"Silent Night" removed from school concert

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Aaron that is absolute garbage. What logical argument did you make?

Aaron wrote:Because the government has PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will fubar healthcare with their history of current healthcare programs and once the cost of mandated health care is added to our national debt, to sustain the spending required to fund these programs will double the average Americans tax burden from 41% to 82% and that is not a realistic sustainable burden. In short, it will lead to the eventual bankruptcy of our government.

I’m not sure if you’re 14 or just not very smart.

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Aaron that is absolute garbage. What logical argument did you make?

Aaron wrote:Because the government has PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will fubar healthcare with their history of current healthcare programs and once the cost of mandated health care is added to our national debt, to sustain the spending required to fund these programs will double the average Americans tax burden from 41% to 82% and that is not a realistic sustainable burden. In short, it will lead to the eventual bankruptcy of our government.

I’m not sure if you’re 14 or just not very smart.

Is that a logical argument or just the repetition of arguments already made. I don't see any proof of those numbers. Because you say so isn't good enough. I don't see any charts, graphs or anything else that proves to me that you are correct. I am not certain if you are ten just loving to insult people with the immature ''Na na I think I'm smarter than you." foolishness. Is everything so extreme with you, or is it just about money?

SheikBen wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Health care is a different kind of issue than housing or any other industry. Do people that use the ER as their 'primary care' receive the same treatment as a physician's office. There is no preventitive care in an ER. It is also very expensive to treat people that way and they are often extremely ill by the time they get there. Do you really believe that is universal health care?

Yes.

It is certainly true that some people's health care will necessarily be better than others. For the Soviets it was the party leaders who got the best care; in our system it is the wealthy. That is presently the case in France and Canada, by the way. Wealth buys better medical care across the board.

Now one needn't have universal health insurance to offer preventive medicine. Many localities have had boards of health at which one could receive low cost medical visits and immunizations, and I see no reason why local governments should not provide such services, should they choose. I also believe that charitable clinics should be funded well by both local governments and private donations. We have one here in town.

There are many of the community clinics across the country. If they are funded by local government, why shouldn't state and federal government also pitch in? Wouldn't local clinics also be funded with tax dollars? I think it is unfortunate that wealth buys better health care.

SheikBen wrote: Now one needn't have universal health insurance to offer preventive medicine. Many localities have had boards of health at which one could receive low cost medical visits and immunizations,

Well GEEEZE, our County Board of Health offers that preventive medicine thingy ...... but only to a select few individuals.

Like the 20 something year old who lives down the street from me.

He got a young gal pregnant, she had baby, gave it to him to raise ..... and now the State is giving him Food Stamps, etc., paying all his living expenses, paying his tuition and college expenses, paying his travel expenses to/from school and paying his mother for babysetting the child when he it too busy to do it.

And he gets travel expenses whenever he goes up to the County Board of Health once a month for his "FREE" check-up and to make sure he hasn't contracted any STD's in the past 30 days and to get his new supply of free condoms.

YUP SIREEEEE, ..... Michael, ...........I will agree, that sure nuff is "low cost medical visits and immunizations" that young fellow is receiving ...... and probably a hundred or so more just like him here in the County.

But not the young folks that have a job and drawing a paycheck, they don't get any of those "freebies".

.

Andrea,

Is it unfortunate that wealth buys better nutrition and shelter too? Should the profits of farmers and grocers also be controlled by the federal government? How about landlords and contractors?

Where does it end? Who decides? What about education? More affluent people certainly can afford, and often avail themselves to, better schools for their children.

What do you suppose happens when you take away the incentives of better homes, better healthcare, better food? Why should the really bright college kid with a keen interest in biology spend the time and extraordinary effort it takes to become a cardiologist if he knows when he retires he won't be able to afford to travel?

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

Is it unfortunate that wealth buys better nutrition and shelter too? Should the profits of farmers and grocers also be controlled by the federal government? How about landlords and contractors?

Where does it end? Who decides? What about education? More affluent people certainly can afford, and often avail themselves to, better schools for their children.

What do you suppose happens when you take away the incentives of better homes, better healthcare, better food? Why should the really bright college kid with a keen interest in biology spend the time and extraordinary effort it takes to become a cardiologist if he knows when he retires he won't be able to afford to travel?

Actually we have programs already that deal with nutrition, food stamps and WIC. HUD deals with housing in conjunction with local housing authorities. Should grocers and farmers be regulated in pricing? I would say no unless there was a food shortage and they were engaging in graft. Why? Because we have substantial programs in place to aid people in obtaining food. I agree that if someone wants a different education than what is offered then pay for it yourself. Absolutely.

Has it come to that the only incentives for a career are monetary? Do you really think that physicians wouldn't make enough to go on vacation? I make enough to go on vacation. I doubt very much that their salaries would ever be less than mine even under universal health care.

Who decides? Congress has decided about SS, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. Why should they not decide about health care and how it is available to American citizens? I have no problem with them deciding. For other issues like privacy the Constitution has protections in place that have been upheld since our nation's inception. I have no fear that the intrusions would be so great that I could not live with them. I know that some of you do, but I do not.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Health care is a different kind of issue than housing or any other industry. Do people that use the ER as their 'primary care' receive the same treatment as a physician's office. There is no preventitive care in an ER. It is also very expensive to treat people that way and they are often extremely ill by the time they get there. Do you really believe that is universal health care?

Yes.

It is certainly true that some people's health care will necessarily be better than others. For the Soviets it was the party leaders who got the best care; in our system it is the wealthy. That is presently the case in France and Canada, by the way. Wealth buys better medical care across the board.

Now one needn't have universal health insurance to offer preventive medicine. Many localities have had boards of health at which one could receive low cost medical visits and immunizations, and I see no reason why local governments should not provide such services, should they choose. I also believe that charitable clinics should be funded well by both local governments and private donations. We have one here in town.

There are many of the community clinics across the country. If they are funded by local government, why shouldn't state and federal government also pitch in? Wouldn't local clinics also be funded with tax dollars? I think it is unfortunate that wealth buys better health care.

Well, sure, Andrea, but welcome to the real world. Everywhere on earth except Cuba and North korea, wealth buys better health care. It does so in Sweden, it does so in France, it does so in Canada, it does so in the UK.

Do you doubt this?

No. But in the U.K., Sweden, etc there is also a base level of care. Then those who can afford more sometimes do with private policies. But we do not even have that 'base level of care' assured to everyone. Even in Cuba and N.Korea I would take a guess that Fidel and Kim have better care than the cigar roller and the rice paddy farmer.

Do you think that's wrong?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

Is it unfortunate that wealth buys better nutrition and shelter too? Should the profits of farmers and grocers also be controlled by the federal government? How about landlords and contractors?

Where does it end? Who decides? What about education? More affluent people certainly can afford, and often avail themselves to, better schools for their children.

What do you suppose happens when you take away the incentives of better homes, better healthcare, better food? Why should the really bright college kid with a keen interest in biology spend the time and extraordinary effort it takes to become a cardiologist if he knows when he retires he won't be able to afford to travel?

Actually we have programs already that deal with nutrition, food stamps and WIC. HUD deals with housing in conjunction with local housing authorities. Should grocers and farmers be regulated in pricing? I would say no unless there was a food shortage and they were engaging in graft. Why? Because we have substantial programs in place to aid people in obtaining food. I agree that if someone wants a different education than what is offered then pay for it yourself. Absolutely.

Has it come to that the only incentives for a career are monetary? Do you really think that physicians wouldn't make enough to go on vacation? I make enough to go on vacation. I doubt very much that their salaries would ever be less than mine even under universal health care.

Who decides? Congress has decided about SS, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. Why should they not decide about health care and how it is available to American citizens? I have no problem with them deciding. For other issues like privacy the Constitution has protections in place that have been upheld since our nation's inception. I have no fear that the intrusions would be so great that I could not live with them. I know that some of you do, but I do not.

Andrea,

If you think that people living in housing projects and living on food stamps and AFDC are being housed and fed as well as the people being taxed to pay for these programs you're either insane or a moron. I suspect you're neither.

Sure you can afford a vacation, but I doubt you amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for the education and training required to do your job. Will you be able to afford to travel when you retire? Can you afford a new Mercedes or Lexus every 2 or 3 years? Could you afford the best schools for your children? Can you afford to dine at the best restaurants, and shop in the swany boutiques?

Hard work and dedication, innovation and creativity, should be rewarded. You leave me with the impression that the folks who provide the cures and treatments for cancer and MS are not entitled to benefit from their hard work and innovation because we need them, yet the people who provide us with high budget thrillers and music and video games......now those folks can earn endless sums of money because while we may enjoy them, we can survive without them.

Which makes me wonder, is your answer to this just to tax the designer pants off of them? How high do you tax? 98%? What if Oprah's income is so high that a meager 2% still allows her to lead a life a homeschooling housewife in West Virginia can only dream of? Would you tax her until all she has left is the average salary of a public school teacher in Chicago or Boise?

You don't have a problem letting Congress decide? Why? Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel line their own pockets. Al Franken is an angry comic, yet they should make those kinds of decisions for hundreds of millions of people.

Does our Constitution hold no value for you? How about our history of innovation and creativity? How about the fact that our capitalist system has created one of the most prosperous, well fed, best educated, longest living societies in recorded history? If socialism is utopia why does it fail time and again and why do so many people flee it?

I'll put $5 on #2. Or should I be good since it's Christmas???

lol Aaron. I hope you're enjoying the day.

Stephanie wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

Is it unfortunate that wealth buys better nutrition and shelter too? Should the profits of farmers and grocers also be controlled by the federal government? How about landlords and contractors?

Where does it end? Who decides? What about education? More affluent people certainly can afford, and often avail themselves to, better schools for their children.

What do you suppose happens when you take away the incentives of better homes, better healthcare, better food? Why should the really bright college kid with a keen interest in biology spend the time and extraordinary effort it takes to become a cardiologist if he knows when he retires he won't be able to afford to travel?

Actually we have programs already that deal with nutrition, food stamps and WIC. HUD deals with housing in conjunction with local housing authorities. Should grocers and farmers be regulated in pricing? I would say no unless there was a food shortage and they were engaging in graft. Why? Because we have substantial programs in place to aid people in obtaining food. I agree that if someone wants a different education than what is offered then pay for it yourself. Absolutely.

Has it come to that the only incentives for a career are monetary? Do you really think that physicians wouldn't make enough to go on vacation? I make enough to go on vacation. I doubt very much that their salaries would ever be less than mine even under universal health care.

Who decides? Congress has decided about SS, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. Why should they not decide about health care and how it is available to American citizens? I have no problem with them deciding. For other issues like privacy the Constitution has protections in place that have been upheld since our nation's inception. I have no fear that the intrusions would be so great that I could not live with them. I know that some of you do, but I do not.

Andrea,

If you think that people living in housing projects and living on food stamps and AFDC are being housed and fed as well as the people being taxed to pay for these programs you're either insane or a moron. I suspect you're neither.

Sure you can afford a vacation, but I doubt you amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for the education and training required to do your job. Will you be able to afford to travel when you retire? Can you afford a new Mercedes or Lexus every 2 or 3 years? Could you afford the best schools for your children? Can you afford to dine at the best restaurants, and shop in the swany boutiques?

Hard work and dedication, innovation and creativity, should be rewarded. You leave me with the impression that the folks who provide the cures and treatments for cancer and MS are not entitled to benefit from their hard work and innovation because we need them, yet the people who provide us with high budget thrillers and music and video games......now those folks can earn endless sums of money because while we may enjoy them, we can survive without them.

Which makes me wonder, is your answer to this just to tax the designer pants off of them? How high do you tax? 98%? What if Oprah's income is so high that a meager 2% still allows her to lead a life a homeschooling housewife in West Virginia can only dream of? Would you tax her until all she has left is the average salary of a public school teacher in Chicago or Boise?

You don't have a problem letting Congress decide? Why? Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel line their own pockets. Al Franken is an angry comic, yet they should make those kinds of decisions for hundreds of millions of people.

Does our Constitution hold no value for you? How about our history of innovation and creativity? How about the fact that our capitalist system has created one of the most prosperous, well fed, best educated, longest living societies in recorded history? If socialism is utopia why does it fail time and again and why do so many people flee it?

I know full well that those receiving benefits are not living as well as the wealthy. Are you living as well as the wealthy? Do you know anyone who is? I don't. But I know lots of people that would consider themselves to be living well.

Yes, I will be able to travel when I retire. I own a new car and my own home though it isn't large. I don't need it to be large however. I just require it be comfortable. I might not travel on a private jet, but I can well afford to fly to reach my destinations. I have savings and other types of financial safeguards.

Actually we in America do not live as long as many other countries in particular Mediterranean countries. We are prosperous yes. But as one doctor put it on the Today Show several months ago as the health care debate was heating up. 'We have islands of excellence here in America but they are surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.' I wrote it down to keep it. As you stated in an earlier post there are kiddos here going to bed hungry, without shoes, or school supplies. There are many positive things about America. There are also negative things. Capitalism is good, but it should not be the end all and be all of our society. It should not always be the deciding factor. Sometimes morality, ethics, rightness come before monetary concerns. Do I think Oprah should be taxed to death? No. But I believe that she should pay her fair share.

I have great respect for the Constitution. Different people/groups interpret it in different ways with each believing that they are right.

Andrea,

Your position is that we need socialized medicine because not everyone can afford preventive medical care. Well, despite all of the federal programs, section 8 housing, food stamps, AFDC, WIC, and more, homeless shelters are still filled to capacity and charitable organizations are still struggling to keep shelves stocked in food pantries.

Government cannot be all things to all people. It cannot provide a comfortable lifestyle for all from cradle to grave.

Fraud is rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Food stamps are still being sold for drugs and housing projects from Boston to LA are havens for criminals. The government is ineffective. Money is squandered. People get rich defrauding these programs while our nation's debt spirals out of control. Yet, despite the fact our government doesn't have the ability or will to end the fraud and waste, despite the fact that in many locations public housing is hazardous to the health of the occupants and food stamps are not providing enough food to keep people out of soup lines, you want to hand over control of the entire healthcare system to them.

You need to get your head out of the sand and take a long, hard look at reality. Right now anyone in this country can receive emergency medical treatment if they need it. That is real healthcare. Right now, free preventive care is available from health departments and clinics in every state, in every major city from coast to coast and most of the small ones too.

Speaking as a 25 year member of the GOP, I can say conservatives want meaningful reform. We want to see change that will result in more affordable healthcare for our countrymen, our neighbors, and ourselves. We want tort reform. We want to be able to purchase insurance across state lines. We want to be able to purchase US manufactured drugs at much lower prices from Canada. Changes like these will make healthcare more affordable and accessible for uninsured Americans, and not intefer with our ability to make decisions about our health for ourselves.

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

Your position is that we need socialized medicine because not everyone can afford preventive medical care. Well, despite all of the federal programs, section 8 housing, food stamps, AFDC, WIC, and more, homeless shelters are still filled to capacity and charitable organizations are still struggling to keep shelves stocked in food pantries.

Government cannot be all things to all people. It cannot provide a comfortable lifestyle for all from cradle to grave.

Fraud is rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Food stamps are still being sold for drugs and housing projects from Boston to LA are havens for criminals. The government is ineffective. Money is squandered. People get rich defrauding these programs while our nation's debt spirals out of control. Yet, despite the fact our government doesn't have the ability or will to end the fraud and waste, despite the fact that in many locations public housing is hazardous to the health of the occupants and food stamps are not providing enough food to keep people out of soup lines, you want to hand over control of the entire healthcare system to them.

You need to get your head out of the sand and take a long, hard look at reality. Right now anyone in this country can receive emergency medical treatment if they need it. That is real healthcare. Right now, free preventive care is available from health departments and clinics in every state, in every major city from coast to coast and most of the small ones too.

Speaking as a 25 year member of the GOP, I can say conservatives want meaningful reform. We want to see change that will result in more affordable healthcare for our countrymen, our neighbors, and ourselves. We want tort reform. We want to be able to purchase insurance across state lines. We want to be able to purchase US manufactured drugs at much lower prices from Canada. Changes like these will make healthcare more affordable and accessible for uninsured Americans, and not intefer with our ability to make decisions about our health for ourselves.

I think herein lies the difference. I don't see being treated in an emergency room as real health care. Where I live the nearest 'clinic' is over thirty miles away. What do those people do who can't get there? Do they just remain ill without treatment? I see real health care as having a primary care physician/and or reasonable access to a clinic. Being able to fill your prescriptions at a reasonable price. Having access to specialists at need. Comprehensive hospital care if required. Not a trip to the emergency room because you have no other option.

I don't doubt your sincerity that you want the things that you just posted Stephanie. But I do believe that there are many among the Republican Party who don't really want those things. That just do not see the reason or the need to aid their fellow Americans. What you wrote was very well spoken. If that were to be the position of the majority I would say that is good. Moderates have a reason to hope for an adequate solution to what faces us. I posted much earlier that if a solution could be reached that was adequate without a public option that I would find that acceptable.

You hear that Stephanie, the guberment's gonna build clinics for everybody that ain't got one close to them that can't get to the clinic to get their scripts.

So where do you reckon they gonna build one at up on Jim Ridge?

Tell me Aaron. What is a reasonable distance to you? Or do you know what the word 'miles' means? I presume Jim's Ridge is an unaccessible place. My how we love to argue petty details that suit us.

Perhaps we should also build one on top of Mona Loa. The absurdity of your argument is a floor rolling belly laugh.

First, I didn't make an argument and second, my post wasn't directed at you. I was speaking to Stephanie and she sees the lunacy of your statement, just as I and everyone else on this forum will when the read it.

If you want to know about Jim's Ridge, as it is nothing more then a really nice bike ride to me whereas it's her home, you should direct your questions to Stephanie. I'm sure she can tell you all about West Virgina distance compared to Mass. distance.

For the record, I don't see how the guberment is responsible for ensuring where a clinic is located. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Most clinic's are run by county agencies. Or city agencies. Or sometimes even state agencies. Or privately owned ones receive funding. So for most of them, how is the government NOT RESPONSIBLE for where they are located?

Bout the only clinics around here ran by a county agency that I'm aware of are the county health departments and far as I know, about all they're good for is passing out free birth control and banning smoking. So you think we should now bring the rubbers and pills to the freeloaders instead of forcing them to ride the public transportation to go get it?

Andrea,

As a person who worked for a major hospital in Providence for several years, I assure you the care uninsured people receive is real, high quality, state of the art healthcare.

As a conservative, I assure you, I speak for the vast majority of the people sharing my political ideology. As a Republican, I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of my fellow party members, from elected officials to rank and file members, want reform. We want nothing but the best for ourselves, for our families, friends, neighbors and countrymen. I consider it a major personal insult to suggest otherwise, particularly of rank and file members of my party.

We're not going to get it with government controlled medicine. Average Americans will not get the best care the medical community has to offer. We will get whatever the government can afford after all the graft and waste.

We can look at the history of government run programs over the course of the past 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. We can see there will be rationing, we know this because this is what other nations have had to resort to. We know the affluent will still be able to afford the best care in the world, because they do that in other nations too. We know there will be fraud and corruption and waste, because we see fraud and corruption and waste in Medicare and Medicaid now. We know there will be Senators and Representatives and bureaucrats who use their power to increase their personal wealth and power through sweetheart deals, neopotism, and extortion. We know this because not only is it occuring in those programs currently in existance, but the Senators are already reaping in huge rewards just to cast a vote in favor of this abomination.

The government cannot be all things to all people. It is a 25 minute ride just to get off the ridge I live on. When Aaron speaks of a clinic up on Jim Ridge, he means putting a clinic within a 30 minute drive of a few hundred people. There are plenty of people living up here in my neck of the woods without health insurance and there are plenty of people without primary care physicians out here too.

Universal healthcare will not alleviate these problems, it will exacerbate them. They're can't be comprehensive medical clinics within walking distance for everyone without a vehicle here. If the government takes over healthcare, lowering the salaries of doctors, there will be fewer of them. Already there are many areas of this nation suffering severe shortages of specialists like OB/GYN's and neurology. There aren't enough primary care physicians to care for every American. They simply don't exist and if our government takes away the allure of lucrative salaries, there will be even fewer.

As a person who worked in the healthcare industry for 20 years, I personally know doctors, from allergists to dentists, to OB's who have retired early simply because the cost of doing business (mostly malpractice insurance) is so high, coupled with the utter lack of respect for their profession, they no longer feel it is worth their time and effort.

As it stands now, too many of our young doctors are choosing to go into higher paying, but less vital fields, like cosmetic surgery. They can make a lot more money and deal with less bullshit from the government and insurance industry than being an oncologist. People with cash can pay out of pocket for liposuction or a face lift and the surgeon doesn't have to worry about how they're going to pay that malpractice coverage while ekeing by on what Medicare pays. This will get worse under government run healthcare, not better.

The reality is, lawyers love this system, and Washington is run by a pack of rabid lawyers. There is no desire to tackle one of the primary obstacles to improving medical care in this nation because the foxes are guarding the chicken coop. This is in both parties, and in both house, and in all 3 branches of government. Remember, the O is a lawyer too.

Another major problem facing the healthcare industry today is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, millions of illegal immigrants are accessing free healthcare in this country. An illegal alien from any nation in this world can make the same use of our emergency rooms as any uninsured American citizen, and they do to the tune of billions of dollars. This is yet another compelling reason to secure our ports and borders against those who choose to violate our sovereignty. It is yet an other example of just what a threat these criminals are to average Americans.

Finally, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have gotten themselves into enviable positions in this country. Americans must people able to purchase cheaper American made drugs from Canada and elsewhere and they must be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines and take their insurance with them from job to job.

I disagree vehemently with the notion that all Americans must be compelled to purchase or enroll in plans that provide routine care. We don't purchase plans (nor are we required to) that provide routine preventive care and maintainence for our cars or our homes. We budget for those expenses. Insurance is something that pays for the unexpected. If you're in an accident, you've got coverage. If there's a fire, you've got coverage. If you get cancer, your insurance should cover you.

That's the kind of reform this country needs. Not another power grab from the crooks and jackasses in DC.

Bravo Stephanie. Well said.

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

As a person who worked for a major hospital in Providence for several years, I assure you the care uninsured people receive is real, high quality, state of the art healthcare.

As a conservative, I assure you, I speak for the vast majority of the people sharing my political ideology. As a Republican, I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of my fellow party members, from elected officials to rank and file members, want reform. We want nothing but the best for ourselves, for our families, friends, neighbors and countrymen. I consider it a major personal insult to suggest otherwise, particularly of rank and file members of my party.

We're not going to get it with government controlled medicine. Average Americans will not get the best care the medical community has to offer. We will get whatever the government can afford after all the graft and waste.

We can look at the history of government run programs over the course of the past 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. We can see there will be rationing, we know this because this is what other nations have had to resort to. We know the affluent will still be able to afford the best care in the world, because they do that in other nations too. We know there will be fraud and corruption and waste, because we see fraud and corruption and waste in Medicare and Medicaid now. We know there will be Senators and Representatives and bureaucrats who use their power to increase their personal wealth and power through sweetheart deals, neopotism, and extortion. We know this because not only is it occuring in those programs currently in existance, but the Senators are already reaping in huge rewards just to cast a vote in favor of this abomination.

The government cannot be all things to all people. It is a 25 minute ride just to get off the ridge I live on. When Aaron speaks of a clinic up on Jim Ridge, he means putting a clinic within a 30 minute drive of a few hundred people. There are plenty of people living up here in my neck of the woods without health insurance and there are plenty of people without primary care physicians out here too.

Universal healthcare will not alleviate these problems, it will exacerbate them. They're can't be comprehensive medical clinics within walking distance for everyone without a vehicle here. If the government takes over healthcare, lowering the salaries of doctors, there will be fewer of them. Already there are many areas of this nation suffering severe shortages of specialists like OB/GYN's and neurology. There aren't enough primary care physicians to care for every American. They simply don't exist and if our government takes away the allure of lucrative salaries, there will be even fewer.

As a person who worked in the healthcare industry for 20 years, I personally know doctors, from allergists to dentists, to OB's who have retired early simply because the cost of doing business (mostly malpractice insurance) is so high, coupled with the utter lack of respect for their profession, they no longer feel it is worth their time and effort.

As it stands now, too many of our young doctors are choosing to go into higher paying, but less vital fields, like cosmetic surgery. They can make a lot more money and deal with less bullshit from the government and insurance industry than being an oncologist. People with cash can pay out of pocket for liposuction or a face lift and the surgeon doesn't have to worry about how they're going to pay that malpractice coverage while ekeing by on what Medicare pays. This will get worse under government run healthcare, not better.

The reality is, lawyers love this system, and Washington is run by a pack of rabid lawyers. There is no desire to tackle one of the primary obstacles to improving medical care in this nation because the foxes are guarding the chicken coop. This is in both parties, and in both house, and in all 3 branches of government. Remember, the O is a lawyer too.

Another major problem facing the healthcare industry today is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, millions of illegal immigrants are accessing free healthcare in this country. An illegal alien from any nation in this world can make the same use of our emergency rooms as any uninsured American citizen, and they do to the tune of billions of dollars. This is yet another compelling reason to secure our ports and borders against those who choose to violate our sovereignty. It is yet an other example of just what a threat these criminals are to average Americans.

Finally, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have gotten themselves into enviable positions in this country. Americans must people able to purchase cheaper American made drugs from Canada and elsewhere and they must be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines and take their insurance with them from job to job.

I disagree vehemently with the notion that all Americans must be compelled to purchase or enroll in plans that provide routine care. We don't purchase plans (nor are we required to) that provide routine preventive care and maintainence for our cars or our homes. We budget for those expenses. Insurance is something that pays for the unexpected. If you're in an accident, you've got coverage. If there's a fire, you've got coverage. If you get cancer, your insurance should cover you.

That's the kind of reform this country needs. Not another power grab from the crooks and jackasses in DC.

There are many points in what you just posted that I agree with you on Stephanie. I don't mean to insult you. I have however both read and seen things on the internet and the news where there are Republicans who have no desire to help their fellow Americans in any way. I am not saying it is everyone. A few weeks ago I was on the Fox News forum. A self-identified Republican clearly stated, "Too bad if the poor die, why should I care?" Other posters agreed with that statement, all identifying themselves as Republican.

I look on health care as being different from auto and other kinds of insurance. We can live without an automobile though it is difficult. We can live without fire insurance. Or flood insurance or theft insurance. Things can be replaced. But ill health due to lack of medical care can not be replaced. I would also agree that tort reform is necessary. Too many frivalous lawsuits occur. I would also agree with buying drugs from Canada is a great idea. Didn't the Republicans just block that as an amendment to the health care reform bill?

I have no desire to see a system in chaos. But I have every desire to see a health care system that works for all Americans or as close to as possible. I don't believe what we have now does so. Nor am I saying the solution will be easy to come by. It is my belief that there has to be a solution. The status quo is not acceptable. If buying across state lines would help then that it should be part of the solution. I agree that illegal immigrants shouldn't receive benefits. If they are ill or injured humanitarian aid should be administered (ie..emergency treatment) then they should be sent home.

But if no action is taken and costs continue to soar more and more people will be unable to afford insurance. A friend of mine lost hers when the price was raised over $200 a month. As that happens and more people become ill through lack of care what happens? Employers can't afford to insure, citizens can't afford their share. Do we become more and more a nation of sick people who can't afford treatment? Does that not affect our society and our country as a whole? I think the answer is to bring together all of the ideas and formulate the best plan possible. We are also by the way in every state but one required to have auto insurance. Why should we not be required to have health insurance?

Andrea,

I have seen Democrats, elected Democrats, say some pretty heinous things as well. I don't put a whole lot of stock in what anonymous posters to the Fox website. Have you read some of the more memorable quotes posted by liberals to the Daily Kos? Remember the comments directed at Henry Hyde a couple of years back? Slinging arrows at each other doesn't solve anything

Nor will repeating the mistakes of the past or of others. Look at pubic housing projects. Take a look at the crime, the squalor, the infestion of every kind of vermon. People afraid to leave their apartments. People diving to the floor when a car backfires. That's government compassion for you.

Do you remember a year or two ago when the former residents of a housing project in New Orleans became confrontational, shouting, jeering and carrying on because the government decided they weren't going to rebuild "their" housing project? Those people clearly demonstrated they have absolutely no desire or any intention of ever improving their situation in life. They were born in those projects and they were madder than hell the government wasn't going to pay for them to die in that same neighborhood.

Health insurance has BECOME different from other kinds of insurance. Today so many Americans are walking pharmacies. They take pills to control everything from their cholesterol level to their mood. They take a pill to give them an erection and another pill to get to sleep after they "do the deed."

Pharmaceutical companies run ads every night on television promising greater bladder control and less heartburn. Forgive me for not wanting my family to go without ANYTHING so some old fart can get a boner and his wife won't need to purchase Poise pads any more. Sure, their lives might be a little less enjoyable, but they'll live just like I'd somehow survive out here on Mt. Crumpet without my car.

To my knowledge, no state in the union requires motorists to carry comprehensive coverage. They are required to carry insurance that pays for property losses and injuries in case they screw up. They don't require you to carry a policy that will repair your bumper after a fender bender or replacement if you total it. What's more, the federal government isn't compelling people to purchase this coverage. The states are doing it and I'm pretty sure it isn't 49 and even if it is, those states determined what the minimum coverages were based upon their specific circumstances.

The changes that need to be made will make health care, and health insurance, more affordable and accessible to those currently going without in this country NOW. If hospitals aren't required to provide emergency care for criminals who violate our sovereignty, if we have meaningful tort reform, if we are allowed flexibility in purchasing our medicines and insurance costs will go decrease and more Americans will be able to receive the care they need.

If we turn to socialized medicine our hospitals will no longer be able to provide the best care to our citizens. They won't be able to purchase the equipment required. There will be rationing of care. People will no longer be able to expect immediate treatment, they will be forced to wait and there will be a lot of suffering and dying while people wait.

My family is currently enduring an extremely frustrating situation. My 92 y/o grandmother has colon cancer. She is a diabetic with severe arthritis who can no longer walk. She needs round the clock care. After caring for her for over a year at home, they were forced to put her in a nursing home. Why? She doesn't want to be there and NOBODY want's Grandma in that home. WHY is because the government will pay for her to be in a nursing home, but they won't pay for aides to care for her in her home, even though that would be FAR less expensive.

Now what kind of sense does that make? It isn't what's best for my grandmother, it has caused my family great distress and it is costing taxpayers much more money than if they would pay for a home health aide. All she was receiving at home was 3 hours a day! That is what you get with government healthcare.

We are not going to "come together and get the best plan possible". The Democrats don't want that. They want socialized medicine and they are going to shove it down our throats because they have the numbers to do it, the consequences be damned. That is exactly what is going on. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid couldn't care less about compromise, or the best solution. They have made that crystal clear these past few months. In the end I believe they will suffer for it. Not as much as the rest of us are going to suffer for it, but there will be consequences for them come November.

Stephanie wrote:Andrea,

I have seen Democrats, elected Democrats, say some pretty heinous things as well. I don't put a whole lot of stock in what anonymous posters to the Fox website. Have you read some of the more memorable quotes posted by liberals to the Daily Kos? Remember the comments directed at Henry Hyde a couple of years back? Slinging arrows at each other doesn't solve anything

Nor will repeating the mistakes of the past or of others. Look at pubic housing projects. Take a look at the crime, the squalor, the infestion of every kind of vermon. People afraid to leave their apartments. People diving to the floor when a car backfires. That's government compassion for you.

Do you remember a year or two ago when the former residents of a housing project in New Orleans became confrontational, shouting, jeering and carrying on because the government decided they weren't going to rebuild "their" housing project? Those people clearly demonstrated they have absolutely no desire or any intention of ever improving their situation in life. They were born in those projects and they were madder than hell the government wasn't going to pay for them to die in that same neighborhood.

Health insurance has BECOME different from other kinds of insurance. Today so many Americans are walking pharmacies. They take pills to control everything from their cholesterol level to their mood. They take a pill to give them an erection and another pill to get to sleep after they "do the deed."

Pharmaceutical companies run ads every night on television promising greater bladder control and less heartburn. Forgive me for not wanting my family to go without ANYTHING so some old fart can get a boner and his wife won't need to purchase Poise pads any more. Sure, their lives might be a little less enjoyable, but they'll live just like I'd somehow survive out here on Mt. Crumpet without my car.

To my knowledge, no state in the union requires motorists to carry comprehensive coverage. They are required to carry insurance that pays for property losses and injuries in case they screw up. They don't require you to carry a policy that will repair your bumper after a fender bender or replacement if you total it. What's more, the federal government isn't compelling people to purchase this coverage. The states are doing it and I'm pretty sure it isn't 49 and even if it is, those states determined what the minimum coverages were based upon their specific circumstances.

The changes that need to be made will make health care, and health insurance, more affordable and accessible to those currently going without in this country NOW. If hospitals aren't required to provide emergency care for criminals who violate our sovereignty, if we have meaningful tort reform, if we are allowed flexibility in purchasing our medicines and insurance costs will go decrease and more Americans will be able to receive the care they need.

If we turn to socialized medicine our hospitals will no longer be able to provide the best care to our citizens. They won't be able to purchase the equipment required. There will be rationing of care. People will no longer be able to expect immediate treatment, they will be forced to wait and there will be a lot of suffering and dying while people wait.

My family is currently enduring an extremely frustrating situation. My 92 y/o grandmother has colon cancer. She is a diabetic with severe arthritis who can no longer walk. She needs round the clock care. After caring for her for over a year at home, they were forced to put her in a nursing home. Why? She doesn't want to be there and NOBODY want's Grandma in that home. WHY is because the government will pay for her to be in a nursing home, but they won't pay for aides to care for her in her home, even though that would be FAR less expensive.

Now what kind of sense does that make? It isn't what's best for my grandmother, it has caused my family great distress and it is costing taxpayers much more money than if they would pay for a home health aide. All she was receiving at home was 3 hours a day! That is what you get with government healthcare.

We are not going to "come together and get the best plan possible". The Democrats don't want that. They want socialized medicine and they are going to shove it down our throats because they have the numbers to do it, the consequences be damned. That is exactly what is going on. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid couldn't care less about compromise, or the best solution. They have made that crystal clear these past few months. In the end I believe they will suffer for it. Not as much as the rest of us are going to suffer for it, but there will be consequences for them come November.

Actually it is 48 states that mandate auto insurance. http://www.carinsurance.com/Kb/content20009.aspx Wisconsin and New Hampshire are the two exceptions. It also says that different states require different levels of coverage.

There have been many instances where Republican elected officials have also said awful things about Dems. None of it is productive. In my opinion both sides in this Healthcare Reform process have been unyielding. Neither has been willing to compromise. From the 'let this be Obama's Waterloo' to the Dems not willing to consider Republican amendments this whole process has been a study in the worst of Washington politics. I do agree it will be the American people who suffer in the end. A solution without all of the best ideas from both sides is not the best solution.

Hi AC and others,

I want to get th is thought out, while typing on a computer that is unresponsive and surrounded by children wishing to thwart my every thought that does not involve Clifford the big red dog....

If the costs of health care are becoming unmanageable, wouldn't nationalizing health care be little more than a shell game? Add up the profits of the top 20 insurers in this country. Is that enough money to "fix" the healthcare mess? I strongly doubt it.