Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (69)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (31)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
ADVERTISEMENT
Universal health care solves big problems
Thursday, November 5, 2009 6:19 AM PST
From the perspective of a practicing physician who is directly involved in patient care issues, I will tell you it is in the best interests of everyone in the country to overhaul our health care system before it spins irreversibly out of control.
The quick fixes and politically expedient repairs done over the past 25 years have only caused us to have more of a sense of urgency. Years ago, statistics told us that there were approximately 20 working adults for every person receiving Medicare benefits. Now that number is about two, and I would venture to say that with all the layoffs and job losses over the past year, that number is probably less than two now!
Who are the "two"? Well, if you are older than 65, the two would be your son, daughter or one of your grandchildren, most often working for an employer who is unable to provide health insurance to his employees. So lets call this mythical person "Two." Two has to pay for his own insurance and his family's. The Medicare withholding on his paycheck is also paying for his grandparents or parents insurance, plus his future insurance when he is 65!
But Two doesn't get subsidized benefits from the federal government like grandma does, with premiums significantly less than market rates. Two has to pay full cost, and if Two has any underlying medical conditions like diabetes or hypertension, health insurance companies either will not insure him at all or charge him an exorbitant amount. It makes it very hard for Two to afford health care, food, housing and clothing for himself and his family.
I have spoken with many seniors who feel that they have paid into Social Security and Medicare and deserve those benefits, and they shouldn't be taken away. This is a legitimate argument, but what is the cost to our future generations who can't get health insurance at all? What if Two gets sick and cannot get the care he needs because he is without insurance? What if he dies or becomes so disabled he can't work? Who is left to pay for the Medicare?
Two needs our help.
Gradually, over time, we can turn this around and implement a system where everyone has the same stake in outcomes and health care and the same insurance. Yes, friends, I mean universal health care — where health insurance plans are not allowed to cherry-pick their clients, and where a 64-year-old or a 10-year-old get the same benefits and same consideration as our seniors over the age of 65 get.
Why should a three-year-old child be denied life-saving vaccinations or access to health care that a person over 65 can get? Why should someone on the state Medicaid program have a wider selection of drugs than someone in an HMO who is paying for his insurance? These are illogical, wasteful and unethical ways of providing health care.
There are very painful and gut-wrenching decisions to be made, but someone needs to make them. Yes, we can reduce costs, and yes, we will need to ration our health care dollars in ways that provide the most care for the majority of our nation. But do it across the whole population, and don't favor one group over another.
Yes, friends, we ought to support universal, cradle-to-grave care with independent personal physicians and hospitals working to provide everybody care, not just the privileged few.
Seniors and Republicans typically argue that this would be socialized medicine. I fail to see the logic of this argument, since Medicare is socialized medicine and has been subsidized for years. If seniors receive this benefit, why not everybody?
Medicare works: It provides choices; it covers everybody; and it is portable. Lose your job? No problem — you still have health insurance! You move to a different state — you still have health insurance! You develop diabetes — you still have health insurance!
The problems we face are huge and challenging, and paying for it will be painful. But in the long term, it will be good for the economy and good for everyone's health. We as citizens need to critically evaluate what is important, and be willing to work together to fix the problems.
Corey Colla is a family physician practicing in Lodi.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:47 PM:
It'll be a cold day in Hell when Islam dominates the world. "
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:44 PM:
The only person you're scaring is yourself.
-Yeah Bob.
You middle name alone may be the indication one could look for that you aren't scared of Islamic Law. In fact, you may be all for it. So, In the event I'm wrong, why don't you tell me how the Imama in your mosque couldn't agree with you more it is not worth the effort for Islam to dominate the world. "
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:11 PM:
" Bryan, I think your entire "Islam is taking over the world" premise is paranoid, absurd and inane.
-Hmm, never suggested that Bob. There is ample evidence that Islam is spreading like wildfire as a result of the extremists quest to convert by the sword and they are doing everything they can to get their way. Don't let the facts get in your way. I offer you my theory of who I think you aspire to emulate: Does the name Baghdad Bob ring any bells? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 18, 2009 10:45 AM:
The only person you're scaring is yourself. "
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:24 AM:
I take it you are purposely intellectually dishonest? And on such a serious issue of radical Islam. Suit yourself. You've got Lodian cheering for you. I'm not too sure if she actually thinks you are being intellectually dishonest. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:03 AM:
BTW, books (or any inanimate object) can't have opinions. "
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 7:51 AM:
My wrong. :) "
Brian wrote on Nov 18, 2009 7:47 AM:
It is also the Opinion of the Koran that Islam should dominate the world?
Many Muslims will take you to task that not considering the Koran absolute
is blasphemy punishable by death.
Don't let the facts get in your way that millions of Muslims follow the Koran to the tee. And since CAIR has not and will not refute what the founder said I 1998 we should consider that an enormous problem. Tell me something, is Islamic law something you could cozy up to? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 16, 2009 4:58 PM:
Maybe it's because of a lack of blood to his brain, as he so eloquently stated:
"The lack of blood to may brain is as a result of not enough exercise." "
Lodian wrote on Nov 16, 2009 1:14 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 16, 2009 10:42 AM:
Are ya anxious to hear more Bryan? "
Brian wrote on Nov 15, 2009 8:38 AM:
"Islam isn't in america to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.
the Koran should be the highest authority in America. and Islam the only acceptable religion on Earth."
C ouncil of A merican I slamic R elations "
-I'm anxious to hear how Bob is going to refute this quote. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2009 1:58 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 12, 2009 3:45 PM:
Spanky, your inane, paranoid posts get the amount of maturity and respect from me they deserve.
Needer needer needer, Spanky has no...... "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:39 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:17 PM:
No, they can't take anyone away, just you. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 11:03 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 10:49 AM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:05 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:00 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:00 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 8:50 AM:
First is that I'm not saying if i believe this will happen or not, only that there is a standard already set in the courts of people able to be jailed for not paying taxes/fines AND insurance. So IF the government wanted to they have the foundation TO jail people for not having health insurance. I doubt any politician would (due to outcry), but it is possible.
The second is more of an "I wonder" point. I wonder, after this job killing health overhaul passes, if someone who believes that the universal healthcare is a possible mark of the anti-christ can they opt out of it for religious reasons? By the constitution the government cannot force some one to act against their religion (that whole hinder thing). So if someone really believes that the universal healthcare is agains their religion then can the courts force it on them? "
Rhodie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 8:07 AM:
From http://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/auto-insurance-basics/the-consequences-of-not-having-auto-insurance.aspx
(about 2/3's of the way down)
"The Penalty of Driving Without Auto Insurance
According to the Insurance Information Institute, the cost of driving without auto insurance can vary from state to state, depending on the percentage of drivers who are uninsured in that state. For instance, in Massachusetts residents can be charged anywhere from $500 to $5,000 in fines and receive a one-year jail sentence"
So it is and does happen that people are put in jail for not having auto insurance. How will the enforcement of Health insurance be any different? "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:42 AM:
'A litterbug can be fined $1000 and jailed for a year.Does it happen???'
Try littering in front of the police department, once a week, for the next year. As you continually commit the same crime over and over again, you WILL get the maximum fine/penalty allowed under the law.
What is the difference between that and refusing to buy health insurance every week. Eventually, you WILL get the maximum fine/penalty allowed under the law. Period. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:15 AM:
If someone litters, eventually, the litter gets disposed, and a judge can dismiss the offender with a warning/small fine. Unless he 'litters' again, he will not go to court or face fines/jailtime.
Now let's say you don't buy health insurance. OK, the judge just gives you a small fine and says no jail this time. Unlike 'litter', the non-insured does not just go away. He is still uninsured. What is the recourse of the judicial system if he continues to ignore the governments requirement of health insurance?
1. Fine him again?
2. Put him in jail?
3. Let him get away with it since he has been fined once.
How long can #1 go on before #2 is enforced?
If we just go with #3, then what have we solved here? The people that don't want to or can't afford the insurance will simply pay the ONE TIME fine and thumb their nose at the governments demands that all have insurance. "
brokenl wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:48 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 5:55 AM:
'sparkly: You just don't like getting what you dish out to others. Stop your whining.'
First of all, I'm not dishing anything. I am here to give opinons of and discuss the letters that are written here. You and your childish buddies here cannot intellectually compete with the discussions that are presented here about the topic at hand, so you constantly resort to name calling and petty jokes to avoid serious discussion.
Everyone, including those on 'your side', is aware of your insignificance here. You are nothing more than a grupie with no original thoughts of your own.
You constantly ask others to answer your questions, yet feel no need to reciprocate when some one asks one of you.
The only time you respond to me, is to make some smart$%# remark or denigrate me. I have come to realize that that is the ONLY way you can respond to me because you do not have the intellect nor courage to actually go toe-to-toe with me in an actual debate of the topic.
So, continue to do what you do best....Sling mud. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 5:39 AM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:56 PM:
" Spanky, I agree. You should go to jail.
That was easy. Next question."
----------------
LOL! "
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:55 PM:
El Rushbo wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:02 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:16 PM:
That was easy. Next question. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:23 PM:
This is why I suspect that no one that supports government run healthcare will ever answer that question. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:59 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:55 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:48 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:45 PM:
'If you actually end up in jail, I'll let you say "I told you so" to me (once you get out).'
I know you don't like to hear what I have to say, but how can you ignore a FACT written in a legislative bill? You are a waste of time to debate with if you are going to ignore facts. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:31 PM:
Spanky, you should take a bold stand and refuse to buy or be provided with any health insurance and see what happens. You can be the test case. You'll be famous Spanky ol' man! If you actually end up in jail, I'll let you say "I told you so" to me (once you get out). "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:09 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:07 PM:
'You think you're going to jail if you don't buy health care? Really?'
'The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.'
From article:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-jail/
Come up for air and stop eating the sand. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 11, 2009 4:48 PM:
You think you're going to jail if you don't buy health care? Really? Well, look at it this way: You'll get free health care once you're in prison. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 4:01 PM:
" sparkly wrote "We all have opinions and views, and there are clearly 2 sides to the fence around here."
I don't think anyone here thinks you actually believe this statement. "
What? Are you serious?
It's clear that in general here, with most every issue, the same group of people are on one side of the fence, and the same group of people are on the other. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 3:53 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 1:15 PM:
'Maybe sparky doesn't have insurance and doesn't want to buy it.'
First of all, if that were the case, why does the government have the right to fine me or put me in jail if I choose not to have it? "
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:39 AM:
I don't think anyone here thinks you actually believe this statement. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:29 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:10 AM:
'Second, why would anyone want to argue their point with you, it's obvious that you are always right.'
Thanks for noticing. : ) Kidding aside, I do try to present facts and links to provide information that coincides with what I say. I am not always right, and have admitted so when pointed out (unlike most bloggers here). I do put out my opinions, however, when doing so, I don't present them as facts. As I said before, I back up my facts with references.
Again, I am not perfect here, but neither are most others here. We all have opinions and views, and there are clearly 2 sides to the fence around here. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:00 AM:
brokenl wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:52 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:23 AM:
'Sparkless, your "mind" is so crammed full of Faux News propaganda, I don't think you even remember what the debate is.'
You can call me names like we are on the playground all you want. How would you know what is even on fox news? Either you watch it, too, or you are making an ignorant assumption of something you don't even watch. Why don't you form your own opinions instead of letting others do it for you.
Then you ask if I remember what the debate is? Are you even paying attention? Where have I been off point of the subject here even once?
Maybe you should pay attention yourself. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:08 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:03 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:07 AM:
'Fed Ex and and UPS seem to do just fine with public competition from the post office.'
Great example. The post office ran a 2.8 billion dollar deficit last year. They are talking about reducing deliveries to 5 days a week. If this were a private sector business, it would have filed for bankruptcy already. However, since it is government owned, congress can just keep pumping our tax money into it.
When this public option passes, if it is underfunded (just like every other govt. program that has been created) the govt. will just keep pumping our tax money into it.
Show me one government program that has ran effectively and on budget. This healthcare reform is larger than anything they have tried. So the chances of success, considering the government's past history of running programs, is very predictable. Pull your head out of the sand. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:53 AM:
'Offering competition to private HMO's with a public option for people is a good thing.'
The public option is just the first step to a single payer government controlled healthcare system. The intent is not to compete with insurance companies, rather to put them out of business so that the government can control the entire system.
Obama has said himself that his ultimate goal is a single payer system. Why do you want to continue to give more and more of your freedoms away to a federal government? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:17 PM:
Sparkless, your "mind" is so crammed full of Faux News propaganda, I don't think you even remember what the debate is.
I absolutely support health care REFORM, and the house bill that just passed will start that process. Making it illegal to deny coverage to folks for pre-existing conditions is a good thing. Offering competition to private HMO's with a public option for people is a good thing. Fed Ex and and UPS seem to do just fine with public competition from the post office.
Sparkless, your garbled, twisted, righty propaganda fueled question is a lame thing. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:04 PM:
You know, it's kind of funny. Where are all of the people that support government run healthcare? I see a lot of opposition to it, yet very few who admit they think it is a good thing. Come on. If it is the answer to our problems, stand up and explain why it is so great. As you see here, there are many that are courageous enough to stand against it. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:38 PM:
Our government is completely incapable of effectively managing something as important as health care.
The end of the free market, means the end of consumer choice.
It's not that the system isn't broken, its that the government is the WORST choice for the job of fixing it.
Eliminate waste. Reduce costs. Promote transparency and choice and get the government regulations out of the way of providing necessary care to millions of Americans.
People vote most effectively with their dollars. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:32 PM:
"I`ve got like 12 elderly Pakistani types living on my block..."
OH GOD NO!!! Not the "Pakistani types"....
Neo, you are such a racist hick. Please stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:19 AM:
wtf wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:06 AM:
Candidate Obama on Mandated Insurance
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=27950 "
wtf wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:02 AM:
"The price of this corporate welfare, of course, is that any remaining vestiges of voluntary contracts between insurer and insured that health insurance still retained has been eliminated. Insurers are no longer allowed to determine rates demographically and based upon a real risk model. They are no longer allowed to offer diverse coverage packages to compete with one another for different customer groups. They now must offer low rates and uniform benefits to everyone as entitlements. Like individual welfare recipients, they have surrendered all of their liberty and property rights in return for other people's money. They are now just one more arm of the state bureaucracy."
Rest of article:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=344 "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:56 AM:
DeputyChief wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:48 AM:
Copy and paste this link into your search engine to see what congressman Rogers says about the current proposal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc "
Journey wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:15 AM:
Journey wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:09 AM:
richardh wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:38 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:49 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:22 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:49 PM:
Get real. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:18 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 3:46 PM:
'trucker, did you read this article? Dr. Colla is not advocating a take over.
Dr. Colla wrote, "Yes, friends, we ought to support universal, cradle-to-grave care with independent personal physicians and hospitals working to provide everybody care, . . .'
My goodness, Gadzooks! 'UNIVERSAL, CRADLE-TO-GRAVE CARE'. Are you saying that doesn't have at least a hint of government take over? Not to mention, 2,000 pages of legislation with 3400 mentions of the word "shall", as in this doctor 'shall' do this, and this patient 'shall' do that. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:20 PM:
OTH wrote on Nov 8, 2009 11:07 AM:
You didn't mention gays but you did get your other favorite Hitler in there. Very good Herr Dockter "
Brian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:16 AM:
" trucker, the bill is not a "take over" by the government. Setting out regulations and spurring competition are not take overs. "
-Deregulation is the key to spurring competition. The ability of people to purchase health insurance from other states is a start. This seeems to have been left out of the bill. Yet gadzooks insists the bill will spur competition. "
Brian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:07 AM:
" trucker, did you read this article? Dr. Colla is not advocating a take over.
-And Dr. Colla would have also been happy to be paid off handsomely by Hitler
to spread the propaganda. "
gadzooks wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:48 AM:
Dr. Colla wrote, "Yes, friends, we ought to support universal, cradle-to-grave care with independent personal physicians and hospitals working to provide everybody care, . . ."
Go back. Look at the word "independent". "
gadzooks wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:20 AM:
Great American Trucker wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:16 AM:
On that basis alone, I reject the entire plan outright, and I pray that intelligence prevails. "
Brian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:53 AM:
" Let's see a show of hands from all of you liberals that support taxpayer funded abortions. "
-Surprisingly, Crickets. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:31 AM:
So when a poor family is deciding whether to feed their family or pay their insurance premium that month, now they have to factor in the possibility of jail time when making that decision. Who will serve the time in jail? The father or the mother? How will they decide that? When dad goes to jail, hopefully his job is still waiting for him. If mom goes to jail, who takes care of the children while dad is at work trying to earn enough money to pay pelosi and obama so he can free his wife from jail. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:17 AM:
Science Czar, John Holdren said:
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
To think that taxpayer abortions will not end up in the final bill would be ignorant. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:06 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 6:02 AM:
Now, here is how the game is played. They put this amendment in so they can get it passed through the House. Next, when they try to mesh the House bill with the Senate bill, the abortion funding amendment can simply be removed, leaving the ability for American's tax dollars to pay for abortions. "
Trackback wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:10 PM:
OTH wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:34 PM:
Shame on you for personally attacking Dr Colla. You don't know if he's ever paid a bill or balanced a check book or anything else. If you want to disagree with what he says, fine. Don't make assumptions about his life which you know nothing about. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:47 PM:
This is not about providing healthcare to the unfortunate. This is about the largest single power grab by the government in the history of our great nation! WAKE UP! "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:06 PM:
'So many have been fed misinformation and scare tactics invented by the insurance industry. Let's hope they back away from the entertainers on talk radio long enough to listen to an intelligent argument by a health care professional.'
There you have it. The #1 liberal talking point followed up by another top 10 favorite. Maybe you need to back away from keith olberman and rachel maddow. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:00 PM:
gadzooks wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:44 PM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:38 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 1:27 PM:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/amas-endorsement-house-health-care-sparks-internal-uprising/
"The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.
Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill."
That's funny, because obama was just proclaiming 2 days ago to have the AMA in his back pocket. "
Patricia wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:52 PM:
Patricia wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:50 PM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:20 AM:
Gator wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:41 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 7, 2009 7:41 AM:
radman1 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 7:02 AM:
radman1 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:56 AM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:29 AM:
What if only 30 million more were enrolled and only 10% of doctors quit? Do the math, that still equals trouble. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:23 AM:
This clip from :
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906150005
Obama gloats over his support from the AMA for this bill. First of all, they only account for 29% of all doctors. Secondly, just because the head of an organization throws support at anything, does anyone realistically think they speak for every individual in that organization?
I respect Dr. Colla's views, however, I would like to see LNS do an article covering a wide range of doctors opinions. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:14 AM:
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:11 AM:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/45_of_doctors_would_quit_under_obamacare/ "
Great American Trucker wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:44 AM:
Neo wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:17 PM:
Neo wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:11 PM:
wtf wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:37 AM:
"Americans should be experiencing "déjà vu all over again" as Congress prepares for another weekend incursion into their rights via another two-thousand page bill that must be voted on before anyone has had a chance to read it."
That's right.....***another*** "weekend" vote by the usual suspects.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=336
However, there are a few potential solutions to this dilemma:
Operation Health Freedom
http://www.operationhealthfreedom.com/
The Tenth Amendment
"Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/03/can-the-10th-amendment-save-us/
And yes, Ron Paul
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/66039-the-winner-of-the-2009-elections-is-ron-paul "
dyan wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:36 AM:
Otherwise, it's disaster for everyone. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:44 AM:
Government-managed anything has proved to be a disaster. Is anyone seriously advocating that in the hands of the government people will be any better off than they are now? All one needs to do is look at the other "businesses" Uncle Sam has attempted to run, all with good intentions by the way.
There are two camps - those who believe healthcare should be deemed a right, and those who believe it should be up to each and every able-bodied American citizen to step up and provide for themselves and their families. Those who cannot (not will not) fend for themselves should certainly receive assistance. But to spend trillions of dollars on a project that history indicates will ultimately fail is just plain irresponsible.
Tort reform and true waste and fraud management are what need to be addressed first. Government oversight here will hopefully (yeah, more "hope") force prices for healthcare into the range where most Americans will be able to afford it.
Obamacare, Pelosicare and the myriad other attempts at Government care are not the answer. Free enterprise is. "
Neo wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:24 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 5, 2009 5:45 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:13 PM:
'It would be interesting to hear from some other local physicians as well.'
Well said. Maybe tomorrow LNS will allow a doctor that feels differently to submit his opinion. Better yet, why doesn't LNS assign a reporter to do a story and maybe poll all (or most) doctors in Lodi. I and many others would be curious to know how they ALL feel. Just like any subject matter in life, you will always have different opinions. I just wonder if it is 1 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 that agree with this doctor. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:06 PM:
'I got health insurance just so I can be able to register for next semester classes, but couldn't pay for it each month and it eventually canceled.'
If you can't pay for obamacare, you will be forced to pay a fine. So either way you will pay.
They keep claiming these healthcare bills being discussed are 'paid for'. Paid for how? They are cutting medicare for the seniors (Medicare Advantage Program will be gone), they are taxing high end insurance plans, and raising premiums on the very people obama said 'would not see their taxes raised one single dime'.
If this passes, Universal Healthcare will become the first time the federal government has mandated that every single citizen purchase anything. "
tiger wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:33 AM:
Stella wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:53 AM:
El Rushbo wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:39 AM:
Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:19 AM:
lodidian wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:41 AM:
Universal cradle-to-grave auto insurance, fire insurance, personal liability insurance, tomorrow. Why should just the "privileged few" have these things?
We already have "FREE" basic life saving healthcare in this country---hospitals cannot turn away people in need of immediate medical attention. Hospitals are required by law to deliver babies regardless free of charge if one is unable to pay.
It seems to me individuals and heads of housholds are responsibile for their family's basic needs---food, shelter, healthcare INSURANCE, transportation, education, then pleasure---in this order. Those that choose to spend for pleasure before providing basic needs, would like to have universal (paid for by someone else) cradle-to-grave health insurance.
Never confuse social security and medicare with welfare entitlement programs. Generally, a portion of every paycheck has been confiscated by the federal government. A portion of this money is later returned to those from whom it was taken over a lifetime. ( widows orphans and blind that may also be included in ssi benefits) Medicare and ssi are not entitlement programs doc! "
dyan wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:30 AM:
dyan wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:27 AM:
We can barely afford catastrophic care for everyone. Until Congress stops playing games, allows for interstate insurance competitiveness, kicks out the lawyers and stops mandating certain types of care to be covered, we are financially doomed. Reality will strike sooner or later -just like the housing crisis. "
Comments on this story are now closed.