Republicans Can Win on Health Care by Karl Rove

[FONT=Garamond, Times]Republicans Can Win on Health Care[/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond, Times]A market-based system can give us freedom, innovation and health security.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]
BY KARL ROVE

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Times]

All around America, families are grappling with health-care concerns. They wonder if they'll have insurance at a price they can afford. They worry about how much out-of-pocket health costs take from the family budget. They question if they'll be able to pick their own doctor. Some feel trapped in jobs they don't like out of fear of losing their health insurance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]

As the latest government-heavy plan announced by Hillary Clinton yesterday once again shows, the answers politicians offer on health care highlight the deep differences between liberals and conservatives. This is a debate Republicans cannot avoid. But it is one we can win--if we offer a bold plan.

Conservatives must put forward reforms aimed at putting the patient in charge.

Increasing competition will ensure greater access, lower costs and more innovation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Times]Liberals see the concerns of families as a failure of private insurance, and want the U.S. to move toward a government-run, single-payer model. This is a recipe for making problems worse. Socialized medicine inevitably leads to poor quality, inefficiency, rising taxes and rationing. The waiting lines and poor care that cause people from other countries to come here for treatment are not the answer.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Times]Government can help poorer and older Americans get quality health care without sacrificing what everyone wants--the ability to choose their own doctor and health coverage that meets their family's particular needs. What reforms will do that?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]

• Level the tax playing field. People who work for companies get a tax break on the health insurance they get from their employer. Many small business employees, farmers and the self-employed are unable to benefit from the same tax advantage, because they or their employers can't afford health insurance. It's not fair or wise to penalize people who have to pay for health insurance out of their own pockets. They should benefit from the same tax advantage employees from bigger companies get.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Times]The mortgage interest deduction made it easier for people to own a home and all America benefited. Similarly, every worker should get a deduction for health-insurance premiums. This would ease the burden on working families and make it possible for millions more Americans to own health insurance. Some Republicans in Congress support a tax credit rather than a deduction: that's reasonable, too. A deduction or a credit puts patients in charge by helping them get private coverage that meets their needs.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]• Tax-free savings for health costs. We are encouraged to save tax-free for retirement and college; we should make it easier to save tax-free for out-of-pocket medical expenses, too. Tax-free savings accounts, paired with low-cost catastrophic health insurance, make coverage affordable for working families. For example, a youth minister told me his Health Savings Account (HSA) gave his family peace of mind because they now had insurance coverage for big emergencies and could save tax-free for everyday health expenses.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]That's why, in less than three years, more than 4.5 million families have set up HSAs. Some Democrats want to rein in HSAs because they fear HSAs put the individual--not government--in charge and once someone gets to pick a plan that meets their needs, they won't like being dictated to by government. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Times]And when people see they can save money by eating better, exercising and making healthy lifestyle choices, guess what? They do. I met with workers at Wendy's Headquarters in Ohio who were eagerly taking steps to lead healthier lives because it saved them money.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]• Portability. When you change jobs, you don't have to change auto insurance, but you may have to change your health insurance and even your doctor. That's important in a world where young Americans are likely to have 10 jobs before they are age 36. Too many people are locked into jobs they don't like out of fear they'll lose health coverage. The solution is obvious: People should be able to take their health insurance with them when they change jobs.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]• Arming consumers through more competition. Rep. John Shadegg (R., Ariz.) argues that people should be able to buy health insurance issued by a company based in another state. Lack of interstate competition helps to explain why the same health policy costs $8,334 in North Dakota but $10,312 in South Dakota. If consumers in South Dakota could buy that North Dakota policy, prices for health insurance would go down.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Times]• Pool risk, lower costs. Large companies get purchasing power and savings because they share risk across large numbers of employees. Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas) believe small businesses should be able to join together to pool risk, too. It would mean more competition and lower costs, and more people able to afford coverage.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]• Greater transparency. Today, patients rarely know what a procedure will cost or how good a clinic or hospital is, except by reputation and word of mouth. For example, a study of metropolitan hospitals found prices for services varied widely--by as much as 259%--even after controlling for geographic variations in the cost of doing business. Putting information about cost and quality in the hands of patients would lower the cost and improve the quality of health care. Patients making informed choices would create market pressures for lower prices and better care.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]• Stop junk lawsuits. I've heard sad stories from doctors and patients. The doctor who had to close her clinic in her hometown and move across the state to work at a hospital that would pay her rising liability insurance premiums. The head trauma specialist afraid that when he retired, his community in one of the poorest regions in the country couldn't attract a replacement. The pregnant woman who drove 80 miles from home in Las Vegas to get prenatal care.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Communities are losing talented health-care professionals who simply can't afford the bigger liability premiums caused by frivolous lawsuits. More than 48% of all counties in the U.S. have no ob-gyn physicians. Hospitals are finding it tougher to provide obstetrics, emergency room care or neurosurgery because of frivolous lawsuits. And doctors, afraid of lawsuits, practice "defensive medicine," ordering unnecessary tests and procedures which add to the cost of health care.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Whose interest does that really serve? If we want richer trial lawyers, let them keep filing junk lawsuits we all pay for. If we want better health care, curb frivolous lawsuits.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Times]• Build on the progress already made by putting patients in charge and letting competition work. When Congress considered prescription drug coverage under Medicare, Democrats tried to have government set prices and deliver the drugs. When the Congressional Budget Office estimated the first year's monthly premium for seniors would be $35, Democrats tried to lock in that price.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Republicans disagreed, arguing competition would lower prices and provide more choices. They were right: Competition led to more options and an average monthly premium of around $23--an annual savings of $144 in the first year. Competition continues to save seniors (and taxpayers) money. When the bill passed, independent actuaries estimated the monthly premium for 2008 would be $41. Recently, Medicare officials announced that the 2008 average monthly premium will be around $25. Seniors would have paid over $4 billion more in prescription drug premiums the first two years of the program had Democrats mandated a $35 monthly premium.

Taxpayers are saving also: This past January, the actuaries projected that the prescription drug benefit will cost $113 billion less over the next 10 years than estimated the previous year, primarily because of competition and low bids. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Times]In short, the best health reform proposals will be those that recognize and build on the virtues of our market-based medical system. Sick people around the world come here because they can't get quality care in their home countries. Many health-care professionals come here to practice, leaving behind well-meaning health-care systems where government is in charge, bureaucrats make the decisions, and where the patient doesn't have the choice he or she does in the U.S.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Mrs. Clinton may think Americans want to trade freedom and innovation for the illusory security of government regulation and surrender control of their health decisions to government bureaucrats. My bet is 2008 will teach us something different if Republicans make health care a centerpiece issue.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Mr. Rove recently left the White House, where he was an adviser to President Bush. [/FONT]

As with anything and everything, Democrats don't have a clue on health care.

Hillary's Orwellian Health-Care: Everyone Join Hands -- Or Else!

By Mark Finkelstein | September 18, 2007 - 06:43 ET

When it comes to health care, could there be anything more antithetical to the American ideal than Big Government being completely in charge? Actually, yes. It would be big government creating a system that requires private-sector entities whose interests inherently oppose to "come together" to form "partnerships" for the greater good.

Yesterday I wrote here about the way in which Hillary's plan forces all Americans, willing or not, to obtain health care insurance, and in an Orwellian twist calling it "choice."

More details about Hillary's plan emerge in Davd Brooks's New York Times column [still p.p.v., but free along with the other columnists as of Wednesday when Times Select goes the way of New Coke.]

Writes Brooks [emphasis added]:

[W]hen I spoke with Hillary Clinton yesterday, I asked what her newly unveiled plan revealed about her political philosophy.

The word she kept coming back to was “partnerships.” She described an array of different social entities — individuals, the federal government, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals — coming together and exercising shared responsibility for creating a better system.

It began to sound like a health care loya jirga — indicative of the political vision that has marked so much of her thinking over the years. When some politicians are asked to describe systems that really work, they think of the competitive marketplace. Others think of political combat — good defeating evil. But Clinton, at her most hopeful moments, is a communitarian. When she’s asked to describe a system that works, she describes diverse people coming together around a big table to reach a consensus.

Sounds like Hillary, on the one hand, is preaching "can't we all just get along?" On the other, you sense that when all is said and done, she expects all those sharing-and-caring communitarians to coalesce around her vision for the way things should be -- or else. In any case, as Brooks notes, Hillary's plan runs headlong into what "some politicians" [those that understand economics, human nature and the Constitution, I'd say] think should be the controlling force in health care: the competitive marketplace.

Brooks ends on a curious note, opining that Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is "better than the G.O.P. candidates’ plans (which don’t exist)." This from the Times' resident conservative columnist? Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm? Give me a good no-plan any day over one that subjects all Americans to the tender mercies of a Big Government here to help us.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

I live in an Orwellian health hellhole.

Just got my 6 monthly teeth done for $20.

it's hell dude...pure hell...last year it was $30 a pop...

Its actually nice to see taxes being spent on something genuinely useful to people...instead of it all going on bullshit like Iraq and pork projects for fat scammer-boys in Government.

eek. said:

I live in an Orwellian health hellhole.

Just got my 6 monthly teeth done for $20.

it's hell dude...pure hell...last year it was $30 a pop...

Its actually nice to see taxes being spent on something genuinely useful to people...instead of it all going on bullshit like Iraq and pork projects for fat scammer-boys in Government.

Click to expand...

You have teeth? Hmm I had this picture of an old Scot sippin' Old Bushmills thru a feeding tube...



:nohead:

Sounds good. How do you determine which ones are "junk" untill they are tried?

punter said:

Sounds good. How do you determine which ones are "junk" untill they are tried?

Click to expand...

You cannot, at least if you take the law seriously. But it sounds like a great thing to say for an electoral campaign, doesn't it?

No, you don't make any prejudgments, case by case. The way to get rid of frivolous lawsuits is to cap ALL OF THEM, and change the rules ensuring loser pays. This way, only the strongest cases will be tried fairly, while ambulance chasers like John Edwards will be driven out of business, once and for all.

August 21, 2006

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

Most cases don't even make it to trial. The modus-operandi of ambulance chasers like John Edwards is to extort insurance companies negotiating a ridiculous payoff out of court -- as opposed to trying to win the junk lawsuit lottery inside court. That's why insurance premiums are going through the roof and that's why doctors are going out of business.

Judge Wapner said:

"Stop junk lawsuits" Any plan needs to start there.

Click to expand...

not true at all. states that have enacted 'tort reform' to cap payouts on lawsuits have malpractice rates just as high as those without.

Joe Contrarian said:

Most cases don't even make it to trial. The modus-operandi of ambulance chasers like John Edwards is to extort insurance companies negotiating a ridiculous payoff out of court -- as opposed to trying to win the junk lawsuit lottery inside court. That's why insurance premiums are going through the roof and that's why doctors are going out of business.

Click to expand...

nope. malpractice rates have increased in the past decade or so because the insurance industry has lost it's shirt on it's investments.

link

Contrary to the medical and insurance lobbies’ message — that medical malpractice lawsuits and claims were to blame for the increase in insurance rates — the fact is that in 2001, commercial property insurance rates jumped across the board. In other words, rate hikes for doctors were only a small part of a much larger insurance problem that affected homeowners, motorists and all kinds of policyholders.

....These kinds of volcanic eruptions in insurance premiums have occurred three times in the last 30 years — in the mid 1970s, again in the mid-1980s, and then again following the year 2001. The cause is always the same: a severe drop in investment income for insurers compounded by underpricing in prior years. Each time, insurers and the health care industry have tried to cover up their mismanaged underwriting by blaming lawyers and the legal system. To buy this position, one would have to accept the notion that juries engineered large jury verdicts in the mid-1970s, then stopped for a decade, then engineered large verdicts again in the mid-1980s, stopped for 17 years and then did it again beginning in 2001 — only to stop once again. Of course, this is ludicrous and untrue.

Click to expand...

Turdblossom in his article writes:

Socialized medicine inevitably leads to poor quality, inefficiency, rising taxes and rationing.

Click to expand...

The VA is socialized medicine and it is widely regarded as one of the best health care systems in the world. The "efficient" private health care system we have in the states is much more inefficient than socialized systems. 25-30% of health care expendatures in the US are administrative. That's over $300 billion spent on insurance companies pushing papers around. We spend twice as much per capita on health care as compared to canada, yet they have a comparable health care system and everyone is covered.

republicans always repeat the same bs when talking about health care (as Rove demonstrates above). I guess they have to when the facts clearly don't match their rhetoric.

wsox said:

Turdblossom in his article writes:

The VA is socialized medicine and it is widely regarded as one of the best health care systems in the world. The "efficient" private health care system we have in the states is much more inefficient than socialized systems. 25-30% of health care expendatures in the US are administrative. That's over $300 billion spent on insurance companies pushing papers around. We spend twice as much per capita on health care as compared to canada, yet they have a comparable health care system and everyone is covered.

republicans always repeat the same bs when talking about health care (as Rove demonstrates above). I guess they have to when the facts clearly don't match their rhetoric.

Click to expand...

The sad and frightening thing is socialists like you actually believe they know what they're talking about...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_Rf42zNl9U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_Rf42zNl9U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Health care may be 'free' in Canada, but then so is eating out of a trashcan.

THE GOOD DOCTOR KNOWS HIS STUFF

Comprehensive Health Care Act

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul


DIGG THIS

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on August 2, 2007

Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.

Unfortunately, most health care "reform" proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.

Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.

Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.

The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:

Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).
Makes every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.


Lowering the Cost of Health Care

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul


DIGG THIS

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul407.html

Joe Contrarian said:

The sad and frightening thing is socialists like you actually believe they know what they're talking about...

Health care may be 'free' in Canada, but then so is eating out of a trashcan.

Click to expand...

yes i know what i'm talking about, isn't this apparent by the facts i stated? funny how you can't refute any of them, you just come back with some empty rhetoric and a youtube video. fact - us spends double per capita on health care than canada. fact - us health care is by any metric equal or worse than canadian health care. fact - us has tens of millions of uninsured while canada has none.

obviously no health care system is perfect. for every canadian mri sob story you state i can produce 10x more from the us system. isn't it clear that if canada spent DOUBLE what it spends now (to match us spending) that it would provide a vastly superior system compared to the us??

wsox said:

funny how you can't refute any of them, you just come back with some empty rhetoric and a youtube video.

Click to expand...

This is Joe C. for you. And at some later time he will claim he soundly beat you in this discussion and also provided absolute proof for his position.:missingte

Healthcare at the point of use is one of the major areas where the private sector has been a total disaster for communities.

You guys are at 15% of GDP for healthcare !!!
...and its a fooking disaster area.

The UK spends 6.7% and we're all covered.

btw.
You can still go private in the UK...if you want to...

"Government can help poorer and older Americans get quality health care without sacrificing what everyone wants--the ability to choose their own doctor and health coverage that meets their family's particular needs. What reforms will do that? "

This is the same advertising distortion that the insurance lobby used against Hillary in the early '90's. If my boat is sinking I'm not gonna refuse to wear an orange lifejacket just because I don't like the color. The real issue is affordability of health care, both in straight costs and insurance. The insurance lobby knows it will need something better than these lame distortions against Pres H. Clinton in 2009 but either way they will be looking for life jackets of any color. This time around, Clinton won't be picking up any sunkship insurance lobby survivors; the lawyer sharks and wall street freezing water will "sort 'em out".