53 Comments - Shore - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:24 pm: Again, everything Kirk does is well scripted and well thought out. Democrats are losing the debate here and Illinois Democrats are in for a really nasty surprise when they discover that support for Obama is not as solid as it was thought to be. - Niles Township - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:30 pm: Interesting comment from Jan. I had a get together with a handful of friends the other day, all sububran Democrats, with one independant. There was alot of apprehension about the plans now on the table. Granted everyone present had insurance, but there were concerns about how costs would be covered, about whether such an expansive plan was necessary, whether people would really get better healthcare as a result, etc. These were all intellegent, well-informed people, not people who get fooled easliy. Jan and her friends have their work cut out for them. - Speaking at Will - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:36 pm: Democrats are committing political suicide on this National Health care debate. The public support is fading as people realize that this rush job on Single Payer is gonna be a total mess. - Speed - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:36 pm: I agree with Shore. We all might want to take a look at a recent Rasumussen Poll (link below). From the summary: Over the past few months, as the health care reform debate has raged, confidence in the current system has increased significantly among Republicans and unaffiliated voters. There has been little change among Democrats. Sounds like a perfect issue for a Republican. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:39 pm: Speaking at Will, please point to whatever section of whichever proposed bill actually includes “Single Payer”. I won’t hold my breath, but congrats on repeating the conservatives’ lame talking pointing trying to confuse people about some sort of “government takeover”. A public option is not the same as single payer, let alone any sort of takeover. - Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:45 pm: Kirk is on a smart long-term path. Stay right of center, don’t attack Obama personally, but oppose his wildly expensive plans. Obama’s health care plan faces long odds in its current form(s). One variation or another may get through the House without a single GOP vote, but the Senate is completly different story. As Senator Kurt Conrad has openly admitted, no package can pass in the Senate without some GOP votes. Plus, the tide of public opinion is turning against the plan, for a variety of reasons. This issue may even backfire on Giannoulis in the long run. - Bill - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:48 pm: Does anyone really know what they are debating about? As far as I can tell, the president doesn’t have a plan. His strategy seems to be to let Congress go through the process and come up with some sort of compromise bill. There is a difference between the concept of health care reform and the actual specifics of a bill. Kirk’s plan, like Obama’s position deals in broad generalities without any specifics. The beef is not there. I don’t know what is in the 1000 page House bill and I bet your Congressman, regardless of party, doesn’t either. Show us a specific plan, complete with costs and financing proposals and then we can make an informed decision. Until then this is all theater,just like Kirk’s campaign. - Brennan - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 1:57 pm: Rob_N: The talking points need a rewrite. The single payer pressure is coming from the left. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/ The right is quoting them, but it beyond obvious at this point that the President and his biggest supporters in Congress are on the record supporting single payer in addition to steering health care legislation down the single payer one way dead end. I think the bigger problem is that sometimes a political party cannot muzzle it’s safest members from speaking out in support of what they really want. That’s also the President’s dilemma, but I see the hedge on that to take this recess and tell the American people just exactly what he thinks and what the legislation will look like in the end. Unfortunately, he’s taken unprecedented steps in talking to the CBO director after he merely did what his office is supposed to do - score the legislation as it stands. The President isn’t talking about Health Care Reform anymore. They dropped the term in favor of Health Insurance Reform. It’s a new strategy reconstructed on top of a total failure. It’s a long climb back to the top now. - Responsa - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:04 pm: Bill is right. The bad poll numbers and increasing bi-partisan push back against healthcare reform has everything to do with the continuing “nothingness” and “non-definition” of a plan. The WH selling Healthcare reform in the abstract has been like Donald Trump or any other developer selling the concept of a new high rise building. It gets media coverage, looks and sounds great, and the brochures are smooth and slick. But until the details and blueprints start emerging people can’t do real due diligence as to financing, cost, unit design, suitability, parking availability, ecological impact, etc. Most people won’t invest in a new condo in the abstract and neither are they buying into healthcare reform in the abstract. Why is this so hard for pols to understand? - Capitol View - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:07 pm: The first step towards solving a problem is to identify what it is. This is not a health care problem, folks, it is Health Care Financing. All over America, community hospitals have a sign over their admissions stations - we will serve all patients regardless of ability to pay. Who pays if the insurance companies or individual cannot? In most cases government - although the bean counters are getting nastier on claims. So the hospitals and physicians across our state and nation are absorbing more costs themselves, as charity care. Private insurance is wacky, in case you do not know. Every company thinks that they have the superior system for paying legitimate costs in the most cost effective manner. When you go to a hospital and they demand immediate information on what insurance you have, the issue is not do you have it or do you not. The treatment that you get will depend on how the insurance company best pays. Some pay on minutes in the operating room, some by length of days in a hospital, some reimburse better for medication as an alternative to surgery. So HMOs and PPOs and other insurers actually influence what type of medical care you receive, even if they can never be sued for malpractice for their steerage (by law, they do not make medical decisions. But in reality, they do!) As I understand it, the purpose of the fedral plan is to offer consumers two alternatives for health care - one governmental and one private. Both are supposed to have roughly the same risks / benefits / strategies in dealing with illness. Consider it choosing between Blue Cross or Medicare. Some will know and continue to trust Blue Cross, some will prefer the government administered similar plan. Under both scenarios, employers return to having a role in their employees’ medicial coverage. This is the American system, unique to most of the world. It grew out of employers wanting to offer their employees a reasons to stay, after the federal government forbid wage increases during WWII to limit inflation. Fringe benefits were something that emplyers could offer, and many employers did so. The practice continued on after the war ended, and today we “assume” that employers have a responsibility to provide health care coverage. Tradition. When you hear about the politics of “rushing” into health care financing reform, remember that this issue has been around since the 1970s. A modern approach to the issue is long overdue. - ahoy - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:08 pm: My guess is that it’s politically smart to oppose the health care “overall.” If doesn’t happen you can always say they never put together a good enough plan. If it does happen it will be either so weak (because politicians don’t have the stomach to pass anything meaningful) or too expensive and unpopular. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:21 pm: Much like Bill, what are the specific items being discussed? Not the Rush ranting points or MSNBC counter points. What I know is at our company family coverage costs $1,400 per month with stiff deductibles and co-pays. The company pays a piece of the employee’s cost. All dependent cost is paid by the employee. We have people whose health insurance is 50% of their paycheck. We have had several years of 10%-25% increases. Within 5 years these same employees will need 100% of their pay just to cover their health insurance costs even with any pay raises. The plan has been bid out many times and always comes back higher and with severe pre-existing condition limitations. I wish the discussion would cut the posturing and come to the point on how families will be able to afford coverage. Not everyone works for a large company. Nor is everyone a young male with no dependents. Even at national companies, the employee portion may be only $200 a month, but the cost charged to and paid by the employer is far higher. Move that $1,4000 a month to $2,800 a month in 5 years and the insurance simply becomes unaffordable for many people. Multiply that by whatever factor you want for family/single/retired coverage and who covers the cost then? - Responsa - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:23 pm: Capitol View, You sound very knowledgeable on the topic and I know we appreciate you posting “your understanding”. However, many citizens on this site and elsewhere are also knowledgeable on the topic and they still want to see a specific plan and read it for themselves-in a near final version-rather than just an overview, a paraphrase, or someone’s personal synopsis of the plan. - Gray - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:30 pm: It doesn’t surprise me that Congressional Democrats will question anyone who opposes the current healthcare plan- after all, they won’t have to use it. I am a healthcare provider, and all of my colleagues, no matter their political leanings, are skeptical of this bill and oppose it in its current form. It does nothing to address Medicaid/Medicare fraud and abuse that costs us billions/year, does not address tort reform, and most importantly, it has the potential to set up a system of medical rationing. - John Ruberry - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:32 pm: Obama’s popularity may be a thing of the past a year from now, even in Illinois. Keep in mind that support for health care reform is a mile wide, but an inch deep with most voters. The twenty percent who support government-run health care, the Jan Schakowsky types, aren’t going to vote for Kirk anyway. - JonShibleyFan - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:37 pm: Don’t worry. Kirk will just tell everyone that if it comes up again, he’d probably vote for it. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:39 pm: Hey John Ruberry, Do you still have that post showing the REAL birth certificate up on your web site? - Brennan - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:44 pm: As an aside, perhaps we can best diagnose the true issue when we can come together and agree on a style guide for the word health care. I’ve now read articles with health care, healthcare, and now Art Laffer using health-care. Health insurance seems acceptable. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:45 pm: Brennan, Thank goodness for you that the Dems, from Obama on down, sucked it up and instead of going for what they really want decided to go the pragmatic route and compromise with the GOP from the start by offering to work on a public option. If conservatives truly wanted to have a rational debate about health care reform they’d stop acting out and talking about things out of context and instead sit down at the table to actually discuss ideas with mutual respect. The Dems had enough respect for the GOP to not even go there on universal health care and in return they’re getting spit in the eye. - Easy - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:46 pm: I don’t think it hurt any Republicans in 1994 to oppose hillarycare. and that had higher approval numbers at that point in time then Barack’ plan does now. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 2:48 pm: Gray, We already have a system of medical rationing. They’re called insurance networks, pre-approval codes and pharmaceutical formularies. Medical providers have to deal with the added expense of navigating those roadblocks every day. I have to deal with them just about every time someone in my family sees a doctor. - Gray - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:06 pm: Rob_N: “We already have a system of medical rationing.” If you think insurance networks qualify as medical rationing, wait until the government tells you to wear a knee brace instead of getting knee surgery or to take a vicodin and pass that kidney stone instead of getting laser treatment. Paperwork sucks- we all agree, but I highly doubt that anyone with insurance gets denied the standard of care. That doesn’t happen at my hospital, where the majority of the patients are on Medicare and Medicaid- they get world class healthcare regardless. - John Ruberry - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:10 pm: 47th Ward…Nice one about the “real birth certificate.” I never claimed it was such, and I’ve always stated that it is my belief that Dear Leader was born in Hawaii. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:13 pm: So it’s still up, right? - John Ruberry - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:17 pm: And this has WHAT to do with health care? Stay on topic, please. - Adam Smith - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:18 pm: Thank you Rob, and the rest of the Democrats, for making such pathetic arguments that have allowed the American people to see what you are doing and begin to fight back. Yes, you are seeking single payer health care. The president has said it publicly, as have so many others. Americans know that the “Public option” will be the incredible blob that will grow, fed by tax dollars and government regulations, to take over the insurance market. You Dems are stupid, but not stupid enough to actually write single payer into the bills. And thanks for your idiotic claim that we already have rationing. No we don’t. If you do not like the coverage you have, in many cases you can change it. You also can do something unique…purchase a treatment that isn’t covered with cash money! These things are called choice. Under the Dems plan (the part called Cost Effectiveness) treatments deemed too expensive or not “cost effective” will not be permitted under government sanctioned insurance. There will be no options. You and your doctor don’t choose. The government does, and their decisions will not leave you the options you have today. And besides Robby Baby, if private insurance companies are refusing treatment to control costs, what the h**l do you think your sainted president is talking about when he talks about reducing costs? You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. Essentially, you answered the criticism by admitting the original charge rather than refuting it. - Ben S. - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:30 pm: @ Gray: Actually, that’s what happened to me when I had a kidney stone about a year and a half ago–I left the ER with a prescription for Vicodin and was told to wait it out. I should add that this was on private insurance at a teaching hospital, so boom goes your talking point. - Brennan - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:37 pm: ==The Dems had enough respect for the GOP to not even go there on universal health care and in return they’re getting spit in the eye.== I was pretty sure that “I Won” was a compliment. Maybe I’m mistaken. Help me Rob. You’re my only hope. I should probably thank Senator Spector for keeping his boat docked at the GOP bay just before Senator Franken arrived at shore. - Obama's Fmr. Doctor - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:40 pm: On chicago tonight last night Obama’s former Doctor was on and he was critical of Obama’s plan. He made a lot of sense. A lot than Obama has in honesty. If Obama hasn’t listened to his former doctor’s advice on health care reform before, maybe he ought to listen. - Gray - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:43 pm: @ Ben: The kidney stone example was not a talking point. If the stone is small enough, it can be passed without other intervention- but that is your business. By the way, the use of “talking point” is a talking point. - Truthful James - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:49 pm: The Congressional Budget Office has a proposal up to recoup some of the huge dollar costs by taking the Medicare Supplement to Medicare and doing high deductible and high co-pay. When I retired from active duty in 1973, the Military made good on their prior promise to provide me lifetime medical care by giving me continuing access to military healthcare at the navy hospital and dispensary. Much later they cut me off with Tricare and a list of civilian doctors who would accept it. I was responsible for the deductible and the copay, but I could buy a supplement — kind of like an underage Medicare. Tricare for Life was brought in still later as the supplement package for Medicare, fulfilling the original promise when I enlisted in 1953. Maybe the care is too good and we are living too long. Point me to the ice flow my Inuit son. Think of the money they’d theoretically save if they gave us all poison pills to take when we are three score and ten.. The point is that you can’t trust the government ptomise about anything.. I do know that I regard the CBO proposition as a tax on me, still a law abiding middle class puke. - Capitol View - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:55 pm: Responsa - I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I firmly believe in persons having some background on whatever they are debating. Supposedly, the health care coverage that you get under either plan being proposed would be exactly the same. So it really doesn’t matter who runs it. The better question is: what will the wraparound cost. My 92 year mother has Medicare coverage, but her years working for the Chicago Public Schools as a school clerk give her a group rate on Blue Cross “wraparound” coverage in addition to Medicare. My expectation is that whatever coverage comes out as the new standard is the basic level. Most persons will choose to purchase a supplemental policy for more costs coverage, a second tier of coverage. Persons in Canada and in Europe also have this two tier system — government pays the basic cost, but if you want less co-pay / remaining cost responsibility, you purchase the supplemental. It works almost everywhere around the world, where they do not have the WWII salary freeze experience that drew in the involvment of employers into health care coverage as a fringe benefit. There is no good reason why it would not work here as well. I do know this - the current health care financing situation abuses hospitals and physicians. I don’t want my health care professionals unhappy with the prospect of treating me as a patient. - anon - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 4:06 pm: A Quinnipiac University poll on Wednesday found that 52 percent of voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of healthcare while 39 percent approve. That was a shift from 46 percent approval against 42 percent disapproval in a July 1 survey. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 4:15 pm: Gray, Please name an affordable insurance plan that would cover a laser treatment for a kidney stone instead of otc pain relief (not even Vicodin) and instructions to pee in a cone after it passes. – Adam, I’m not the one taking those old statements out of context. And the only reason conservatives can do so is because Obama’s been honest about it. If a public option works well (and all indications are that it would despite the conservatives’ obfuscation — look at Australia) then perhaps as Obama and others have said decades down the road a single-payer system could be looked at to improve things even more. What do you think a stepping stone is? If you like the path you’re on you keep going. If you don’t you either stay put or turn around. And since we’re talking about statements politicos have made … isn’t the real reason conservatives want to crush reform because they simply want to spite Obama? Or is Sen. DeMint a liar? - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 4:23 pm: PS Adam Baby, “If you do not like the coverage you have, in many cases you can change it.” Really? I don’t decide that. My employer does. I don’t decide my deductible. My employer, in consultation with an insurance broker, does. I don’t decide what’s covered. An insurance company bureaucrat does. I can’t even negotiate with the hospital or doctor for better rates. An insurance company bureaucrat does. So where is my choice in all that? As I see it my only choice, Adam Baby, is to stay stuck with the plan my employer and I can barely afford (versus those they can’t afford) or drop it altogether and hope my kid doesn’t die during an asthma attack. Oh, wait. I could rush him to the hospital and go into massive debt from one asthma attack — or skip out on the payment and force your rates up. Thanks for helping me see my choices more clearly, Adam Baby. At least I know you choose to keep the most expensive health insurance in the world in order to keep one of the worst insurance systems in the world. Makes perfect economic sense to … no one. - Blind Faith - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 5:04 pm: Rob_N - Your arguments just don’t float. If you feel the plan from your employer is too expensive, opt out and buy a private one. That is what I did. If your angle is that a Government plan will cost you less think again. Perhaps, just perhaps it may appear cheaper on the surface, but the ultimate cost to you, me and the U.S. will be stifling. How will it be paid for? Taxes on EVERYBODY or “Fees” as Blago used to call them. Have you read about the VAT being proposed to help pay for this Health Care Initiative? It is insane and will cost us all. It is a regressive tax that unfairly hits lower income people. But shhhh, don’t pass that on. The annointed one couldn’t possibly stick it to the poor, could he? - Speaking at Will - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 5:14 pm: How bout a song! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYInBl7fU5g - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 5:14 pm: The truth of the mater is that there is no coherent plan on the table. We do know from talking points that the President is on the record favoring single payer, Sen Durbin supports single payer, Jan Schakowsky is aggressively for single payer…. The ringleader for this bill was to be Tom Daschle who has written a book about his view of single payer. Read it and see if you want your care delivered through a Medical Review Board who will tell your doctor which course of therapy to follow. We all know where this discussion is leading us. Currently 85% of Americans have some sort of insurance. Supposedly the solutions are to help out the 15% uninsured. Why is the solution to tear down what works for the majority to improve the condition of the minority. The solution lies with fixing the broken parts like medical underwriting and the problems of preexisting conditions. Fix the components and things will improve for all. Tear down what is working for most and replace it with a promise that the government can actually do something right the first time is a chilling proposition. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 5:57 pm: I’ve looked at private plans. Too bad I have a wife and kids and only one income. As to the rest of your post, please re-read Adam Baby’s retorts and then read my response. You’re bringing up tangents that I wasn’t discussing as I mocked Adam Baby’s apparent belief that some sort of “open/free market” exists in the insurance industry. In other words, I didn’t say a public option would be cheap in whatever form it gets paid for. The overall goal of the public option though is to offer coverage to as many people as possible and thereby begin lowering overall costs among all plans as (a) more competition breeds better results for consumers and (b) more people who would otherwise wait til illnesses or injuries are acute and require emergency care instead are able to see physicians much earlier in the process … that whole ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure thing. By the way, conservatives generally have supported a VAT (aka, “Fair Tax”). I agree with you that’s not the way to go. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 5:59 pm: Plutocrat, Which bill will “tear down what works for the majority to improve the condition of the minority”? A public option would fit in alongside what works for the majority. Some in that majority may even find that it works better for them. But it’s not meant as a replacement. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 6:02 pm: PS Blind Faith, Here’s what one private plan did for one family when they had a completely healthy baby in a completely normal, natural delivery (clue: nothing). - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 6:06 pm: Read Tom Daschle’s book. This is what the goal was to be. Restriction of end of life card, discourage the use of innovative technologies and medicines. These are not my words, but his - Blind Faith - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 7:52 pm: Rob_N - I have a wife, three kids and only one income. The example you provide could be compared to what caused the housing bubble. If you don’t read the fine print, ask questions and understand what you are signing you get screwed. Unfortunately that is how we have become in this country (greedy). If an insurance company has to pay a claim they don’t call it a claim, they call it a “medical loss”, which they try to avoid at all costs. Nice of them isn’t it? Anyway, my position is why reinvent the wheel? If our elected officials had spines, they would stand up to Trial Lawyers, Big Pharm and the Insurance Lobby to cause real change. But… our elected officials are too dependent on the money they rake in from the lobbyists to buck the system. It’s sad. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 8:55 pm: ===And this has WHAT to do with health care? === Nothing, John, but it has EVERYTHING to do with your credibility. For those who don’t know what we’re talking about, on Sunday John Ruberry posted a photo of the discredited hoax Kenyan birth certificate, under a headline reading: Born in Mombassa? Breaking Birther News. So he’s either a moron or a flaming partisan hack. But since he added that, personally he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he makes a strong case that he isn’t, in fact, a moron. That leaves us with partisan hack. So anything you post here, John, on any subject, ought to be read through the lens of all of the ridiculous postings on your site like last Sunday’s beauty. And since you sometimes post comments here, I thought I’d let others know about your web site. I’m probably doing you a favor anyway, since maybe someone new might visit your web site, doubling your readership. At any rate, thanks for the clarification on that post you made in today’s update. It’s much clearer now. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 9:16 pm: Blind Faith - In all seriousness if you don’t mind me asking, what plan do you have? And does anyone in your family have pre-existing conditions? Finally, what is the history of your rates and coverage? Increasing rates every year? Decreasing coverage or more restrictive formularies? Holding steady? To your point… how can we expect the politicians to stand up to those groups when that’s where they get millions in donations? The insurance industry alone is spending more than a million a day to fight for the status quo and the people in Congress fighting reform the most (GOPs and Blue Dogs) appear to have been receiving the most in donations from “Big Insurance”. Not sure why you think politicians need to stand up to trial lawyers. Medical malpractice insurance rates go up or down based on two things: how well those insurers are doing in the stock market and whether or not a given state has strict regulations and oversight of its med-mal insurance industry. That’s why California’s rates didn’t really budge after they enacted tort reform alone but did go down with regulations… Have a good evening Blind. - Bartlett Roger - Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 9:29 pm: The health care plan, if it passes, will be the Dems waterloo. Murray, I’m shocked that you think this would hurt Kirk in the General election. If ObamaCare passed, the Democratic challenger can completely forget everything south of I-80 and just about every suburb not close to the lake and East of I-57 from the city south to I-80. Simply put, there wouldn’t be enough of a base for a democrat to win if the VAST majority of people in the state feel their health care will change for the worse. - hsr0601 - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 6:30 am: All of the excellent health systems seem to have one thing in common, a well-organized preventative program. I think prevention system works as a ‘levee’ built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit aid from the government on a large scale. This might offer us the clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place. It won’t be easy to draw some specific numbers on the economic effect of the ‘levee’ , but the flood measure without a stable ‘levee’ would be a house on the sand, as all of us agree. Thank You ! - phil - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 6:54 am: I love how Nancy Pelosi claims the anti-health care bill rallies are “astro-turf”. I was at the rally in Chicago, everyone was wearing purple shirts. I suppose to some, union mobilization isn’t astro-turf, but it sure looks suspicious when all the protesters are wearing the same thing. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 7:54 am: Two things I know for sure: 1. Skyrocketing private premiums are absolutely killing small businesses that offer their employees insurance. It eats up business profits and depresses employees’ wages. 2. If a bill passes out of Congress, it will largely be the work of the Blue Dog Dems and the bipartisan group in the Senate working with Grassley and Baucus. That’s not a wild-eyed ideolgical crowd, folks. Sen. Kennedy, being the behind-the-scenes bipartisan facilitator he is, will sign off any final bill brought to him by his friends Grassley and Baucus. As always, half a loaf is better than none. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 9:43 am: Compare a new Volkswagen Beetle, selling for $15,000.00 to the original sold during the 1970’s for $2,000.00. Look at that price jump! The new beetle costs more than seven times what they used to cost! Why it is even beyond what inflation could account for! What an outrage! Obviously the skyrocketing costs for a VW Beetle has gotten out of hand! But you don’t make comparisons like that with health care, do you? We all seem to understand that the New Beetle isn’t an old Beetle sold at $15,000. We all recognize that the New Beetle is a better car with more options, power, quality, modernity, performance and luxury, than the original car, which most of us would never choose to drive. However, we are falling for this argument regarding health care. Would you like new health care, or would you like health care a-la-1972? We don’t use health care everyday like a car, but if we did, we would see that new health care is vastly superior to what was available to folks, at any price, forty years ago. We have so much more today, than we had back then. So, to those who keep claiming that health care costs are out of control, please ask them, or yourself, “compared to what?” Mr. Obama’s health care plan belongs to those old Beetle days. If you recall, the original Beetle was also intended by the government to be the car for the people, (hence the name, Volks (People’s) Wagen (Car)). The idea that one-size-fits-all was very fashionable then, and fashionable among those who haven’t kept up with modern society since then. It should come as no surprise that 1970’s style big-government solutions are appealing to old-fashioned Hawaiian Harvard Liberals like Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama lived in Hawaii, not the Rustbelt, and lived in Nirvana, not Cleveland. It is understandable that his view of the world would be based on books, not reality. So, if you were taught that the 1970s are the way to go, naturally, being a good student, you’d believe it too, that is, if you had no reality to counter it, except when you fell off your surf board in Waikiki. We can insure millions claiming to be unable to afford health insurance for 1/100th the cost of Mr. Obama’s plans. We could assist those of us who suffer catastrophic health situations - all within the competitive world that currently exists, which helps keep prices down. Instead of confiscating one sixth of the entire US economy, along with the freedoms associated with it, we can continue allowing the power of the market, do for us what cannot be available in the rest of the world. We have the best health care in the world, that New Beetle, while the rest of the industrial world is still trying to jam an air conditioner into their 1972 old Beetle, and failing miserably. We are the people. We empower government. We lose everything when we give that power away. Not only for the costs associated with health care, but the invaluable gift given to us by our American culture, our freedom. Notice to White House: I am not crazy, and should not be reported to the White House as demanded by your latest missive. Mr. Kirk is right on. Let the Illinois Democrats rally around The Big Lie. Then we will know who to vote out next year. - zatoichi - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 11:28 am: Van, nice points. Please give me some good talking points for my co-workers making about $15 an hour who have seen their family health insurance coverage double in the last 5 years to over $1,000 per month. Why? Small company with long term employees (read older) and several with pre-existing conditions that keep new insurance bids much higher than current. Company pays a portion of employee cost. Employee pays for dependent. The health care is great. The costs for one major illness gets shared with everyone in the plan when usage exceeds the dollars paid in. This has led to 15%-25% increases per year. Some healthy people have opted out to private plans, if they can find them. Employees with pre-existing conditions were rejected for private plans or were priced double the current cost, or presented affordable plans that covered about 25% of what the current plans cover. What do they do? - Rob_N - Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 12:50 pm: Phil, The Daily Herald’s photos of people who went to the rally prove otherwise. And, if conservatives truly want to have a healthy debate over insurance cost reform than why are they simply shouting, interrupting and generally preventing anyone from speaking let alone debating? Perhaps their only interest is in preventing a debate so it appears as if nothing can get accomplished. If all they want to do is completely stop any sort of reform at all, why not just admit it and let people who do want to talk about reform have their say? - hsr0601 - Friday, Aug 7, 09 @ 4:32 am: According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end reporting health tips about prevention. Immune System & Levee System : All of the excellent health systems seem to have one thing in common, a expansive, systematic preventative program requiring immense investments. I think a prevention system works as a ‘levee’ built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government ‘on a large scale’. This might offer us the clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place. It won’t be easy to draw some specific numbers on the economic effect of the ‘levee’ , but the flood measure lacking a stable ‘levee’ would be a house on sand, as the too high level of ‘preventable’ chronic diseases in America shows. At present, about 75 percent of each health dollar goes to treating chronic conditions. When tests reveal patients are at risk of a chronic disease, physicians have no benefit to help them make necessary changes to stay healthy. Rather, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick. If current health care system could shift a small percentage of total spending into programs that help prevent people from getting sick in the first place, it would dramatically reduce the overall cost of care. Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments in preventive care, and those pieces of the PUBLIC OPTION must be maintained. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”, said Benjamin Franklin , and ‘Early Detection’ goes beyond monetary value as we see the recent case. As far as I’m concerned, the congress affected by the special interests has impeded the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid. Let’s imagine the costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach. Thank You ! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.