I have a great job with great insurance. I do NOT need the government to SCREW it up. And I will not pay for those whiney, lazy, mudders who sit on their butts and freeload.

Everytime the federal government gets involved, I guarantee that it gets MESSED UP!

so, get off your lazy butt and get a job! mickey d's even has benefits for you business graduates!

Oh, DotsLines, what would John Edwards say about that.......

All poor humor aside, you're exactly on the mark - unfortunately, nothing will happen there because the inmates are running the asylum.

I think I should be reinstated.

Thanks, HL

purplesage;

I'm not sure I'd prioritize these in the same order (if that was your intention): "Health care needs to be 1. Accessible 2. Affordable 3. Of high quality." I'd pretty much throw affordable in with accessible, first off, and both of those are moot if they aren't of high quality.

But I do want to thank you for mentioning the contribution of lawsuits to this problem.

Just as an example, two years ago the average price of malpractice insurance for an OB/GYN in Chicago jumped 68%, from $138,000 to $230,000 that's right, almost $5,000 every week just for malpractice insurance. This is, by far, not the highest average in the country. The OB/GYN specialty is in crisis in many areas of the country, as many practitioners are getting out of that specialty rather than face the relentless suits and high costs of insurance.

For all you that are about to scream that it's the fault of the doctors for making medical mistakes, as recently as two years ago, there were only about 15,000 payouts for medical malpractice in this country, with about 300,000 physicians. And, as with many other areas in liability lawsuits, it can be assumed many of these were settlements of nuisance suits.

I remember reading not too long ago that the reason the train engine in the park is now fenced off is that it was a liability issue even though no one had ever sued for an injury related to the train. But maybe they were right to worry. When something goes wrong, anything at all, the first reaction is to look for someone to blame, and then to sue. Reigning in the lawsuits would bring down the cost of healthcare. The need for liability insurance adds to the cost of virtually every product and service in this country, especially healthcare, without adding any value.

I think Ms. Canada just laid a beat down on a poor fool.

Ms. Canada - I can attest to the BC mountains and valleys. Awesome. Fraser (sp?) River valley. Little mountain lakes for trout fishing. Friendly folks for the most part. Good spot to visit. And I wouldn't mind living there. Except for that socialized medicine crap. :)

Health care is a top 3 issue with me. With Mrs. Clinton running as strong as she is in the Democrat field, it is imperative that something get done to resolve the impending health care crisis. Her plan will bring Canadian-like mediocrity and government control.

Health care needs to be 1. Accessible 2. Affordable 3. Of high quality. Everyone should pay the same price. Managed care is a fiasco, modeled as it is after Medicare. Hospitals, doctors and other providers need to charge fair prices for what they do; patients need to get off this kick of suing everybody when something medical doesn't work out.

If health care is the question, Hillary isn't the answer!

"Max1, so? Your have carefully picked cities like KCK, Junction, Topuka and Washyta which are known for violent crimes. Show me the stats on Garden City, Ness City, Baldwin, etc." -kneejerkreaction

Do it yourself -- I provided the link to all the towns listed above. There are only 31 towns listed and Ness City and Baldwin aren't among them. Here the link is again: http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crimeareanavpage_dynamic.cfm?state=KS

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

I was prepared to hate her ideas, but on this she appears very close to getting it right. If you want every citizen to have health insurance (much like every driver must have auto insurance) then simply require people to buy the cheapest possible insurance, $10,000 - $20,000 deductibles for major illnesses only. Of course you can, if you want and can afford the additional premiums, get a better plan that covers more with lower deductibles. But everyone must be required to purchase a bare minimum policy.

Ceallach (Anonymous) says: Speaking of the cost of health care for prisoners :Breaking News : O.J. Simpson has been charged with kidnapping and seven other felonies.

Best news I've heard all day. Good. It would be great to see him sent away for the maximum sentence.

sunflower_sue (Anonymous) says: "The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian prairie provinces than in the northern US states across the border." I wonder if it has something to do with the lack of people that live in those nothern border states??? Besides the provinces being somewhat HUGE compared to our itty bitty states??? C'mon, apples and oranges here:don't ya think?

Did you say the "lack of people"??!! You mean like in Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, etc...c'mon. There are no apples & oranges here, just people and relative crime rates and the study quoted is a Canadian study. If you insist on disbelieving, fine, but the facts are that Canada's strict gun laws have done nothing to make Canada safer than the US.

"Max1, you left out the rest of the article" -kneejerkreaction

Yeah, I was looking for murder stats per 100,000, and 2004 was the only year I could find those listed on that website. The murder rate increased since then. http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm September 30, 2004 CANADA'S MURDER rate has dipped to its lowest level since 1967, falling by 7% to 1.73 victims per 100,000 population. Statistics Canada figures released yesterday count 548 homicide victims in 2003 -- with 50 fewer women killed than a year earlier. For 2005, Statistics Canada reported that the overall violent crime rate was unchanged, while noting increases in crimes such as homicide, attempted murder, serious assaults and robbery. The homicide rate increased 4% to the highest level in almost a decade. (Statistics Canada, The Daily, July 20, 2006)

[Junction City had a high violent crime rate in 2004, but they didn't have any murders, whereas Lawrence had a lower violent crime rate but had 2.4 murders per 100,000. Our violent crimes are on the increase, but I don't think we've had any murders yet this year] Crime database for 2004 http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=KS&area=Wichita Wichita, Kansas has a violent crime rate of 808 incidents per 100,000 people. This compares with a rate of 509 in Kansas and a rate of 596 nationally. Lower numbers are better, indicating that fewer crimes happen per person in the population. Murder: 8.1/100,000 http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=KS&area=Kansas%20City Kansas City, Kansas has a violent crime rate of 693 incidents per 100,000 people. Murder: 25.3/100,000 http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=KS&area=Junction%20City Junction City, Kansas has a violent crime rate of 941 incidents per 100,000 people. Murder: 0/100,000 http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=KS&area=Topeka Topeka, Kansas has a violent crime rate of 519 incidents per 100,000 people. This compares with a rate of 509 in Kansas and a rate of 596 nationally. Murder: 6.5/100,000 http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crimeareanavpage_dynamic.cfm?state=KS

And back to health care costs -- I recently read where rising health care costs for prisoners in Michigan is leaving the state strapped for cash. I suspect that will become an issue here as well because medical costs are growing faster than inflation and our prison population is growing faster than our overall population.

December 12, 2006 STATE AND LOCAL POLICYMAKERS CONSIDER OPTIONS TO AVERT RISE IN PRISON COSTS Based on projections by the Kansas Sentencing Commission, the prison population is anticipated to increase 26 percent over the next nine years.

"The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian prairie provinces than in the northern US states across the border."

I wonder if it has something to do with the lack of people that live in those nothern border states??? Besides the provinces being somewhat HUGE compared to our itty bitty states??? C'mon, apples and oranges here...don't ya think?

Oh, healthcare...yes, it's important.

"I'm not sure there are huge tax implications." -average

Rising health care costs for city, county and school employees have been cited as the reason for local propety tax increases in the past.

I'm not sure there are huge tax implications. In many circumstances, you can deduct money you directly spend on health care from your taxes. I have a Health Savings Account and my contributions to it are tax-deductible beyond my standard deduction (I don't itemize). So far, I've only used it as a 25% discount on eyeglasses. I think personal health insurance premiums should be tax-exempt up to a fairly comprehensive plan.

The problem is universality. I have private health insurance right now. It's affordable, because I'm healthy. However, they can drop me or raise my rates sky high at will. The last company I had health insurance with stopped offering insurance in Kansas. If I had had a medical condition at that point, I could not have gotten the affordable insurance I have now. As a result, I'm honestly scared to see a physician. I know I have moderately high blood pressure (and I'm trying to control it myself). But, if I saw a doctor for something else and he put it on the chart, my health insurance costs would double. Thus, I haven't seen a physician at all for anything in over ten years, despite a few illnesses and injuries.

Meanwhile, I have a friend in Winnipeg. His physician sends out reminder notes for a checkup if he hasn't been in for three years.

max1 (Anonymous) says: http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_st: canada's murder rate has dipped to its lowest level since 1967, falling by 7% to 1.73 victims per 100,000 population.

Max1, you left out the rest of the article.....I've cut and pasted it below... However, it was still 35% higher than 20 years ago (Statistics Canada, The Daily, July 21, 2005).

Ms Canada, my sources are all documented, you can check at will, here's another. Just because you are not in the midst of crime doesn't mean it isn't happening.

The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian prairie provinces than in the northern US states across the border. This came from your own country's research - "A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003", Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, March 7, 2005

http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm CANADA'S MURDER rate has dipped to its lowest level since 1967, falling by 7% to 1.73 victims per 100,000 population.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States The murder rate was 5.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005, a 2.4-percent increase compared with the rate for 2004.

May 13, 2007 http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2007/05/13/health_costs_soar_squeeze_localities/ Health care spending for Massachusetts communities has nearly doubled since 2001, squeezing town budgets and forcing cutbacks in public safety and government services and leading to calls for property tax increases. Employee healthcare costs in cities and towns shot up about 85 percent , from an average $2.5 million to $4.7 million, from 2001 to 2006 , according to a Globe analysis of budgets from 324 communities , using data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue .

http://www.observer.com/2007/gop-tries-big-health-care-scare As a study by Physicians for National Health Program revealed, more than 30 percent of health care costs in the United States represent corporate profit and useless paperwork. Roughly 20 percent goes to insurance companies alone, which burn enormous amounts of money finding ways to deny care to their policyholders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15513596/ More Americans head overseas for health care More and more patients like Gilmore - who had never held a passport or even tasted Indian food before her trip - are returning home and spreading the word about an alternative to America's ailing health system.

14 Jul 2007 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76833.php The exploding cost of healthcare in the United States has many Americans traveling overseas for treatment. With the aid of the Internet, patients can find international providers who will administer the healthcare they need at a fraction of the cost. Medical tourism, as this trend is called, has the potential to dramatically impact the economies of developing countries and has serious implications for healthcare around the globe.

ms_canada (Anonymous) says: conservative punker - I wish someone would explain to me why all you citizens down there feel the need to bear a weapon. We here in Canada don't seem to feel that same need. Why is that? Anyone know?

Because Ms Canada, we don't want to be like Canada. In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000) this from Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.

It's common knowledge that your crime rate grew as your gun ban gained a foothold.

ms_canada:

You've no doubt noticed that there's a pretty good slice of Americans that think Canada's health care system is... well... "sick."

To what extent do you think the perceptions floating around here--long lines, long waits, poor coverage, the whole "socialism" schtick--are true? Can you help separate the fact from the fallacy... from your perspective, at least?

Thanks!

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

average (Anonymous) says:

"The interesting thing is that most businesses also don't want to be involved in the health care. It is a huge hassle for them to hire plan administrators, calculate the expenses, deal with changing families, figure out what they can get away with without losing too many employees, and try to avoid hiring people who will drive up the cost of their group plan. Any owner of a business with less than 5,000 employees would gladly divest themselves of that headache.

"15% (and growing) of the US GDP is spent on health care. A third of that on insurance and billing overhead. 5% of our entire nation's output! In the rest of the first world, it's well under 1% of GDP. This is a substantial drain on our nation: a parasitic burden on businesses that has been a major detriment to our economic competitiveness."

Question: Do you see a future--either near or distant--in which employers will be completely out of the "Health Benefits Game?" If so, how do you think this will come about? If employers were "forced" to compete in a job market where compensation was measured (almost) exclusively on wages and salaries--which are taxed--what would that impact be on our health care system, not to mention our tax revenue?

According to the page I found earlier, employers began offering health plans because that form of compensation was not taxable. Perhaps we've reached a point where it's cheaper to go ahead and pay the payroll taxes, rather than pay rising costs for health care plans?

Some other things to consider, along these lines...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/full_list/

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/benefits/health_care.html

http://www.greatplacetowork.com/best/index.php

--Ag

Bone, Just asking for clarification...

Are you saying that equal â fairness?
That fairness is a subjective term? That what constitutes fairness for one individual, may not be fair for another individual? So rather than use the word equally, the key would be to use the word fairly?

Another recent gem from Queen Hillary:

"She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview - like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."

The fact that she can "envision" that day....

staff04 said:

"You're assuming that a universal system would be new spending. If we took the money that we are currently spending on healthcare and put it into a more efficient, less profit-driven system we would still have the richest system in the world, and it could be done with no new costs-and actually, if done right, could save us money."

John Edwards said his new plan would cost $120 billion per year, which he says he would finance by eliminating the capital gains tax cuts (please don't argue whether or not this should be done - the point is why would he have to raise taxes if it could be done with "no new costs?")

logicsound04 said:

"Can you imagine if Apple's method for profiting was to sell an iPod and then to remove features (thereby saving themselves costs) once the product had been sold? I can see it now-you order your 60GB iPod online, then six weeks later, you get a call from an Apple associate speaking in legalese about how some loopholes in the sales contract allow them to provide you with an iPod Nano without refunding your money."

A more accurate analogy would be if your new iPod breaks down under warranty, and you want to have an approved local repair center fix it instead of sending it back, Apple will only pay a previously agreed to labor rate, or maybe insist a part is repaired rather than replaced. Which, if they're picking up the tab, and the repair center agreed to Apple's rules to become an approved provider, they have every right to do.

Over the years I have received medical services for myself and my family that were paid for by both private insurers and public ones like Medicaid (as well as self-paid). I can tell you that, in my personal experience, private insurers like Humana pay less for the same services than Medicaid and Medicare do. They have to in order to make a profit for their shareholders (which probably includes most of you that have any money in mutual funds - or a bank, for that matter). Plus they can't just raise taxes to make up for shortfalls. Letting the government take over health insurance is not going to be more efficient; it will just go to pay for layers of unwieldy and redundant government bureaucracies rather than making a profit for shareholders.

"Many of you are well enough off that : the tax cuts may have helped you. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Mrs. Willary J. Rodham Clinton (D)

A vote for Willary J. Clinton is a vote for The New Collectivism for America.

Remember, 'it takes a village'. Translation: Screw individual freedom and responsibility---too hard for Hillary to govern under that system.

I wonder if universal healthcare would have saved this guy's arm...

http://www.charleston.net/photos/galleries/2007/sep/17/alligator_attack/

"Equally" is the key word.

You want more, you do more. Don't care, get less.

Basic services for all. Upgraded services for willing to pay.

The interesting thing is that most businesses also don't want to be involved in the health care. It is a huge hassle for them to hire plan administrators, calculate the expenses, deal with changing families, figure out what they can get away with without losing too many employees, and try to avoid hiring people who will drive up the cost of their group plan. Any owner of a business with less than 5,000 employees would gladly divest themselves of that headache.

15% (and growing) of the US GDP is spent on health care. A third of that on insurance and billing overhead. 5% of our entire nation's output! In the rest of the first world, it's well under 1% of GDP. This is a substantial drain on our nation... a parasitic burden on businesses that has been a major detriment to our economic competitiveness.

"I have believe this for years that health should be available to everyone equally no matter the income status."

Holy cow, that sounds good. How about these......

I have believe this for years that housing should be available to everyone equally no matter the income status.

I have believe this for years that food should be available to everyone equally no matter the income status.

I have believe this for years that transportation should be available to everyone equally no matter the income status.

I can quit my job now. If I want better, who needs work, I'll just vote for Billary Clinton.

It is in the top three items on my list. Providing healthcare for all is important to this country both from a compassionate and economic point of view.

Kansas Health Care For All Presents a Community Forum on

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE ACCESS

THE CASE FOR NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Dr. David Goering, MD Chairman, Kansas Health Care For All Speaker and Moderator

Distinguished Panel of Speakers and Commentators

Dr. Bill Roy, MD Former United States Congressman 1971-1975

Dr. Raymond Davis, PhD Professor Emeritus, KU Department of Public Administration

Dr. Michael Fox, ScD President, Kansas Health Consumer Coalition

Interactive discussion with the audience and panelists follows

Lawrence Memorial Hospital Auditorium Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7-9 PM

For more information go to: www.khcfa.org Kansas Health Care For All Presents a Community Forum on

http://www.pnhp.org/

*Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies.

*These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc.

*There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees' health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc.

**National Health Insurance creates freedom of choice for medical care. Patients are not restricted to a certain list of doctors,clinics etc.

The folks receiving care under these programs are not complaining about the government paying their bills. So when another 36% is added then we all have healthcare thus preventing some situations to get severe thus more costly to treat. Considering 33% of healthcare is administrative due I would estimate that citizens could expect 28% of the needed 36% is there now which would be transferred to medical care instead of paperwork. We're almost there.

There is no desire to duplicate what any other country is doing. The object is to provide medical care for all USA style.

===========

Excellent diet,exercise and rest is the way to cut back on medical costs.

The bottom line there is no way to judge a National Health Insurance Plan until we try it. There is no desire to duplicate what any other country is doing. The object is to provide medical care for all USA style.

The high profit healthcare insurance industry does not like the idea so are laying out tons of special interest campaign money not to mention spreading words about how awful healthcare for all would be for american citizens. According to radio news Hillary Clinton has received the largest sums of healthcare special interest dollars thus far but not the only candidate.

Isn't it time to have YOUR medical care dollars spent on medical care instead of on medical care instead of on political campaigns,excessive paperwork and obscene CEO pay packages?

http://www.pnhp.org/

average (Anonymous) says: "Why, why, why in the name of the Gods does your insurance have anything to do with your employment?

You'll excuse me average if I don't gush over your question. The answer is quite simple. Employers perceive that they must offer benefits to attract good employees. If one company offers benefits and the other one doesn't, the good people will gravitate to one company, leaving the other company with the employee dregs. That's why employers not only offer health insurance as a benefit, but also other benefits.

Okay, found something:

"Employment-based health benefit programs have existed in the United States for more than 100 years. In the 1870s, for example, railroad, mining, and other industries began to provide the services of company doctors to workers. In 1910, Montgomery Ward entered into one of the earliest group insurance contracts. Prior to World War II, few Americans had health insurance, and most policies covered only hospital room, board, and ancillary services. During World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase for several reasons. When wages were frozen by the National War Labor Board and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and offering health insurance was one option. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: Unions supported employment-based health insurance, and workers' health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes, as were cash wages."

http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0302fact

I guess the last sentence answers it: It was a means of compensation promoted by early unions, because they were exempt from taxes.

If that means that neither the employer nor the employee have to pay taxes on the health benefits, then the employer wins, as well. On paper, at least. At first.

--Ag

Very. I want my presidential candidates to be in good health.

Also: it's not really a given that health care would become more efficient if it weren't profit-driven.

average (Anonymous) says:

"Why, why, why in the name of the Gods does your insurance have anything to do with your employment? Why? Why do even the Hillary and Obama plans continue this crap? Your boss doesn't jerk around with your car insurance, nor your house. Such insanity exists in no other country on the planet. So, you suddenly find yourself with a chronic condition or a sick child. You are a slave. If you get fired, you will have a hell of a time getting another full-time job with benefits. If your company goes bankrupt, or your employer decides to change health insurance to a plan that doesn't cover your treatment needs: so sorry, loser."

Damn, average... that is anything but!!! Exceptional, exceptional question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

average has most likely asked the best question so far this year!!

I've spent five or six minutes now, poking around on Wikipedia and other places, trying to find out who was the very first "employer" in America to offer some sort of health insurance coverage to their employees. I mean, somebody had to be 1st, right?!?

I hope a few others join in the search, and then post results here...

Thanks again for a great question, average! :)

--Ag

"Healthcare is important, but just don't ask me to pay for folks that can afford it but just choose to spend their money elsewhere. It is important enough for me to vote for someone that does not support universal care."

Why not? I have to pay for a ton of stuff I don't use. Like having a majority of the military in Iraq protecting me from nothing. I think most of my tax money goes toward that, as a matter of fact.

People who can't afford health care and are on government assisted programs should not have choices.

They should go to free clinics that are staffed by medical students that are paying off student loans or government clinics set up like HMO's. All medications should be generic and necessary with some pay scale involved. The only free medication should be birth control.

A very basic level of health care should be provided, with options increases with your ability to pay or your level of insurance.

kneejerkreaction says: "Would that be mental health of the administration or voters?"

They go foot-in-hand. (I think Bowie said it first.)

Followed, evidently, by foot-in-mouth. (Dubyuh, please extract it.)

KJR--

I agree that changing the current system so drastically will "upset the apple cart", as you put it. However, I tend to be of the opinion that the fact that a change will be hard is not a valid reason to insist on the status quo.

This notion: "Oh that'll be difficult--we better just leave it the way it is, even if it is crap" is not a very effective way to manage.

Health care's not nearly as important as gettinga candidate that's tough on immigration. We need someone who is ready to make the tough decisions necessary to stave off the invasion of our country from the South, and punish or assimilate the successful invaders immediately.

Then we can squak about ridiculous health care proposals.

The question was, "How important to you is health care when choosing a presidential candidate?"

For me, very important.

We are at the beginning of a giant wave (Boomers) of old folks who will depend on the health care, pharmaceutical, and insurance systems/industries. That's "Group #1."

Folks born, say, 1965-1991 (I'm including the kids who got their first jobs over the summer)--that's two or three generations of people--"Group #2" who are working now, and are paying for the folks in Group #1.

Finally, the folks in Group #2 either have very young children now, or will be producing babies in the coming years. Those are the folks that more or less will be born into whatever "new system" we come up with.

As I see it, health care may turn out to be the single most-important issue America faces in the 21st Century.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

If the USA is to compare a national health care system proposal with the Canadian system we would also have to compare the govt entity that would be in control of the system with its counterpart in CAN. Unless those are very similar, if not equally, powered the comparison has no merit at all.

Where is ms_c when we need CAN govt info to compare with ours?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says: Increasingly, our experiences with the current Administration have pointed to the importance of considering MENTAL health care, when choosing a Presidential candidate.

Would that be mental health of the administration or voters? good one....

Ah, I thought you were making the claim that the Gunderson article was written as a response to the book... (when you put "study" in quotes, it appeared that you were stating that the Gunderson piece referred to the Cook-Ludwig book) I'm not saying it is less valid (and frankly, have made no comments even suggesting that), but what you posted is a discussion of an entirely different point than the one I have made, now multiple times. I didn't make any statements about crimes prevented by gun owners or law enforcement or hunting fees or gun purchases or any of the other miscellany you have responded with. I made a factual comment about costs in 2 areas--healthcare, and lost productivity. You proclaimed this was "bull," posted other information that is probably accurate but not to the point, and still haven't the stones to admit that I made a perfectly reasonable and factual statement, backed by research.

Your lack of comprehension of my argument in no way invalidates it.

With that, I am done with the argument. Disagree with me if you insist. That's what makes the world go 'round.

Okay, last post on this topic:

First, Gunderson was published in 1999, so I don't quite understand how you are asserting that it is a response to the Cook-Ludwig research, which was published in 2000.

Second, if you'll re-read my offending post, you'll note that I said "healthcare" AND "lost productivity," which you have proclaimed as "bull", and without a shred of proof. I provided a scholarly source to back up my claim, and comments about revenue from sales, license, etc. do nothing to refute my claim and that of Cook and Ludwig. Yes, they do mitigate, but they still do not make the claim "bull."

Lastly, I don't want to take away your guns. I shouldn't have even responded when conservativepunker posted, but you took the bait, and you've lost this argument.

FACT: Gun violence costs the nation over $100 billion/year in healthcare costs and lost productivity.

As David Letterman would say, "Suck it, loser." And I mean that in the most joking and cordial way.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: You claim that universal health care will require our deep pocketbooks-how is that different from the status quo? (other than the fact that not everyone can obtain coverage under the status quo)

The difference, logicsound04, is the depth of involvement. The applecart will be upset and pureed and the Federal government is NOT the entity to manage this kind of drastic change. I don't know all the ramifications, of course, but neither does HIllary or anyone else. Common sense just tells me that something this pervasive will be a disaster and whoever pushes it will not get my vote.

Staff04, and the rest of your "facts". Myth: You state that the social cost of gun violence is enormous Fact: Because guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes, the cost savings in personal losses, police work, and court and prison expenses vastly outweighs the cost of criminal gun violence and gun accidents. The net savings, under a worst-case scenario, is about $3.5 billion a year.208 - reference; 208 Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis, "Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health",

Staff04, and this doesn't take into account all the revenue from sales, hunting, etc., so the net is actually much higher than a positive $3.5 billion.

"One of the posts brought up the point that people can afford healthcare, they just choose to spend their discretionary income elsewhere. How many of you are williing to pay for their healthcare?

Now, how many of you think that having universal healthcare is important? If you do, don't whine about the consequences, which will reach down deep into your pocketbook."

I'm already paying a certain amount per year for healthcare, whether I use it or not. I then have to pay more if I have a major need. I would feel MUCH better if I were paying the same annual amount and rather than the excess lining the pockets of Blue Cross Blue Shield's execs, it was helping provide care to those who couldn't afford it.

You claim that universal health care will require our deep pocketbooks--how is that different from the status quo? (other than the fact that not everyone can obtain coverage under the status quo)

If I believed that, by choosing a particular presidential candidate, it would lead to some health care system reform, I'd buy or jump off a bridge. That would seem more sensible that awaiting the execution.

Wow! Bad mood! Must go!

T_O_B. Barry McGuire singing "Eve of Destruction" angered the Site Staff Gods?

How dystopian.....

Kneejerk--

"Bull." "Your statement is ridiculous, and I imagine, without a shred of proof or documentation."

Maybe you should stop "imagining."

http://books.google.com/books?id=g9OanKJ41ZwC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=Sn6qWdzV0k&sig=thcRFOWCAVxb33X6da1FOo2DrHI&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DMUS_enUS207US207%26q%3Dgun%2Bviolence%2Bcosts%2Bto%2Bhealthcare%2Bphilip%2Bj.%2Bcook&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPR14,M1

staff04 (Anonymous) says: Guns cause over $100 billion per year in healthcare and lost productivity costs in this country. ;)

Bull. What about the guns used by law enforcement and private citizens to stop crimes? What about the revenue coming from guns in the form of hunting licenses? What about the taxes collected for shooting ranges, firearms dealers and game preserves? Your statement is ridiculous, and I imagine, without a shred of proof or documentation.

The plan is to make businesses responsible for universal health care by taxing them. Sounds great, huh, tax the bejesus out of big business, fun? But business taxes simply get passed on as higher costs to consumers. Then, as prices of American goods rises because of all the regulations as well as hefty labor union contracts chalked full of entitlements, more manufacturing moves overseas, jobs disappear.

One of the posts brought up the point that people can afford healthcare, they just choose to spend their discretionary income elsewhere. How many of you are williing to pay for their healthcare?

Now, how many of you think that having universal healthcare is important? If you do, don't whine about the consequences, which will reach down deep into your pocketbook.

A_A - since I am a certified guy with a well used remote control, I could not remember if I saw the article on "Faux" News or not. Doing some googling I found that the article I saw was on CBS news 20/20 with John Stossel.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/where_michael_moore_is_wrong.html

Guns cause over $100 billion per year in healthcare and lost productivity costs in this country. ;)

I think Hillary's health care plan was supposed to cost something like $110 billion per year (I'm not really sure, but I think that is what I read).

To keep it on topic, you know...

It's amazing to me that people could look are our current health care system and imply that it was efficient by claiming that the government would REALLY bungle things up.

The reason there are government "tampering" and "controls" is because under the current system, it is against the interests of the insurance companies to provide the service they claim to provide--to INSURE people.

Say what you want about the inefficiencies of government and the public sphere, but under the current system, the entire incentive system is bass-ackwards. The companies whose service is to insure people against being unable to obtain health care are rewarded when they DO NOT provide that service.

Can you imagine if Apple's method for profiting was to sell an iPod and then to remove features (thereby saving themselves costs) once the product had been sold? I can see it now--you order your 60GB iPod online, then six weeks later, you get a call from an Apple associate speaking in legalese about how some loopholes in the sales contract allow them to provide you with an iPod Nano without refunding your money.

The whole problem is that insurance doesn't guarantee that you are insured, and there are millions of Americans who can't even get insurance unless it's through a group plan via their employer.

Universal health care is the most important issue to me, but I have a hard time believing that any of the media-proclaimed "electable" candidates will do anything to truly remedy the situation.

The program by FAUX news no doubt. High wait times in Canada are for elective procedures. Urgent care needs are met right away.

The government isn't who's f'ing up our helathcare system, it's the for-profit entities whose concern is their bottom line. Just look at the advertising costs that have increased presecrition drug prices, for one. Helath care is vital to the public interest and not something that should be for-profit.

I love the neocons that scream about how jacked up the government is, make a situation that is completely FUBAR, and then go, "see I told ya!" Get out of the way and let the people who can make a difference for their country do something. Neocons have clearly shown where their interests lie, for the betterment of themselves, and it is not for the benenfit of our nation.

You bet it's important to me! I have insurance but I talk to many people everyday that have health issues that can't get to a doctor because they don't have insurance.

So what IS the solution? We both agree that the system is broken.

I think that insurance companies should be taken out of the healthcare business or at the very least, be strictly regulated to control costs and ensure that no one goes without treatment.

That's the problem with all the politics on this issue. All anyone is saying is "no" to a national system, but many are acknowledging that the status quo is horribly inefficient (and quite possibly dangerous to our health) while offering no other solutions.

And I'm not just directing this at you, 75x55--I really haven't heard ANYONE who is opposed to a national system offer any suggestions to improve the state of healthcare in our nation. Hell, most Republicans don't even talk about healthcare anymore.

I'm fortunate to have a good health insurance plan, but it is still very expensive and someone is getting rich as a result. I personally think I would feel a little creeped out to be getting wealthy from those profits, but I guess some people have different ethical standards.

Canyon_wren's first paragraph says it for me. What a candidate "says" and what they actually can/do accomplish if elected are almost always different.

How old are people who would vote for someone because they "hope" to give us a Utopian health care, or any other such system? Those voters need to hide and watch for a few elections, then they will understand why the older coots and cootesses do not use campaign promises as a basis for their vote. It's what they have done, not what they say they will do . . . btw, if they haven't had time to DO much, they have to make an trail of successful actions for my vote. Every single time the government has done something for me (just because they care so darned much) I've ended up scred. No dinner, no kiss, just scred.

"Like the current system works? Egads."

ha, ha - turning the phrase, I get it...how cute.

The 'current system' is already blighted with rampant governmental tampering and controls. Pouring more gasoline on the fire certainly isn't going to put it out.

Health care is important to me, but since I seriously doubt that any of the candidates will either go ahead and pursue what they claim they will do, or even have the power to do so, it certainly wouldn't be the deciding factor in choosing from among the candidates.

I have always thought that a national health insurance program should be connected some way to our Federal income tax returns--which would make it possible for those who are self-employed to have coverage. We have so many categories of employment (good mechanics, landscape garders, etc., etc.) that could be filled by capable people who would rather not work in some boring office job, but do so because of the benefits. A national health insurance plan available to those people would certainly benefit our country in general and would still reward those who are actually working for a living.

Let's not get carried away by the pre-election rhetoric and make a wrong choice in 2008!

cutny - not really selfish...I just think the federal govt would make a mess of it. Like our welfare system, social security, etc.

I saw an interesting article on TV regarding Canada's health care. Long waits were forcing some folks to come to the US for treatment. And Michael Moore's claim that Canadians live longer due to better health care was debunked. Factors such as more violence and fatal car wrecks in the US have a greater influence on life expectancy than health care. (With all apologies to Ms_C!)

"It is important enough for me to vote for someone that does not support universal care. ."

Ditto.

You should be concerned with your health when making any important decisions.

Norman Hsu wasn't taking care of himself properly on his recent train ride & look what happened to him.