Support for national health insurance

[russell_bynum]

Please explain how we are going to start covering people who are not currently covered and it isn't going to either lower my standard of care or raise my premiums.

It won't raise your premiums per se but it may raise your tax bill, functionally the same though when it comes to your wallet. How much it might cost depends on a lot of factors but no one ever said that we can get something for nothing. You have to balance the cost against what we believe is right as a society and (if money is the primary concern) what costs us less in the long run. Do you really think that you aren't already paying for all those uninsured people in the ER?

 

I know I'm paying for all those uninsured people in the ER and it pisses me off.

[smiller]

I know I'm paying for all those uninsured people in the ER and it pisses me off.

Me too. So now we're just down to deciding whether we want to cover a $3,000 ER visit (or a series of them), or a $30 office visit that in many cases may well eliminate the former.

[russell_bynum]

I know I'm paying for all those uninsured people in the ER and it pisses me off.

Me too. So now we're just down to deciding whether we want to cover a $3,000 ER visit (or a series of them), or a $30 office visit that in many cases may well eliminate the former.

 

I'd rather eliminate the people who are using the system and not paying into it.

[smiller]

I'd rather eliminate the people who are using the system and not paying into it.

How? Short of figuring out some way of making sure that every member of society can always pay his own way (I'm all ears here) or employing draconian measures we are only left with the choice of paying now, or paying later... and I think we all know which is usually the least expensive option.

[russell_bynum]

I'd rather eliminate the people who are using the system and not paying into it.

If you mean eliminate their need then I'm all for that, just not sure how to accomplish it. If you mean eliminate by leaving a sick or injured person on the hospital doorstep to die then that would be where our opinions part.

 

If you don't belong here legally then you don't get any of our services.

 

If you're here legally but can't pay due to some kind of hardship, then we can talk.

[Whip]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance?????????????

For the zillionth time all of the plans proposed by all of the candidates pretty much maintain the insurance-based care provider system that we have today. If you are already insured you may well see no difference whatsoever in your coverage. Except, maybe, that it is no longer lonked to/controlled by your employer, and yeah, I could go for that.

 

Dear Dad.

 

The title of this thread is Support for national health insurance not what do ya think of the Candidaties Plans I don't care about their plans.

 

 

Your Son

 

[Matts_12GS]

I'd rather eliminate the people who are using the system and not paying into it.

 

And here, I was called trollish for wanting to deport them AFTER treating them.

 

Thanks Russel, let's keep the dream alive!

[smiller]

If you don't belong here legally then you don't get any of our services.

If you mean that they don't deserve our services, you're probably right. But if you really mean don't get, then that means potentially leaving a sick or injured person to die within sight of medical care. Just not an option, for me anyway. But by all means, 'keep the dream alive.'

 

Dear Dad.

 

The title of this thread is Support for national health insurance not what do ya think of the Candidaties Plans I don't care about their plans.

They're the ones who will be deciding (or at least strongly influencing) our public policy but you don't care? I thought I raised you better.

[Ken H.]

Seems to me it goes back to the point that the health of a nation is the wealth of a nation. We have the luxury to debate this because of the advances in public health that have taken place over the past 150 years.

These advances have been built on the bedrock that we ARE, in fact, our brother's keeper.

The greater part of the advances occurred before the antibiotic and health-care era (ie: pre-1930). They were accomplished by legislating and providing things like clean water, housing and sanitation, trash and garbage clearance, protection of a non-contaminated food supply, etc. All these things were accomplished by (dare I say?) government!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that one of the major reasons poor countries stay poor is that they are too sick to improve. (See Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill, considered one of the medical classics in the subject; see also Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond)

It was recognized, even by capitalists, that sick people don't make good workers. That to have a productive, functioning work force meant to provide some sort of health care and general public health benefits.

Of course, it took the labor movement to drag the employers, kicking and screaming, into fulfilling that promise.

We humans are social creatures and are interdependent. Our interest in health care and in public health must extend to our own people and beyond our own borders. The SARS epidemic travelling to Canada from Asia is an example of just how vulnerable AND interdependent we are. Health threats abroad have the potential to effect us here, perhaps catastrophically.

If an infectious disease catastrophe does strike, who will respond? We were unprepared for Katrina. I would hate to see what will happen if pandemic flu hits. (Ref:The Great Influenza by John M. Barry. So far the best popular work on the subject.)

The public health system in this country and worldwide has been undermined since the drastic spending cuts of the Reagan government in the early 1980s. County health departments are drastically underfunded. Is that a local issue? Don't bet your life on it! It is not a local issue any more than the collapse of a bridge is a local issue.

It is a matter of priorities. Where do we choose to spend our dollars? Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollar go to a poor family for health care than to Halliburton or Bechtel.

Excellently put David. The words I've been searching for in my replies in this entire thread. Thank you.

[Ken H.]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance

Yes. Especially in a catastrophic situation. I know what my limits are on my employer provided health care insurance and one accident that resulted in a prolonged hospitalization would clean me completely out. $1M plus hospitization bills exist. It happens to insured families all the time. Complete and permanent financial ruin.

[Whip]

Wow Ken

 

Your insurance sucks.

 

Maybe you should move to Tx.

 

We'll take better care of ya.

 

Whip

[smiller]

Yes. Especially in a catastrophic situation. I know what my limits are on my employer provided health care insurance and one accident that resulted in a prolonged hospitalization would clean me completely out. $1M plus hospitization bills exist. It happens to insured families all the time. Complete and permanent financial ruin.

You might look into an insurance rider that covers you above the $1 million figure. Since the odds of your needing it are relatively low it shouldn't cost too much.

[russell_bynum]

If you don't belong here legally then you don't get any of our services.

If you mean that they don't deserve our services, you're probably right. But if you really mean don't get, then that means potentially leaving a sick or injured person to die within sight of medical care. Just not an option, for me anyway.

 

So, we both agree, but I'm the only one with the stones to ask for policy to back up my feelings.

 

I'm sorry...that's just how I feel. I'm OK with helping people who are here legally and need emergency care, and I'm OK with helping people who are down on their luck and temporarily unable to pay. But if you've sleazed across the border illegally to be a parasite...uh uh. Buh bye. No "anchor babies". No free healthcare. No school for your kids. Nada.

 

Here's an interesting question...of the countries who have "successfully" implemented nationalized medicine, what is their situation regarding illegals?

[Dave McReynolds]

I feel like Russell does on providing free health care to illegals, but I feel like Seth does on the practicalities of leaving someone with broken bones at the scene of a car accident.

 

The only way to resolve this that I can think of is to treat their injuries, and then toss them into jail for a good long time. Why should they be allowed to be in this country illegally, use our taxpayer provided services, and then go on about their business or be sent home without any other consequences?

[DavidEBSmith]

The only way to resolve this that I can think of is to treat their injuries, and then toss them into jail for a good long time.

 

And who will pay for them to be in jail?

[ghaverkamp]

The only way to resolve this that I can think of is to treat their injuries, and then toss them into jail for a good long time. Why should they be allowed to be in this country illegally, use our taxpayer provided services, and then go on about their business or be sent home without any other consequences?

 

 

The problem is, they're more of a drain in jail, where they're in the country illegally, using our taxpayer-provided services, after which they'll be sent home without any other consequences.

 

A more sensible immigration policy with consequences for entering illegally would seem to make more sense.

[Dave McReynolds]

And who will pay for them to be in jail?

 

Who pays for anybody to be in jail? Do we say to a bank robber, "You've cost us enough already; we're not going to allow you to cost us more by paying for your time in jail too, so just go on about your business and please don't rob any more banks."

 

Until we discover more effective ways to discourage breaking our laws, we use punishment, and at present, that means going to jail.

[ghaverkamp]

Until we discover more effective ways to discourage breaking our laws, we use punishment, and at present, that means going to jail.

 

If we could send them to someone else for good, maybe that would be better.

[russell_bynum]

Until we discover more effective ways to discourage breaking our laws, we use punishment, and at present, that means going to jail.

 

If we could send them to someone else for good, maybe that would be better.

 

Now we're back to my "machine guns at the border" idea that you all poopooed.

 

[Boffin]

Until we discover more effective ways to discourage breaking our laws, we use punishment, and at present, that means going to jail.

 

If we could send them to someone else for good, maybe that would be better.

 

We tried that. It's called Australia

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

Until we discover more effective ways to discourage breaking our laws, we use punishment, and at present, that means going to jail.

 

If we could send them to someone else for good, maybe that would be better.

 

We tried that. It's called Australia

 

Andy

 

[smiller]

No "anchor babies". No free healthcare. No school for your kids. Nada.

Just for the record I'm not for any of those things either, only saying that not treating people in need of emergency medical care isn't an acceptable replacement for a reasonable and comprehensive policy to deal with immigration issues. Until we have something in place we'll continue to be stuck with a de facto policy of haphazard responses that doesn't serve anyone's interest very well. But that's another thread and I don't think we need any more of them.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The problem is, they're more of a drain in jail, where they're in the country illegally, using our taxpayer-provided services, after which they'll be sent home without any other consequences.

 

A more sensible immigration policy with consequences for entering illegally would seem to make more sense.

 

Being in jail for a year - not earning any money to send back to their family outside the US - is a pretty serious consequence for them. That is a deterrent that might be worth investing in.

[Ken H.]

Here's one for you: in the first few months of 2006, 70% of the women giving birth at Parkland Hospital in Dallas were illegals.

I think there is a danger of mixing issues. Specifically - Universal Health Care and Illegal Immigration. There is a tendency to try to use health care (or more specifically the withholding of health care) as tool/weapon to combat illegal immigration. ‘Those people don’t deserve healthcare, they’re here illegally.’ Or even more insidiously, ‘Those children don’t deserve healthcare, (or education) their parents are here illegally.’ That kind of thing.

 

I agree that illegal immigration is an issue that should be addressed/combated, although personally I don’t think it is the burning, ‘the sky is falling’ issue that some people make it out to be. But that’s a different thread at the moment.

 

But there are some issues that are so core to who we are as a unique form of life on this planet, as self-aware beings, that they must transcend above and beyond any ancillary issue. And one of those is the caring of other human beings in need. On so many levels, from the moral one (a moral obligation to a spiritual guidance (a god), and/or a moral obligation to humanity), all the way to the strictly monetary level of what does it take to have all the ingredients to continue to build a wealthy society?

 

The fact that our current health care system is a for-profit enterprise, whose success is measured by what is accomplished for the dollars spent, is fundamentally flawed IMO, and a significant obstacle to the attainment of the full potential of a populous.

[Ken H.]

Maybe you should move to Tx.

 

We'll take better care of ya.

Naw, I probably wouldn't be able to make myself check the mandatory "Conservative?" check box on the hospital admission form and end up in the gutter.

[Ken H.]

Here's an interesting question...of the countries who have "successfully" implemented nationalized medicine, what is their situation regarding illegals?

Status is never questioned. A person in need is a person regardless.

[Whip]

Here's an interesting question...of the countries who have "successfully" implemented nationalized medicine, what is their situation regarding illegals?

Status is never questioned. A person in need is a person regardless.

 

The Swiss have a plan.

 

 

http://immigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa071700a.htm

 

 

"The populous recently voted to cut the ratio of foreigners back to 18%, which means the expulsion of thousands of legal residents is imminent."

 

 

I guess it all depends on what ya mean by a person in need......a place to live is must not be somethin you need.

[SageRider]

It seems we are paying government aid to darn near every country on earth. Seems to me that the cost of emergency treatment of any illegal alien ought to be deducted from the appropriate nation's aid check and the care center reimbursed (at "uninsured" rates).

Seems to me the cost of keeeping illegal aliens in U.S. prisons also ought to be deducted from the aid check.

[SageRider]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance

Yes. Especially in a catastrophic situation. I know what my limits are on my employer provided health care insurance and one accident that resulted in a prolonged hospitalization would clean me completely out. $1M plus hospitization bills exist. It happens to insured families all the time. Complete and permanent financial ruin.

Actually one area I agree with Ken. If you do not know what your medical insurance policy limit is, check it out. Once you need a high dollar amount it's to late to add any supplemental coverage.

Most of my working life, my company provided insurance had a 100K lifetime limit.

I don't think there is any argument here on how fast 100K can go when it comes to emergency or chronic medical care.

[russell_bynum]

No "anchor babies". No free healthcare. No school for your kids. Nada.

Just for the record I'm not for any of those things either, only saying that not treating people in need of emergency medical care isn't an acceptable replacement for a reasonable and comprehensive policy to deal with immigration issues. Until we have something in place we'll continue to be stuck with a de facto policy of haphazard responses that doesn't serve anyone's interest very well. But that's another thread and I don't think we need any more of them.

 

It's real simple. People come here illegally because they can make a better life for themselves than what they had back home, and getting here illegally is easier than doing it legally.

 

The way to fix that is to remove their ability to make a better life for themselves here than they had back home if they're here illegally. THEN, IF (and only if) we decide that we would benefit from having more people here (either temporarily on work visas or permanently as citizens) we figure out how to streamline that process.

 

Until we decide that we're actually willing to do something about the problem, it will not go away and they will continue to come in. Hint: Talking about it, issuing non-binding resolutions, and standing around in a circle singing Kumbaya isn't really dealing with the problem.

[smiller]

Talking about it, issuing non-binding resolutions, and standing around in a circle singing Kumbaya isn't really dealing with the problem.

Agreed. That would take something like an Immigration Reform Bill.

[Pilgrim]

". . . money that the government gives to rich people and corporations. . ." Giving money to rich people? I presume you mean letting them keep more of the money that is their own.

 

E.g., farm subsidies to large farms. Which the conservative Heritage Foundation says 3/4 of which goes to the top 10% largest farms,

 

Eebie, farm subsidies are precisely the sort of corporate welfare that concerns me as much as do personal welfare payments. I didn't specifically mention farm subsidies because they are so clearly exactly that: corporate welfare.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Clean water is a public benefit. Public funds are appropriately distributed for public benefit.

And why isn't health care just the same? Where fundamentally is the difference?

 

The difference is that everyone in town sucks his water from that stream.

 

In my world, the government is properly concerned with controlling epidemics but not appendicitis.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

Yes, as a matter of fact in response to an earlier challenge in this thread, I believe three Canadians, two Brits and an Australian have weighed in on this thread (or something like that I didn't just now go back and count), and all of them have spoken in favor of their UHC system over our (the USA) market driven one.

 

Let's expand the question, and I do not presuppose an answer, although I suspect one.

 

Liking the system is a good thing. Now let us ask if it is fiscally sustainable.

 

I've heard that the British system is foundering on budgetary shoals. So, according Foreign Affairs, are others. A major reason why, they say, is the influx of third world immigration that brings needs but not money.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Talking about it, issuing non-binding resolutions, and standing around in a circle singing Kumbaya isn't really dealing with the problem.

Agreed. That would take something like an Immigration Reform Bill.

 

Seth, because you capitalized Immigration Reform Bill I am going to assume that you refer to the unlamented amnesty bill of last year. If you don't, well never mind, because your post is a convenient place for me to make a point anyway. It does relate to the subject at hand.

 

Keep in mind that the so-called reform bill would have legalized millions and millions of illegal aliens but it would not have changed their status within the economy. They would remain at the bottom of the economic totem pole with all the needs they have now, but with increased eligibility for social programs and support. And earned income tax credits, etc. etc. etc.

 

One of the reasons we have not won Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, despite trillions spent, is that we keep recruiting reinforcements for the other side.

 

Pilgrim

[Boffin]

Whereas it is true that many individual hospitals are over-spending thier budgets the picture is not as bleak as it may seem. There has been a recent change to NHS doctors contracts which was poorly thought through leading to an increase in staff costs. There is a real issue with the NHS dentist service which seems to be falling apart as it is unable to recruit or retain dentists who are able to earn significantly more money in private practice.

FWIW, the UK National Health Service is the worlds fourth largest employer, after The Chinese Army, The Indian Railways and Wal-Mart.

Wikipedia

[smiller]

Seth, because you capitalized Immigration Reform Bill I am going to assume that you refer to the unlamented amnesty bill of last year.

I was, but I'll defer a response to another thread where I believe the topic would be more appropriate. I will mention though that you may indeed find yourself lamenting the last Immigration Reform Bill when you see the next.

[Aridzoner]

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist I respectfully suggest that those in favor log into some of the online UK and Canadian newspapers and read the tales of woe.

In the UK those that can afford it subscribe to additional private insurance schemes. I believe that, in Canada, this is not allowed (?) and many requiring prompt medical attention come across the border to the USA.

As with many government run services the costs are higher when politicians get involved and less eficient.

You might want to check these foreign sources before you commit your support,

[marcopolo]

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist I respectfully suggest that those in favor log into some of the online UK and Canadian newspapers and read the tales of woe.

In the UK those that can afford it subscribe to additional private insurance schemes. I believe that, in Canada, this is not allowed (?) and many requiring prompt medical attention come across the border to the USA.

 

In Canada, supplementary private insurance is absolutely allowed, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, the cost is peanuts (realatively speaking). Ours is $50/month for a family. That 's because most things are covered by the government-funded scheme.

 

I also said early on that our system has its limits and its drawbacks (what system doesn't) and does not have unlimited funds. You will indeed hear of tales of woe, but overall I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Canada who'd trade it for a system where healthcare is just another commodity for sale at a profit. Anyone here can also choose to spend money out of their own pockets and leave the country (often to the U.S.) to obtain medical services. In some cases, Canadians go to the U.S. for medical care, which is fully funded by national healthcare and is at no direct cost to the patient. That said, I've also seen stories on 60 Minutes about Americans going to India and paying for surgery. I'm not sure what that proves.

[smiller]

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist I respectfully suggest that those in favor log into some of the online UK and Canadian newspapers and read the tales of woe.

What difference does it make what the rules are in Canada or the UK? No one in the government nor any of the potential candidates are suggesting similar plans for the US. Is it perhaps because it's easier to attack a straw man than the actual proposals?

[steveknapp]

I've been known to be right 100% of the time in many cases...

 

Even a blind squirrel finds and acorn now and again....

 

An infinite number of monkeys... So that's the smell from around here..

[jdaniel2]

What difference does it make what the rules are in Canada or the UK? No one in the government nor any of the potential candidates are suggesting similar plans for the US.

 

Well maybe they should be. Has anyone mentioned in the previous 34 pages of this thread the fact that administrative costs in our current "system" i.e. private insurance, runs around 30 percent? Seriously, how can you provide "universal" care with that kind of waste?

 

The fact is Medicare and the VA do a pretty good job of providing health care while keeping administrative costs low.

 

I think Washington's aversion to a single-payer system has more to do with the needs of shareholders and campaign contributors than the health care needs of the under and un-insured. JD

[Gary in Aus]

Andy/Eric ,

 

So , what's it really like in Denley Moor ?

 

Raining?

[awagnon]

...administrative costs in our current "system" i.e. private insurance, runs around 30 percent? Seriously, how can you provide "universal" care with that kind of waste?

 

The fact is Medicare and the VA do a pretty good job of providing health care while keeping administrative costs low.

 

Medicare administrative costs are about 1%. 99% of the healthcare dollar goes towards patient care. What people don't often understand is that Medicare is administered under contract by private insurance companies like BlueCross and others. If they can do it for Medicare, they should be able to do it privately.

 

As I mentioned in two previous posts, I'm in favor of a single national provider comparable to Medicare. It just isn't going to happen in the US with all the lobby money of the insurance industry. The VA system is good ( though many will debate this ), but uses their own hospitals. That model won't fly here because of all the private hospitals already in place and their lobby.

 

What is happening now are individual states addressing the issue of the uninsured with things like requiring employers to provide health insurance or pay a fee to the state. Also, citizen mandates that everyone must have health insurance ( Mass. ) just like a mandate to have car insurance. Unless something changes at the national level, we are going to end up with a mess with each state legislating a "solution" to the problem.

[ghaverkamp]

What is happening now are individual states addressing the issue of the uninsured with things like requiring employers to provide health insurance or pay a fee to the state. Also, citizen mandates that everyone must have health insurance ( Mass. ) just like a mandate to have car insurance. Unless something changes at the national level, we are going to end up with a mess with each state legislating a "solution" to the problem.

 

There must be power in the states and the nation to remould, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions to meet changing social and economic needs.

. . .

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

[Dave McReynolds]

Also, citizen mandates that everyone must have health insurance ( Mass. ) just like a mandate to have car insurance. Unless something changes at the national level, we are going to end up with a mess with each state legislating a "solution" to the problem.

 

Yes, the same thing is being kicked around in California, and I don't see how it could work. If I or one of my family members had a chronic medical problem that would predictably bankrupt me in the near future, why wouldn't I move to a state where I was guaranteed to be covered? It would be a magnet, wouldn't it? Even if a state like California could figure out a way to budget for comprehensive health insurance for all the people currently living here, which it can't given budget woes, I don't see how it could conceivably budget for the influx of people who would come here for medical care if California offered a substantially better plan than the rest of the states. I think this is a problem that if it can be solved at all, has to be solved at the national level.

[awagnon]

I think this is a problem that if it can be solved at all, has to be solved at the national level.

 

+1

[Mike O]

Talking about it, issuing non-binding resolutions, and standing around in a circle singing Kumbaya isn't really dealing with the problem.

Agreed. That would take something like an Immigration Reform Bill.

 

Seth, because you capitalized Immigration Reform Bill I am going to assume that you refer to the unlamented amnesty bill of last year. If you don't, well never mind, because your post is a convenient place for me to make a point anyway. It does relate to the subject at hand.

 

Keep in mind that the so-called reform bill would have legalized millions and millions of illegal aliens but it would not have changed their status within the economy. They would remain at the bottom of the economic totem pole with all the needs they have now, but with increased eligibility for social programs and support. And earned income tax credits, etc. etc. etc.

 

One of the reasons we have not won Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, despite trillions spent, is that we keep recruiting reinforcements for the other side.

 

Pilgrim

OK... Keeping this in line with the thread at hand, why not reduce the amount of foreign aid provided to a country by the medical bills accumulated by that illegal immigrant ("undocumented worker")? This solves the 'inhumane' arguments I read about, and places responsibilities back on the governments to solve health care issues within their own borders.

 

Mike O

[Dave McReynolds]

OK... Keeping this in line with the thread at hand, why not reduce the amount of foreign aid provided to a country by the medical bills accumulated by that illegal immigrant ("undocumented worker")? This solves the 'inhumane' arguments I read about, and places responsibilities back on the governments to solve health care issues within their own borders.

 

As we get most of our illegal immigrants from Mexico, I tried to find out what Mexico receives from us in aid. They receive some drug interdiction money, which I assume is in our best interest to continue. Other than that, from what I could find on the internet, they receive about $10,000,000 from us in foreign aid. I almost hesitate to post this, as there is a very good chance I may be reading this wrong and I stand open to correction if someone comes up with better figures. But if I'm anywhere near correct, $10 million isn't very much in today's world, which poses two problems to your suggestion:

 

1. That amount wouldn't go very far in offsetting the costs of providing public medical care, given the number of illegal Mexican immigrants in this country.

 

2. I assume, given our common border and relations with Mexico, that if we're sending foreign aid to Mexico at all, there is probably some kind of quid pro quo involved other than pure kindness on our part, and whatever it is that we may be getting for $10 million, we probably don't want to lose it.

[Tourbike]

Making health insurance much less expensive or "free", whatever that means, will unleash a huge increase in demand. The aggregate cost to the taxpayers will increase proportionally. Dictating payments to reduce costs, as does Medicare and Medicaid, produces cost shifting to private insurers. You cannot fix prices. Either the cost is shifted, a black market develops, or the service disappears; basic economics.

One solution is to manage demand. For example, fifty percent of Medicare dollars are spent on people during the last two weeks of life. If we could predict when this terminal period starts and only provide reasonable care, huge amounts could be saved. This terminal period can be predicted with a very high level of accuracy and this is one opportunity to improve our health care system.

Many people do this now with "do not resuscitate" orders and Hospice and other informed decisions. Another opportunity is control of malpractice claims. As a result of all the claims and awards, physicians unecessarily run up expenses to protect themselves. Another opportunity is the dreaded gatekeeper concept. Under this method, rational decisions are made by knowledgeable people. Now, consumers shop for physicians who will acquiesce to their demands for tests and procedures.

Another opportunity is insurance control, to a point. We currently have some controls over automobile insurance costs by state regulations. At least in NC, this is the case. If it's reasonable, meaning reasonable profit margins, the insurance companies may complain but, they're still selling the insurance in NC. Health care insurers' profit is around twenty percent. This needs to be examined.

Finally, listening to anything on CNN is a waste of time, IMO. The politicians promote these ideas & polls to buy your vote.