POTUS: 'Everybody Just Step Back for a Moment'

Sir,

Please explain why the congress, the President, federal employees, and unions are exempt from the proposed health care.

The American people want the same program as congress and at the same cost. IE nothing !!!

I agree completely with ellsbells. In fact, I have made most of the same suggestions. I did not, and would not, advocate eliminating Medicare at this point, but would look for ways to ease it out, which could be done if REAL reform were to take place.

The one suggestion I had that ells did not have is to allow doctors to find their own creative and enterprising ways of providing health care to their patients. I'm thinking of the kind of thing that the doctor in NY tried. He was charging his patients $79/month for unlimited office visits and treatments that could be done in the office during office hours. The state gov't told him he had to stop because he was essentially selling insurance and needed a license to do that.

Insurance companies are large part of the problem in rising health care costs. Them and ridiculous law suits.

And I've also written to my reps, senators and the White House. Twice.

Gretchenmom - This plan is NOT healthcare reform. It is another government program that will be just as bad, if not worse, than Medicare - one of the most bloated, bureaucratic, programs with contradictory regulations that has ever been created in this country. True healthcare reform would get rid of Medicare and would open up insurance plans to the whole country. True reform would make it easier for people to get care by getting rid of all the referrals, etc. This plan by the government is just more of the same - with more regulations, more rationing, more difficulty in getting treatment.

Obama's healthcare is rationing of healthcare. Everyone I speak to in my community is against this socialized version of health care and will make their anger known at the next election. Our system isn't perfect but we have the best healthcare in the world and don't need to wait months for tests. Lets make sure our voices are heard and say NO to this bad legislation

Comments by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,"
--------------------------------------

It is clear that the only motivating factor by some Republicans is politics. Why should that be the driving factor to derail health care reform? It's a disgrace.

Oh -and I also sent my ideas to the White House- for whatever good that will do.

Gretchenmom- I HAVE given my ideas to my representatives in Congress & all I get pack are those irritating form letters which state that they HAVE to do the opposite of what I suggest. They don't care what we think. All they care about is staying in their cushy jobs so they don't have to work in the real world.

GretchenMom, my idea of a good time frame is a matter of months, enough time to read the bills and debate them on the floors of the House and Senate.

And I have indeed written to my representatives, senators, and the white house.

I am not surprised that health care reform is front-burner right now and I have no problem with that. But we need to address such a major issue carefully, not rush through legislation just to be able to say "I passed health care reform in my first year in office." I'd rather get it right than get it quick. The issue is not going away just because the congress takes an august recess to listen to their constituents, in my opinion.

bmm- I checked the conservative websites because more than once I have been accused of, "you must have got that from the liberal media.." I figure a conservative can not say that when I quote the mighty Fox.

moderate said: "We need to focus attention on stopping the rush.... "-------------------------------------

And how long are you going to delay any reform from happening. It has been clear that we need to end our dependency on foreign oil since the 70's - Obama is FINALLY moving in that direction. And we have been dragging our feet for years in dealing with any environmental issues or health care reform even though we know they are both necessary.

---- What exactly is your time table on change? Someone has to decide that it is time to stop dragging our feet for another 20 - 30 years and get the ball rolling.

----Everyone seems so shocked that health care is on the agenda. We are so use to politicians not doing what they say they will do that any real movement in that direction is a shock. I say we have had plenty of time to deal with all the above issues. It is time to stop the retoric and get off the pot and really do it.

----- How many of your great ideas posted here stay here? Has anyone here actually written their representatives or contacted President Obama's website with suggestions? DO IT. They are all asking for ideas. My Senators have a website asking for health care reform ideas. My guess is your Senators do too. Instead of constant criticism get your ideas on the floor.

Skip - it IS easy. And Medicare is the root of the problem, so it is necessary to get rid of it to fix the problem. If you have a rotten tooth, the pain doesn't go away if you pull all teeth around it and leave that one there. If the changes are implemented & costs come down, then seniors won't NEED Medicare (especially since they are already purchasing supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover everything)

"They could expand on that supplemental insurance - pre-existing conditions would be a moot point."

-You're making it sound easy.

"Oh - and I don't give a flying fig whether AARP approves or not."

-The members of the AARP are a significant part of what's left of the stereotypical core of the GOP. If you alienate these folks who are you going to have left? The GOP can't afford any more losses like that.

Without making much effort admittedly to argue the actual merits of your proposals I just think this one in particular will be way too unpopular for any politician to attempt.

Oh - and I don't give a flying fig whether AARP approves or not.

I certainly am serious about getting rid of Medicare. The creation of that program was the start of the health care problems in this country. Almost all senior citizens on Medicare have supplemental insurance. They could expand on that supplemental insurance - pre-existing conditions would be a moot point.

The reason I put #2 in there is because the way it is set up now, there are limited pools of people. If you open it up to multiple states, it spreads the risk, thereby decreasing the cost of insurance.

As for #3 - pharmaceutical companies charge countries like Canada far less for drugs - that's why so many people go to Canada for their drugs. We in the U.S. are funding the research for the rest of the world. This one goes against my dislike of government interference, but I believe it is necessary. (Although, there is probably some law which causes it to be that way -so they would just need to repeal that law).

"How is this for an alternative?"

#'s 4 and 5 are reasonable, and possibly 3, though I'm not familiar with it. Altogether these are probably not sufficient to really fix the problems although 4 might amount to quite a bit.
#2 has the serious drawback that it will create an incentive for companies to move to states with the most favorable [and in the vast majority of cases that means lax] laws and least favorable protections for the customers. We all saw that with the credit card companies. People wondered how they could feel so ripped off by a company in their state only to find out the company was based in another state where it was OK to gouge the heck out of you.

But #1 will be the most controversial. You can't really seriously propose to fold Medicare without explaining what you plan to do about the tens of millions of elderly and disabled people enrolled in it. I mean talk about 'preexisting condition'! No private insurance company in the entire country is going to want to take on any of these people. The AARP will strongly disapprove and you'll never carry Florida.

No Moderate, I am not a member of Congress. It irritates me that some of the solutions are so simple, but the government has to make them so complicated.

Thank you, ellsbells! You made some excellent suggestions concerning how to provide useful and cost-effective health care reform. Creating pools of customers for health insurance benefits would be a sensible way to reduce insurance costs and allow more small businesses to offer better insurance to their employees. Tort reform is essential as well.

There are plenty of great ideas out there. Skip and others who sniff "you just want to tear down, but you don't offer solutions" are wrong. There are plenty of proposals out there. But seriously, Skip, what does it matter what alternative ellsbells or I propose, because we are not in a position to get a bill through congress. At least, I am not a member of congress. Are you, Ells?

We need to focus attention on stopping the rush to pass one of the plans currently coming out of congressional committees. Once that happens, centrists can devise a new set of plans that still moves this year to make headway on reforming health care but does not sow the seeds for the destruction of the private insurance industry, our excellent health care system, and our country's economy.

No public option!

Skip - here was my alternative:

How is this for an alternative?
1) Dismantle Medicare - the creation of this bureaucratic, bloated, ineffective program was the beginning of our healthcare problems
2) Allow insurance companies to sell products across state lines (and across county lines within states)
3) Give incentives to pharmaceutical companies to charge other countries the same as what they charge us - why should we fund the research for the rest of the world?
4) Encourage the legal system to throw out frivolous lawsuits and juries to award appropriate amounts instead of the millions they do now (I would say 'tort reform', but that is still too much government intervention)
5) Allow small businesses to form healthcare consortiums (with 501(c)3 status) to purchase insurance at reduced rates.

danita - Waiting the 5 days that Obama had promised for Congress to read the stimulus bill would not have resulted in months and months of languishing. That bill needed a lot more work done to it. There was far too much waste included.

Yes, danita, we can all remember the rush to pass the stimulus at the beginning of the Obama administration. There are great similarities to the current rush to pass health care reform. Yes, it was important to get stimulus passed quickly if it were to be effective-- stimulus works best when it gets into the economy and stimulates it quickly (unfortunately, that is not what actually happened, because of the nature of the bill that was actually passed). However, the president's push to "hurry hurry hurry" was more than a little over the top. Remember the poor senator hustled away from his mother's wake in Ohio to return to washington to cast his vote, who then had to turn around and fly back to Ohio for his mother's funeral the next day? Because the stimulus bill could not wait one more day to be passed. And then, once passed, it could wait several days to be signed (from Friday night when it was passed until Tuesday), so the president could fly out to Denver and have a big photo op signing ceremony. If I were Sherrod Brown, I would have been more than a little peeved.

There is sometimes a need for fast action, but that is not the same as a head-long rush. Passing the stimulus bill before anyone could possible read it was a mistake. No, I would saying that it should have waited six months-- that sort of delay would indeed have been inappropriate, given the stated goals of the legislation. Yes, I am saying a week or two of further deliberations and careful inspection might have resulted in less pork in the bill, fewer "oops, about those bonuses" surprises, and an over-all better bill.

It is disingenuous to suggest, as Danita does here and as the president did then, that the only possible alternative to rushing that bill to a vote on Feb. 13 (ominously, Friday the 13th *G*) would be to drag out the process for "months and months." There are other possibilities, as there are now.

And while the OFA folks would like to convince the general public that anyone who opposed the president's rush to pass a health care reform package is a "right winger," nothing could be farther from the truth. I gladly take my stand alongside conservatives (including right wingers), moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats such as the brave Blue Dog Democrats, and anyone else who supports a serious, thoughtful examination of the options available and a serious, thoughtful, bipartisan bill or series of bills to enact serious, thoughtful health care reform. Let's start with tort reform and cutting bureacratic waste in the Medicare/Medicaid system.