you have written a great post. Who REALLY KNOWS what is in this 1500 page healthcare bill that you all seem to want to bear hug and defend as if you understand it. No one here can explain it. How can you guys honestly defend what you have so very little understanding of? Stop for 5 minutes and just try to think about this. 1500 unknown pages. Is there anyone here that really knows and understands what it is all about? I doubt it, yet you keep cheerleading for it. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Sven, get a grip. I never asked you to do any research for me about percentage of people in America who supported the public option. I asked the people who post here if they supported it. So far, only 2 people, maybe 3 if I include you, however you never actually said it, agree with a public option.

If you do agree with it Sven, could you tell me how it works and how it is going to help you. I'm just trying to understand the specifics about the public option. Maybe you could teach me a few things about it. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:45 PM:

" I don't know what Obama wants. Watch the news. Who can keep up? "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:44 PM:

" rantraves: who blows smoke? me or smokeater8?

Spark:
On the liberal left media network NBC this morning (Meet the Press) it was said that 61% of Americans favor a public option. So it should probably be fairly easy to find what you're looking for. Just stop the next 10 people YOU DON'T KNOW and ask them. Six of them should say yes. And then you'll have your answer!! Come on! I can do everything for you.

I'll rely on smokeater8's assessment:
Insurance companies make big, big bucks. They are there to make money for their investors and board. They don't need to charge us so much, and pay our doctors so little. I've had to pay doctors for services (anesthesia) and other expensive proceedures for routine treatments. They were'nt in our plan.
How the hell do you make sure the anesthesiologist is in your plan when they wheel you into the or? I got to pay them, they provided a service. I don't want them tho think I'm an a**h***. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:39 PM:

" Sven, are you then suggesting that obama does not want a single payer government run healthcare? "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:33 PM:

" I refer to the post:
sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 7:44 AM:
" Voter, if this doesn't convince you, nothing else I say will.

2 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk "

It seems to me that at some point in the video you recommended that Obama mentioned beig for a single payer and then later not being for it. The point is, just like you, he can change his mind based on new information or just because he wants to change it. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:53 PM:

" What? Not me Lodian -- and what about the "dead cat" query? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:45 PM:

" I see that Hicks and Jeff both support the government option. Are these the only 2 people that support it out of all who have posted here? I guess it doesn't have much support. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Look who's talking. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Looks who's talking. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 25, 2009 12:25 PM:

" sven has attracted a Smokeater -- that should be perfect, considering how much smoke he blows... "

smokeater8 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:01 AM:

" Sven:
LOL "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:55 AM:

" When some one can show me that a public option gives me the exact same healthcare coverage as what I have now, I will consider it. The problem is, the only thing anyone knows about the 'public option' is that it is a 'public option'. No details of how it works, what kind of service or care one will receive. How much it costs individuals. How can anyone be in such great support of something we know nothing about? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:51 AM:

" Sven wrote:

'The video I reference is not from barackobama.com. It's from some other group and from the tone it probably is republican based.'

I never said it came from barackobama.com, it's clearly from youtube. It is obama himself, on video, on audio, saying he supports single payer system. How can you say this is some republican video? That's ridiculous.

Then you wrote:

'And I agree with Billy, $11.00 an hour seems to indicate you should change plans to one less expensive.'

I have already stated that I have no choice to opt out of my unions insurance plan.

Then you wrote:

'What you never changed your mind about something 2 or 3 or 7 years later?'

So you are saying that obama has changed his mind about being a supporter of a single payer system? Show me. Show me one quote, video, audio, interview, that contradicts his original views. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:46 AM:

" Oh yeah, does any one know where the "dead cat" poem might be found -- somewhere in the prayer debate from a couple of months ago. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:44 AM:

" Smokeater8:
How dare you use facts and history and intellect to sway a debate!!

Please return to innuendo and half-truths and outright lying to make your point.

It's the only manner the other side understands.

And use terms like "socialist" and "largest tax increase in history" and "Obama was born in Kenya". Please include some sort of negative statement about Michelle Obama. It doesn't even have to be true. "

rantraves wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:42 AM:

" We've been headed down this socialist road for a long time. You folks on the left see more "socialism" as the answer to our woes; And people like me on the right, understand that creeping socialism is the source of our trouble. I've explained how socialism transforms energy into people eg. the overpopulation of dependence. I've explained how European socialism is supported by American productivity eg. when we go socialist, and productivity drops European health care is going stink worse than it does already. Socialism believes that it is only through the "equal" and "fair" distribution of resources that the world will find peace eg. no one nation state will have an advantage over the other. In other words, the Socialists don't subscribe to the Cesar Millan concept of the "pack leader" ie. a strong leader is what keeps the pack from chaos. It is true that American leadership has waivered over the last few decades; but I would argue that the removal of socialism is the key to restoring our strength and leadership. Some of you "hope" for more socialism -- you would be wrong! "

smokeater8 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:31 AM:

" The beginning of the end for reasonable coverage was when the government deregulated health insurance and allowed the not for profits and mutual companies become stock controlled investor owned companies. In case you don't know, mutual companies are owned by the people who buy the policies, and if there is a profit in that segement, they are given a bonus at the end 0f the year. Corporate CEOs figured out that they would rather keep the bonus money themselves than pay it to the people who paid in originally. And, no, I am not a disgruntled former employee. I had no problem with the way they ran most of the business...just the health side. I also got a little peeved when they set up a Bermuda captive and funneled all money through that in order to avoid paying any US income taxes, although at the time they had NO overseas operation...other than a small office in Bermuda that was a sham. "

smokeater8 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Sparky wants to know why anyone would support a public option, so I'll let him know. I worked for an insurance company for over 30 years and saw the things that went on. Health insurance is a shell game where they try to pass off on paying for treatment and to only insure the healthiest individuals. The profit margin is in the neighborhood, for most companies, of 20% net. Almost any other business in America would kill for that kind of profit margin. Remember, they don't just collect your premiums, they invest that until they have to pay a claim. And when a claim is filied, they attempt to either deny it or postpone payment for as long as possible. The standard used to be, before some states regulated, that payment would be in the 90-100 day area. Do you believe that is fair to doctors? The only way to get the companies to behave responsibly is to offer competition that they cannot buy up, or bully. The government can run a public option at cost (not subsidized)assive ulcers for the insurance industry. If you don't remember, many health insurance companies were not for profit entities (think Blue Cross, etc.) "

Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:12 AM:

" jeff wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:28 AM:

" i fully support not only a public option, but a single payer system as well. "

-Please don't remind us of this madness of eliminating 1/6th of the nations economy. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:11 AM:

" sparky595:
1. The video I reference is not from barackobama.com. It's from some other group and from the tone it probably is republican based. Again, as with most concervatives, you omit valuable information such as who sent the video to youtube, and then you try to defuse your lie by claiming it's from President Obama's own website. (Reference:"Voter, if this doesn't convince you, nothing else I say will" 07:44).
And then you say "'the left' ALWAYS presents both sides." Which is it?

And I agree with Billy, $11.00 an hour seems to indicate you should change plans to one less expensive. Or are you waiting for your government provided medicare kick in? You know, the public option of medicare or not medicare.

What you never changed your mind about something 2 or 3 or 7 years later? "

jeff wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:28 AM:

" i fully support not only a public option, but a single payer system as well. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:25 AM:

" Glenn Beck begs the white house to call him everyday to point out any 'lie' or 'falsehood' that they want to correct him. The phone doesn't ring. He has no choice other than report the absolute truth or the white house (who watches his every move...hello Anita Dunn ) will try to shoot him down. The people who don't like him, simply don't watch or listen to him, so they just don't know any better. "

flyguide wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:10 AM:

" Barbra I agree with you, and know there is a smart way to do it. It looks like Pres. Obama is determined to pass health care reform, regardless if it is good for the people or not. He wants to pay back the special interest who will benefit once it is put into place. It is sad to see our President act so predictable with no shame. I believe we can use the medical system (Medical) that is in place for now by modifying requirements to cover all people not covered, and (In Public Sector) make changes so the patient (Rights) can decide on what is best and not the insurance companies. It is complicated and there is not enough room here to go into detail. Glenn Beck makes sense. 2pm Fox news. I have tried to prove him wrong on many issues but have not found anything he reports as false. Glenn Beck speaks the truth. Check Fox News online! "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:34 AM:

" I don't see anyone else supporting the public option here. So I guess it is safe to say that even the liberals here oppose it. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:31 AM:

" It is the claim of the government that we need this public option to provide competition in the market. There are already over 1300 insurance companies in America. Are you telling me that if we had 1301, the problem will be solved? How would 1 more option to 1300 others change anything? Here's how. That government option one will be priced so far below the others (remember, the govt. can take a huge loss and still keep their plan running with our tax dollars) that eventually, it will drive the private insurers out of business. Ultimately leading to a government single payer healthcare system. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:12 AM:

" Hicks wrote:

'spaky no its not the goal of the obama administration is to lower cost you need a lesson in economics'

It's not?

'WASHINGTON -- Continuing to promote his plan for the nation's health care system, Wednesday, President Barack Obama urged significant reform in medical insurance coverage in order to save Americans money.'

So you don't think they are trying to cut costs? And, what if the public option does not get into the bill? Hicks, if there is no public option or cost cutting, then what is the purpose of destroying the entire system to build a new one? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:04 AM:

" Hicks, last time I heard an uninsured number, it was obama saying there are about 30 million people. That is 10% not 20% of our population. Why don't we work on getting those people insured? Instead, the government is going to dismantle the system and rebuild it from scratch.

When this bill is passed, they will be collecting revenue (our tax money) for 4 years before the plan even begins. It begins in 2013. So when they say the plan will cost 1 trillion dollars over 10 years, we are only getting coverage for 6 of those years.

I'm still waiting for anyone to say why they like the government option and how they think it will help them. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:50 AM:

" I care about the 'greater' of America. That is why I don't want the government to take over the entire healthcare system. "

hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 25, 2009 3:19 AM:

" its sad to see how in lodi people dont care about the greater of our country "

hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 25, 2009 3:17 AM:

" i like you barbara you just said what many lodians needed to hear. i think it would espicially be good for our homeless population, and for the 20% of american who cant afford health care. im a bit disapointed thaat you didnt mention that 20% of our nation is uninsured, we are not all upper middle class americans like many in lodi are. spaky no its not the goal of the obama administration is to lower cost you need a lesson in economics we are in a keynessian economical system in america were the govt plays a hand in things like health care. sparky 595 lets see how much you will love your plan once you get sick i cant wait, my fam makes over 2.2 million a year and no one will cover my mom who had a heart attack her insurance will drop if she quits her job luckily she has 3 years till retirement soyou should think twice about universal healthcare. "

alf wrote on Oct 24, 2009 4:35 PM:

" i will support univeral healthcare when everyone, everyone, not just those that have jobs, not just those who pay taxes, etc. pays equal shares, equal shares, not 0 for u, more for me because i earn more. no, universal is the key, universal should mean everyone pays the same. if u do not pay, sorry, if u do, then u get covered. plain and simple. until then, no way jose. leave obamacare out of this or else we get the shaft. again. "

veritas wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:32 PM:

" There is no way to converse with Barbara Bagley. The cesspool of nationalized health care is to gooey to even begin to explain it to her. Everyone has a personal story to tell, but spread across 300 million people, it will be a complete disaster. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:21 PM:

" About 2 hours ago I posted:

'Does anyone here actually support the public option? If so, why do you like it, specifically. I'm just trying to figure out why the public option is so important to fixing the problem.'

Sven, Billy, Voter, Lodian, anyone.... "

Lodian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:38 PM:

" sparkly wrote "I'm sorry. I forgot that 'the left' ALWAYS presents both sides. LOL! LOL! LOL"

sparkly seems to be under the impression that the far right are a fair people. "

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 1:58 PM:

" Nobody should be forced to subsidize their competition in the market place. Insurance companies and their employees will be paying taxes that go twords helping thier competition drive them under. "

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 1:54 PM:

" The public "option" is like (another metaphore) if the government decided the Auto industry was "pricing-out" the poor so they (the Gov.) decided to start their own auto group and then sell the cars at $2500 each. Who would buy a $15000 car from Ford if they can get a comprable car from US Auto Group? Now what happens to Ford (and the others) when half their car sales go to USAG?

The government can lowball prices to whatever they want because they always have tax-payers to pick-up the slack. That is another reason I am always against Government owning business in the US. In the situation above Ford employees would have their tax dollars going to help the competition put them out of business, how is that fair? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Does anyone here actually support the public option? If so, why do you like it, specifically. I'm just trying to figure out why the public option is so important to fixing the problem. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Billy, I have no choice. It is my union. $11 per hour is a lot for insurance. Comparatively to my pension and wages, it is not a lot. Yes, I think I should have an option to seek my own health insurance outside of the union. However, a government option is not what I want. I wouldn't even have that option if I wanted it, because I am tied to my union's healthcare insurance.

To me, it is not all about what I spend on my plan. It is the healthcare that my family and I get in return that most concerns me. Why is congress pushing a government option that they themselves will not enroll into? Probably because the HEALTHCARE they currently receive is far better than a government run program. "

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 12:53 PM:

" The only way I will even consider supporting government intrusion into national manditory health-care is if the Powers that be first gain control of Medicare and Social security. How are we to believe that the Government can run yet another program if everything they touch loses money.

let them prove they can run a national program that doesn't add to the threat of national bankrupcy before they take control of more industries.

business week has a nice little write up on Iceland's bankrupcy http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/10/iceland_goes_ba.html "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 24, 2009 12:47 PM:

" sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 12:37 PM: "...I have to contribute about $11 per hour towards my health insurance."



Umm, you say you pay about $25,000 a year for your coverage? And you oppose public opotion?

Yeah, I think I'll view that as hokum. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 12:37 PM:

" Voter, it's funny how you are an expert on how I get my healthcare coverage. Mine DOES go thru my union, not my employer. Also, I never once said that my cadilac plan is the same cost of any basic plan. Everyone in my union has the same cadilac coverage, with different providers to choose where they get it.

I have to contribute about $11 per hour towards my health insurance. My employer doesn't contribute one dime. "

voter wrote on Oct 24, 2009 11:50 AM:

" sparky, what union provides unlimited cadillac coverage at the same cost as the basic coverage? Employers provide the coverage, not the union--unions only bargain. Why isn't everyone choosing cadillac coverage if it's the same cost as the basic coverage?

I have employer provided coverage which I contribute to as well. I'm paying in an enormous amount. Ditto for my employer. We're both being hosed, and the coverage stinks. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 11:30 AM:

" Voter, since you asked me, how about your coverage? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 11:29 AM:

" Your welcome, Deputy. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 11:28 AM:

" Voter, I am in a union that gives me choices of different providers. However, I pay the same per hour of work towards my own coverage as everyone else in my union regardless of which provider I choose. It is a so-called 'cadilac plan' that the senate bill plans on taxing up to 40% to help pay for their reform plan. I LOVE my healthcare, I just don't like how much I pay for it. I am all for finding ways to lower costs, but I do not want to compromise my coverage one bit. I have serious concerns that a government run option will not provide me with similar coverage.

For some reason, liberals think that the only way to fix the system is to throw it all away and start new with a government option as the cornerstone. I for one just do not agree with that. "

voter wrote on Oct 24, 2009 10:56 AM:

" Sparky, I'll repeat: What is your source of coverage, how much are you paying for it, and what level of satisfaction do you have with the plan? "

DeputyChief wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:52 AM:

" Sparky,
I whole heartedly agree with your comments and appreciate the links to the information that you provided. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:48 AM:

" Sven wrote:

'Why would someone think that a youtube video of things Barack Obama said 2 or 3 or seven years ago about health care would sway someone's opinion.'

Are you saying that since he said it a few years ago that it doesn't matter now? That is absolutely ridiculous. Show me where he has changed his stance for developing a single payer government run system. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:29 AM:

" Smokeater, my father has medicare advantage and 2 weeks ago, his insurance co. sent him a letter to tell him they will be dropping that program in Northern California. Also, medicare, whether you like the coverage or not, is going to be bankrupt in 7 to 10 years from what I've read. I don't claim to be an expert on medicare. I'm am just a concerned citizen that doesn't want our government to take complete control over our healthcare system. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Sven wrote:

'The right is always good at giving it's believers just what they want to hear and ommiting everything else.'

I'm sorry. I forgot that 'the left' ALWAYS presents both sides. LOL! LOL! LOL! "

smokeater8 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:22 AM:

" I would like sparky to explain Medicare. It started as a single payor, government run system of health care and a number of years ago a private option was provided to seniors who wanted to tweak their Medicare coverage. By all accounts, the private options are doing quite well and I don't know too many seniors who are upset with Medicare (with the exception of Part D). "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:19 AM:

" Sven wrote:

'Why would someone think that a youtube video of things Barack Obama said 2 or 3 or seven years ago about health care would sway someone's opinion.'

Even when I show obama in his own words, you still want to deny it.

My 7:41 am post is from HIS website fro 2008. How can any reasonable person deny his position on a single payer system? Pull your head out of the sand. "

sven31 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:13 AM:

" Why would someone think that a youtube video of things Barack Obama said 2 or 3 or seven years ago about health care would sway someone's opinion. What was Barney Frank doing in there? And, where is the video we didn't see, the parts which don't back the rights position. The right is always good at giving it's believers just what they want to hear and ommiting everything else. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:02 AM:

" The government option does not have to turn a profit to stay in business. With that said, if insurance co. 'A' charges $1000 per month and insurance co. 'B' charges $900 per month and the the govt. option charges $500 per month, what do you think your employer is going to do (assuming your coverage is employer based)? Insurance companies will have no chance to compete with the govt. That is the goal of the public option.

Obama claims 'if you like your coverage you will not be required to change'. Yet, it's like putting ice cream and spinach on the dinner table and telling a child to choose which one they want. The child is not 'required' to push the spinach aside, but I am sure most will, in favor of the ice cream. "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 7:45 AM:

" http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/ "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 7:44 AM:

" Voter, if this doesn't convince you, nothing else I say will.

2 minute video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 7:41 AM:

" http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php "

voter wrote on Oct 24, 2009 7:37 AM:

" Sparky, what is your source of coverage? "

sparky595 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 6:59 AM:

" I agree that our healthcare costs are too high. What I don't agree with is a public option. My reason, I don't want a single payer system, which is the ultimate goal of this administration. The public option is the first step towards that.

The goal of the public option is not to give more choices and competition, it is to ultimately drive the insurance companies out of business so that all that will be left is the government run single payer system. "

Comments on this story are now closed.



Leaf Pickup