Healthcare Reform Seen Critical For Rural U.S

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Dr. Anne Doig, the President of the Canadian Medical Association knows what she is talking about and is NOT an unsubstantiated propaganda TOOL with a political biased agenda like some people who are demanding change to a substandard health care system.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You can find a lot of misinformation and propaganda on the internet. Especially on politically charged issues such as health care. Try to find reliable sources. Most blogs have little or no standards and can print anything they wish.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
Sure there are problems with the health care system in Canada, but it is cheaper by far than ours and the AMA, WHO, and other medical organizations rate it overall as being much better than ours. As a matter of fact a vast majority of Canadians support their health care system.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/PO...
Look for facts, not unsubstantiated propaganda from agenda based politics.

Are you sure Government run health care costs less than private run health care?

The experts do not agree with you.

My new study, published by the Pacific Research Institute, shows that -- across four decades -- the costs of government-run health care have risen far more than the costs of private care.

My study compares the cost increases of Medicare and Medicaid with those of all other health care in the United States. The key finding: Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's costs have risen one-third more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care in America -- the vast majority of which is purchased privately.

Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.

Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more.(And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)

In fact, if the costs of Medicare and Medicaid had risen only as much as the costs of all other health care in America, then, instead of costing a combined $807 billion last year, they would've cost a combined $606 billion. That savings of $201 billion would have amounted to more than $1,750 per American household last year alone.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...

So,$1,836.00 more per patient under Government run care. Medicare.

Multiply that by say 300 million Americans and the damn number is just too damn big and is unsustainable!

Private care is cheaper than government care. Period.

Stoopid idiot! Old people require more care. That's what you stats show. Heysoos, do I have to do the thinking for the whole friggin' country?

Separate the Medicaid and Medicare costs and maybe you have something.

Scott T wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you sure Government run health care costs less than private run health care?
The experts do not agree with you.
My new study, published by the Pacific Research Institute, shows that -- across four decades -- the costs of government-run health care have risen far more than the costs of private care.
My study compares the cost increases of Medicare and Medicaid with those of all other health care in the United States. The key finding: Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's costs have risen one-third more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care in America -- the vast majority of which is purchased privately.
Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.
Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more.(And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)
In fact, if the costs of Medicare and Medicaid had risen only as much as the costs of all other health care in America, then, instead of costing a combined $807 billion last year, they would've cost a combined $606 billion. That savings of $201 billion would have amounted to more than $1,750 per American household last year alone.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
So,$1,836.00 more per patient under Government run care. Medicare.
Multiply that by say 300 million Americans and the damn number is just too damn big and is unsustainable!
Private care is cheaper than government care. Period.

We were discussing facts about Canada's health care. You always go off on a tangent and bring in suspect data to make your point. The fact is that Canada has a combined public and private health system that the people like and it costs much less than that of the US. Other countries do even better. If this is so, and from what I have read and from Canadians that I know it is, what is wrong with looking at it? Are you afraid that our private insurance corporations will come up short?

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
We were discussing facts about Canada's health care. You always go off on a tangent and bring in suspect data to make your point. The fact is that Canada has a combined public and private health system that the people like and it costs much less than that of the US. Other countries do even better. If this is so, and from what I have read and from Canadians that I know it is, what is wrong with looking at it? Are you afraid that our private insurance corporations will come up short?

We are not just looking at it. It is being shoved down our throats and we don`t want it. I am afraid of what Obama said. "I am a proponent of single pay, thats what I want to see".

I am afraid of what Barney Fwanks said, "the public option is the best way to get to single payer".

I don`t want my quality private health care taken away and be forced onto a government option (single payer) where the frigging government will dictate my life. I don`t want to have to wait on a list for 2 or 3 years to get to see a family physician.

Why do you call quotes from the President of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig, suspect data?

Is it because you disagree with her? Or it doesn`t fit your political agenda?

Scott T wrote:

<quoted text>
We are not just looking at it. It is being shoved down our throats and we don`t want it. I am afraid of what Obama said. "I am a proponent of single pay, thats what I want to see".
I am afraid of what Barney Fwanks said, "the public option is the best way to get to single payer".
I don`t want my quality private health care taken away and be forced onto a government option (single payer) where the frigging government will dictate my life. I don`t want to have to wait on a list for 2 or 3 years to get to see a family physician.
Why do you call quotes from the President of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig, suspect data?
Is it because you disagree with her? Or it doesn`t fit your political agenda?

You have been looking with your eyes and ears closed. That is not a rational way to get a handle on the problem. We know that more of the same is going to be higher prices, less coverage, more people left out, more problems with industry competing with foreign countries, perhaps even poorer medical care. We need change. Instead of promoting half-truths and outright lies because you don't think it fits your agenda. Try to think how we can improve health care.

Democrats` Affordable Social Housing

NEW YORK (Reuters)- Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News; NYSE:FRE - News), the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a "prolonged deterioration" in housing.

Increases in the value of securities Freddie Mac held over the period helped buoy its net worth, however, erasing its need to tap government funds for a second straight quarter to stay solvent while continuing to buy and guarantee home loans.

Including a $1.3 billion dividend payment on senior preferred stock bought by the Treasury in previous quarters, Freddie Mac's third-quarter loss increases to $6.3 billion.

The home funding company's loss comes amid a rise in provisions for credit losses to $7.6 billion in the quarter, up 46 percent compared with the previous quarter, as delinquencies worsened on loans it guarantees. Provisions will remain high this quarter, it added.

"I would say we are just beginning to see the impact of the chargeoffs on their guarantee book," said Janaki Rao, vice president of mortgage research at Morgan Stanley in New York.

Its larger rival Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News; NYSE:FNM - News) on Thursday said it would need $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury after a whopping $18.9 billion third-quarter loss.

Results at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are widely watched as a barometer of the U.S. housing market since they own or back nearly half of outstanding mortgages.

The losses have presented a dilemma to Congress as it wants to protect taxpayers' money but is also counting on the companies to undertake foreclosure prevention efforts which are significantly adding to expenses.

In order to ease the terms of loans under the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable refinancing program, the companies must buy the mortgages out of securities, and write down their value. Seeking alternatives to foreclosures also means bad loans sit on their books longer.

Despite signs of recovery in home sales and prices, rising delinquencies and unemployment levels mean the housing market is still fragile, Freddie said. High unemployment, foreclosures and excess inventory will impede the recovery "for some time" and push house prices lower, the company said.

This means that Freddie Mac's survival will continue to depend on support from the government, which forced the company and Fannie Mae into conservatorship in September 2008.

Freddie Mac has taken $51.7 billion since then while Fannie Mae's draw will rise to $60.9 billion.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You have been looking with your eyes and ears closed. That is not a rational way to get a handle on the problem. We know that more of the same is going to be higher prices, less coverage, more people left out, more problems with industry competing with foreign countries, perhaps even poorer medical care. We need change. Instead of promoting half-truths and outright lies because you don't think it fits your agenda. Try to think how we can improve health care.

I already posted 'how' we can improve health care in America. You have been looking with your eyes and ears closed. Start with tort reform. Open up the States borders and allow 'real competition' to lower prices. Free markets work. Add those few and I mean few who get disqualified because of pre-existing conditions to medicare. There are lots of Americans who qualify for medicare but do not register.

Half truths and outright lies? Have you heard Obama say in his own words that he is a proponent of single payer? I have. Have you heard Barney Fwank say in his own words that a public option is the best way to get to single payer? I have.

Listen for yourself and then get back to me on half truths, whatever that liberal word is. Its either true or not true.

Obama on single payer health insurance

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

and Barney Fwanks on single payer...

Public option will lead to Single Payer Barney Frank

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

These two men are dead set on getting every American on a government single payer system. Half truths my but.

I don`t want my kids on single payer government medicaid. I want to keep my world class private health care. These two powerful men want to take that away from me so that they can control me. Make mine Freedom. You bow down to the state if you want to. No, thanks.

Scott T wrote:

Democrats` Affordable Social Housing
NEW YORK (Reuters)- Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News; NYSE:FRE - News), the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a "prolonged deterioration" in housing.
Increases in the value of securities Freddie Mac held over the period helped buoy its net worth, however, erasing its need to tap government funds for a second straight quarter to stay solvent while continuing to buy and guarantee home loans.
Including a $1.3 billion dividend payment on senior preferred stock bought by the Treasury in previous quarters, Freddie Mac's third-quarter loss increases to $6.3 billion.
The home funding company's loss comes amid a rise in provisions for credit losses to $7.6 billion in the quarter, up 46 percent compared with the previous quarter, as delinquencies worsened on loans it guarantees. Provisions will remain high this quarter, it added.
"I would say we are just beginning to see the impact of the chargeoffs on their guarantee book," said Janaki Rao, vice president of mortgage research at Morgan Stanley in New York.
Its larger rival Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News; NYSE:FNM - News) on Thursday said it would need $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury after a whopping $18.9 billion third-quarter loss.
Results at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are widely watched as a barometer of the U.S. housing market since they own or back nearly half of outstanding mortgages.
The losses have presented a dilemma to Congress as it wants to protect taxpayers' money but is also counting on the companies to undertake foreclosure prevention efforts which are significantly adding to expenses.
In order to ease the terms of loans under the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable refinancing program, the companies must buy the mortgages out of securities, and write down their value. Seeking alternatives to foreclosures also means bad loans sit on their books longer.
Despite signs of recovery in home sales and prices, rising delinquencies and unemployment levels mean the housing market is still fragile, Freddie said. High unemployment, foreclosures and excess inventory will impede the recovery "for some time" and push house prices lower, the company said.
This means that Freddie Mac's survival will continue to depend on support from the government, which forced the company and Fannie Mae into conservatorship in September 2008.
Freddie Mac has taken $51.7 billion since then while Fannie Mae's draw will rise to $60.9 billion.

As President Reagan said, "There you go again." You cannot blame FM's for the private banking frenzy. But this has little to do with health care reform.

And forcing Americans to buy health care like Pelosi is doing is wrong too. For this government to write laws that say buy what we tell you to buy or face up to 5 years in prison and a max fines of up to $250,000 is unbelievable... The never of that bitch, Pelosi. This current government we have is a bunch of Dictating Fascists. They are ignoring the Constitution. They act like German Socialists of old.

Scott T wrote:

And forcing Americans to buy health care like Pelosi is doing is wrong too. For this government to write laws that say buy what we tell you to buy or face up to 5 years in prison and a max fines of up to $250,000 is unbelievable... The never of that bitch, Pelosi. This current government we have is a bunch of Dictating Fascists. They are ignoring the Constitution. They act like German Socialists of old.

Notice they don't dictate nothing to the illegal aliens? Do they get five years and a max fine of $250,ooo too?

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
As President Reagan said, "There you go again." You cannot blame FM's for the private banking frenzy. But this has little to do with health care reform.

Guess the Government is banking on using social security payments and med-care for the new healthcare program. This way retirees won't have to worry about getting a check from the government.

Scott T wrote:

And forcing Americans to buy health care like Pelosi is doing is wrong too. For this government to write laws that say buy what we tell you to buy or face up to 5 years in prison and a max fines of up to $250,000 is unbelievable... The never of that bitch, Pelosi. This current government we have is a bunch of Dictating Fascists. They are ignoring the Constitution. They act like German Socialists of old.

How would you propose to fix the health care mess? It is making our country less competitive in the world because of the more and more health care dollars provided by our companies, and the consumption of more and more of the take home pay of our citizens. This is hurting our overall economy by removing money that should be available for other goods and services as well as investments.

Leaving it like it is will cause more folks to drop out of insurance plans and cause companies to either pass on the cost to employees or move to a foreign country because of the rising costs. When folks drop out, or are dropped out, of insurance plans, this will put more pressure on hospitals to pass on the cost to paying customers.

The majority of the paying customers are insurance corporations. They will have no choice except to raise premiums even more and deny more and more life saving procedures and pre-existing conditions. This will put more pressure on the hospital emergency rooms. I guess the only answer to that would to stop requiring hospitals to treat for nonpaying emergency treatment. Just let the poor folks die. Your market forces at work.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
How would you propose to fix the health care mess? It is making our country less competitive in the world because of the more and more health care dollars provided by our companies, and the consumption of more and more of the take home pay of our citizens. This is hurting our overall economy by removing money that should be available for other goods and services as well as investments.
Leaving it like it is will cause more folks to drop out of insurance plans and cause companies to either pass on the cost to employees or move to a foreign country because of the rising costs. When folks drop out, or are dropped out, of insurance plans, this will put more pressure on hospitals to pass on the cost to paying customers.
The majority of the paying customers are insurance corporations. They will have no choice except to raise premiums even more and deny more and more life saving procedures and pre-existing conditions. This will put more pressure on the hospital emergency rooms. I guess the only answer to that would to stop requiring hospitals to treat for nonpaying emergency treatment. Just let the poor folks die. Your market forces at work.

What happened to the jobs nobody wants and illegal aliens? Are they subject to healthcare fines too?

My concern is not that it may or may not cover abortions, or be a government take over, but the fact that the fat insurance corporations are the real gainers. They get millions of new customers because of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. They get the younger and healthiest customers because the bill permits them to charge twice as much for older people. This means that the older but under 65 would probably have to go without insurance and pay the fines. That would be good for the industry because the older folks are the sickest anyhow. The young most likely to need medical help will turn to the so called public option. So instead of being in competition with the insurance corporations, the public option is just a place to stick that small number of people who the insurance corporations would rather not have to cover anyhow.

Instead of producing a bill that will help contain the costs for citizens, congress has produced a bill that benefits the insurance corporations. If this passes, we will pay more as taxpayer money is forcefully passed to the private sector. Costs will skyrocket.

The response of payers, government and employers, will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.

No, this is not a government take over of the health care system. I wish it were. Medicare costs less than 5% to administrate while private insurance takes over 20% OFF THE TOP. This looks to me like a capitulation to the insurance lobbyists. I am not sure what the gripe of the Republicans is. They certainly have not pointed this out. They concentrate their rhetoric on the political buzz words of abortion and socialism and ignore the deeper problems in the bill.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

My concern is not that it may or may not cover abortions, or be a government take over, but the fact that the fat insurance corporations are the real gainers. They get millions of new customers because of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. They get the younger and healthiest customers because the bill permits them to charge twice as much for older people. This means that the older but under 65 would probably have to go without insurance and pay the fines. That would be good for the industry because the older folks are the sickest anyhow. The young most likely to need medical help will turn to the so called public option. So instead of being in competition with the insurance corporations, the public option is just a place to stick that small number of people who the insurance corporations would rather not have to cover anyhow.
Instead of producing a bill that will help contain the costs for citizens, congress has produced a bill that benefits the insurance corporations. If this passes, we will pay more as taxpayer money is forcefully passed to the private sector. Costs will skyrocket.
The response of payers, government and employers, will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.
No, this is not a government take over of the health care system. I wish it were. Medicare costs less than 5% to administrate while private insurance takes over 20% OFF THE TOP. This looks to me like a capitulation to the insurance lobbyists. I am not sure what the gripe of the Republicans is. They certainly have not pointed this out. They concentrate their rhetoric on the political buzz words of abortion and socialism and ignore the deeper problems in the bill.

If thier saving so much money with Medicare, whats the problem?

What happened, the Fed ripped the general health of the nation by de-valuing the dollar to much and too soon?

bearon2 wrote:

<quoted text>
What happened to the jobs nobody wants and illegal aliens? Are they subject to healthcare fines too?

If there are jobs that citizens will not do, they can be done by allowing those who will legal entry into our country. There is no reason to allow illegals to remain in our country. The legal non-citizens should be required to pay a tax to cover such contingencies as accidents and emergency health problems.

If the cost of living went up four percent each year, that means the dollar went down by the same amount? Meanwhile whats the GNP?

bearon2 wrote:

<quoted text>
If thier saving so much money with Medicare, whats the problem?

Apparently the folks in the congress are on the take and do not want to jump off the gravy train. The propaganda that the private insurance corporations are more competitive than public programs is perpetrated by the market folks as gospel. They, however, are afraid of the competition of a real public option because it will drive down the take of the private insurers and the politicians would lose their bloated campaign purses.

Look at the rest of the industrialized countries. The cost of health care is much less than ours and the AMA and WHO as well as others rate their health care as superior. We need to break the strangle hold that the insurance corporations have on our politicians and look for real reform. What works the best is what we should strive for. Not maintaining some ideology tht is not working well.