Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Alternatives being proposed, thus far, by Republicans Dr. Ben Carson and Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Will post additional links when other possible 2016 presidential candidates put out their plans.

Gov. Jindal holds back on some of the details, which Republican economist, Douglas Holtz-Eakin says makes good election sense.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Eh, I'm for a single payer system. I don't believe businesses should be saddled with the responsibility to provide health insurance at all. Most countries who have taken on the notion of universally insuring it's citizens has shifted into a form of single payer. There's no easy answer and each plan has it's problems. But this is my opinion.

Here's an interesting article:

The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health Care
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/06/16/t...r-health-care/

Guest Post, June 16th 2012, 6:08 pm


Guest post by Andrew Murphy


On the surface, the title of this article seems paradoxical. How can any conservative in the USA even contemplate the concept of the government creating a single-payer health insurance system covering all Americans and, in effect, ending private major medical health insurance?

In this post I hope to make the conservative case for a single payer incontrovertible for those occupying the centre-right politically.

Conservatives are supposed to be the defenders of business. Yet our current health care system works as an albatross around the neck of American business. Likewise, the piecemeal reforms of ObamaCare seem only to make some problems even worse. Hence it is only a matter of time before a single-payer becomes inevitable in this country. Therefore conservatives need to position themselves and come to terms with this eventual reality. And if history is a judge, many times it takes, say, a Nixon to go to China or a Clinton to do welfare reform. A Republican president may be the one who puts single-payer in place down the road.

The case for a single payer from a centre-right perspective is as follows:

The current burden on American corporations

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, group health insurance is the single most expensive benefit offered to employees. General Motors’ cost alone to offer health insurance yearly to employees is $5 billion dollars. To put it in perspective, health care insurance alone, adds $1,500-$2,000 to the price of each car that comes off the assembly line.

A RAND study from 2009 found that companies with higher levels of participation in employee health insurance benefits had much slower economic growth then those companies and industries which had lower health insurance costs or participation to deal with.

Let’s face it, health insurance is a drag on American competitiveness. Every major trading partner of the United States has some form of government-organized health care, so why do we continue to saddle American corporations like working donkeys with such expensive costs?

The burden to entrepreneurship

Americans pride ourselves on being the land of opportunity and of Horatio Alger. Yet the truth is social democratic Denmark now has higher levels of entrepreneurship than the USA. One primary difference between a Danish entrepreneur and his/her American counterpart is health care. Because of universal health care, a Danish worker with health problems can strike out on their own anytime and start up a business. Americans with health problems have to weigh the cost and benefit of leaving their jobs and decide if they can afford or even qualify for an individual health insurance policy.

Americans are more and more making working decisions based on health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, over 78 percent of all small business have no employees. Thus entrepreneurs in America are more likely to have to buy individual health insurance policies, which are usually more expensive and difficult to obtain than group health insurance.

The freest economy in the world has national health care

It is no secret conservatives and libertarians in the USA ♥ Hong Kong. After all HK has Ricardian free trade, low levels of regulations, no capital gains tax and an individual flat tax. Every year when the Heritage Foundation releases its Index of Economic Freedom, HK always tops the list.

However, HK has a dirty little secret. It has a very good national health care system. HK citizens have some of the highest life expectancies in the world but their government health care system only costs about three percent of their GDP to operate (a sharp contrast to the 20 percent of GDP that USA health care costs are expected to be in the next decade).

The point of the HK example is that this beacon of capitalism manages to operate the freest economy in the world while offering and providing a British-style national health service. if one listens to rightwing shock radio or the rhetoric of the Tea Party, it is impossible for that to happen. After all government health care would turn America into a giant Gulag Archipelago.

American conservatives are free to believe that a single-payer system in America will lead to a road to serfdom. Just don’t tell the citizens of Hong Kong, OK? You may embarrass yourself.

Happier workers for business owners

In many areas of America, words like “free trade” and “globalization” are fighting words. Blue collar America lives everyday with the worry that they will show up at work and find a sign saying, “Moved to China: See ya, Don’t want to be ya.”

Those workers are then left to scramble to find a job, usually for less pay and lesser benefits. In the meantime they go on unemployment insurance and hope they can pay their COBRA premiums with their unemployment pay and their spouse’s salary. (COBRA allows Americans to keep their former employer-offered health insurance if they pay the full cost once they leave the company. Typically, employers pay 50% of an employees health insurance premiums.)

Let’s contrast this to the Danish workforce again. When leftwing journalist Bob Kuttner traveled to Denmark, he discovered something very interesting (and probably fascinating since Kuttner is an advocate of managed trade). What he found was the Danish labor movement is completely at ease with free trade and globalization. Part of this is because of Denmark’s very proactive labor retraining policies; but some of it has to do with the fact that a Danish worker’s health care is not tied to their employment. So if a Danish worker’s job is outsourced to Poland, at least some of the pain is mitigated by not having to worry about losing health insurance.

If conservatives would like to take the teeth out of the American labor movement, what better way than to eliminated their fears about free trade and the free market by supporting a single-payer?

If it’s good enough for Margret Thatcher…

The name Margaret Thatcher is said with much reverence in the USA by conservatives, almost with the same love as for Ronald Reagan. Yet Lady Thatcher always supported Britain’s National Health Service(NHS). In 1983, for example, as she geared up for her re-election campaign, Thatcher said, “The NHS is safe in our hands.”

Rather ironic that if Lady Thatcher were to change citizenship, move to the USA and try and run for office as a Republican, she probably could not win a GOP primary. She would be denounced as a crypto-commie by Tea Party activists for having once supported “socialized health care.”

Thatcher– much like the other iconic conservative statesmen of the 20th century in Europe, from Winston Churchill to Konrad Adenauer to Ludwig Erhard to Charles DeGaulle– made peace with her country’s universal health care system. It is only in America where making peace with such an arrangement would be considered, “socialism” or “Marxism”.

The current system is unsustainable, a single-payer system is coming– it’s only a matter of time. Conservatives forget that health care is not an example of a perfect market. It is not the same as shopping for a car, choosing an airline or deciding which brand of cereal to buy. Health care is the quintessential example of information asymmetry (PDF).

If conservatives and Republicans can’t talk about these things, they will cede the issue to liberals and Democrats.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Aquila, The only way to combat the rising cost of healthcare is to address issues like the inappropriate utilization of expensive treatment, chronic diseases, obesity, dishonesty in the medical industry; i,e. billing, ethics in Big Pharma, medical research, Medicare fraud, scheduled therapy, etc, etc...

We aren't going to get our food intake corrected until we fix why it costs more to buy a head of broccoli (healthy) than it is to buy a brown bag special (unhealthy).

All these other discussions and pseudo healthcare plan remedies are side issues, IMO. That includes any Republican plan being unveiled.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Single Payer: Why Government-Run Health Care Will Harm Both Patients and Doctors

Such government control would:

• Result in substantially lower payments to physicians and other health care providers compared to a multiple-payer system;
• Reduce the quality of care by limiting the ability of physicians to invest in advanced medical equipment that takes advantage of new technology;
• Limit access to care in the near term, as current physicians and other professionals retire earlier or otherwise leave the profession;
• Limit access to care even more substantially in the long term, as the prospect of lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care; and
• Reduce the rate of medical progress, because fewer talented people receiving medical training decreases the supply of talented medical researchers.

Stingy Payer" Damages Future Generations as Well

The establishment of a "single payer" health care system would inevitably result in lower payments for physician and other health care providers. The immediate effect of having a single ("stingy") payer would be lower incomes for physicians and a reduction in the supply of active physicians, thereby impairing access to health care for all patients. However, the result of "single/stingy payer" health care will not only be lower incomes for physicians now but reduced access and lower quality health care for future generations as well.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...d-doctors?ac=1

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

This was written in 2011 and is spot on. Robert Gibbs has just recently stated that the "mandate" will be the first to go in the OCare plan.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

I disagree. That's all theoretical. I have friends and family in Canada. And my lady-love has lived in Europe. Things could be far better.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? Where is the liberty in forcing others to pay for the health care of someone else? Would it not be more in line liberty and personal responsibility to allow companies to choose weather or not to offer health benefits and if so how much they want to offer while at the same time allowing individuals the option to purchase their own health plans if they so choose?

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Much of what we used to know as liberty has vanished, and it is our own fault. The reason, and the only reason we are under this fiasco is our own apathy and laziness. We allowed Obama and his minions to come in and take over, and even allowed it a second time. Now, Obama has rewritten our laws, trampled liberty, and crumpled the Constitution.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

You already are. Ever notice how insurance premiums increase? Why? The most expensive reason is because so many people don't pay their medical bills from hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. Why? They don't have insurance. So, these providers write off what they can and pass down the loss in higher costs on care. As the costs on care rises... insurance companies raise premiums to cover the rising costs. Therefore, you already are paying for others, in the MOST expensive way imaginable. However, you're paying all the additional costs like administrative costs too. Also, these people can't afford to continue various treatments, so they hold off and rush to the ER when they can't manage, raising costs more. Then they declare bankruptcy, increasing costs even more. As premiums get higher and higher, more people opt out of purchasing insurance for themselves or their families. It's a cycle that creates a race to making health insurance unaffordable. And something has to be done to fix it before it becomes too expensive to fix. At least in single payer insurance, not only does everyone receive necessary care... but it's cheaper because they don't wait until they are nearly dying to get seen. Regular physicals keep things cheaper. Also, the vast majority pay SOMETHING into the system. So the truth is... only the Single Payer model truly forces EVERYONE to pay something for their health care.


And as healthcare costs skyrocket most businesses will choose not to. Now, this plan races to the bottom... nobody insured. Does that really sound like a plan to you???

======

If you want a "Free Market" and "Personal Liberty" approach... you have to treat healthcare like other industries. If people don't have the financing (insurance)... or cold hard cash... turn them away at the ER before being seen. You don't just give away a product or service with "hopes" of payment in a free market system. It drives the prices up too high for anyone to afford until even the provider closes due to the cost of running the business. Imagine a car lot run like healthcare. You just show up, ask for a car, and they give it to you and bill you. The majority of folks don't pay their car bill, or pay very slowly. Still a large number of others declare bankruptcy. What would that do to the price of cars on the car lot? Well, the price would skyrocket as the dealer passed the losses down to the consumers. There is no "free market" approach to something as universal as healthcare.... unless we turn people away at the door if they don't have money or insurance. And... then we have to ask if that is ethical with regards to healthcare, seeing that it's often a matter of life and death?

In the modern world... there is no other way than to force everyone to pay SOMETHING into the system. Single Payer would do that. Also, it would release businesses and corporations from having to pay for it unless they wanted to offer elective packages to supplement the Single Payer plan, but that wouldn't be required. It would free companies and corporations to focus on one thing... business.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Just sayin', Aquila.....

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Again, any system that treats anyone who walks through the ER doors is a social system. Everyone already pays for those who are uninsured and seek treatments in ERs, clinics, and doctor's offices... with added administrative costs, liability insurance costs, etc. The only way to get EVERYONE paying SOMETHING is to go Single Payer. We pay taxes to ensure that we have police, fire, roads, EMS, etc. These services are there to serve everyone, even if we don't call upon them but once a year. Unless they go "Free Market" and turn those away who can't pay, the only way to fund a system that serves everyone is to get as many as possible paying something into it so that providers of care get paid and don't pass the costs down to everyone else. You can't have it any other way. The costs will rise and rise until no one can afford it unless we have nearly everyone paying into the system.

What's the difference between paying for the uninsured via ever rising and inflated costs on the private market (the loss being passed down to us) and a socialized system (like expanded Medicare/Medicaid) that stabilizes costs and cuts out the inflated costs of excessive administration? That caps the amount awarded in lawsuits to stabilize liability insurance costs? That finally allows those who provide care to finally be paid? A system that stops the bleeding? Why should doctors do insurance paperwork for hours and hours when they could be providing care??? Doctors are getting sick of it. They got into medicine to serve the sick and research disease to help humanity. Why relegate them to this???

We shirk away and whine about "socialism". The doctors will not be government employees. They will remain private. It's simply like being on Medicare/Medicaid. It's subsidized insurance to pay private practitioners so they can stop passing the loss down to us in higher costs for care and thereby raising insurance premiums.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Everyone keeps asking, "Why should I pay for others?" You already are! That's why your premiums are so high! So... if we're going to pay for everyone... doesn't it make sense to pay for everyone in the least expensive way possible???

I have friends and family in Canada. They have a card. They go to the doctor. The doctor is paid via their plan. The costs are therefore more stable than here. Our rates are rising exponentially. And everyone time we slow pay or don't pay everyone else fits the bill. Not to mention... over 45,000 die each year from treatable conditions because they don't have insurance and can't afford the treatments. Most of the time these have tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills that relate to their examinations, hospital stays, and ER visits... and we pay for a good portion of that. Yet they say we don't ration care? Wrong. We ration care. However, we don't ration it based on priority... we ration it based on ability to pay.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Altruism always sounds great, but you have to address the issue that doctors salaries will go down. You'd have to include some education reform and medical malpractice reform to address physicians issues with a single payer system. Policy experts are not qualified as much as physicians are to discuss this issue. A deduction of salary probably is not going to cover the overhead expenses. That in turn can affect quality of care. I am waiting to hear everything that rolls out as a free market option.

You can site Canada all day long, but we do have RonB who posted in the past about how long it took for his ankle issue (metal pins) to be addressed. It was a paperwork and waiting game nightmare from what I remember.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Salaries will not go down as much as most think. They will become more competitive. And doctors will not have to pay as much in malpractice liability insurance seeing that lawsuits will be capped. So even if salaries go down a certain percentage, it will be made up for in other savings.

There is no such thing as a "free market" option. Unless we treat medicine like a free market commodity, there can't be. Again, imagine a car dealership working like healthcare. A person doesn't have financing or cash in hand. So the dealership gives them a car and bills them. They don't pay the bill. Guess what, the dealer will pass that loss down to the consumer. The effect... the price of the cars sold in that dealership will skyrocket until few can afford them. Car dealerships are "free market". That means unless one has financing or cash, they DON'T drive off with a new car! Medicine can only be handled like a free market service IF they choose NOT to treat those without insurance or cash to cover the service rendered. That's what most don't get. As long as it's an open system that treats anyone who wanders into the ER... it's a social system rather private... or government. And all loss is ultimately passed down to the consumer in higher healthcare costs... thereby raising premiums. So... you'll NEVER hear a free market option! LOL

The closest thing to a free market option is the ACA. It FORCES the uninsured to buy insurance from private insurance providers. It's essentially GOVERNMENT marching people into the hands of health insurance conglomerates at gun point. Again, the goal is to get as many as possible paying SOMETHING into the system. This would be far better achieved through Single Payer.

No system is perfect. What amazes me is that a person might wait a while to get a non-life threatening surgery in Canada because of a paperwork problem... but they eventually get the care they need. Every year an estimated 45,000 Americans DIE because they can't afford the car they need... but nobody cares??? I'm sure many of those families would have rather had a system where there were some clerical mishaps... but ultimately their loved one's received the care they needed. Keep in mind... many people know one of those uninsured people who couldn't afford the treatments they needed. If they would have had insurance... they could have had the checkups and treatments they needed. But they couldn't afford it. :( Healthcare was rationed, right here in the U.S., to those who could afford it. And they died as a result.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

I have more to say about your post, but don't have time today.

However, I will post this interview with Betsy McCaughey who is brilliant on the Constitution and has read every single line of the Obamacare bill. She already knew they wanted to push everyone toward Medicaid so as to implement a Single Payer system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IiglbyA_4

The Truth Behind Obamacare Enrollment Numbers video interview with Neil Cavuto.
http://betsymccaughey.com/the-truth-...lment-numbers/

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Exactly, when people experience how expensive insurance truly is... and then they see the savings Single Payer will provide... they will be far more likely to embrace it. Also, consider the corporate bureaucracy, people will want something far more simple.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

As Betsy states in the video, Section 1311 of the ACA puts the Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge to dictate how your doctor treats you, empowering that person to impose regulations on doctors and hospitals. She goes on to state that Section 3,000(a) awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per Senior – not patient, but Senior.

Americans, at first glance, might think that the idea of a single-payer system sounds good and is even appealing when we look at our current economic conditions and the rising costs of healthcare.

However, if history tells us anything, any single-payer initiative will end up costing much more than what any of the proponents claim. That will only, in turn, lead us to higher taxes and/or rationing, the government determining what and which medical treatments will and won’t be covered.

We only have to look at Medicare as a primary example. It was signed into law in 1965 and projected to only grow by $9 billion by the year 1990, except that it grew by $66 billion. That is 38 years worth of examination as to what a single-payer system will do to our country.

The government doesn’t negotiate with medical providers in order to lower the prices covered for services. What it does is dictate, as the ACA law is stating in Section 1311, below-market reimbursements with its monopoly power as the primary purchaser of health care. What that does, in turn, is reduce access to quality care.

There are more than 100,000 pages of rules that Medicare patients have to abide by. These rules are dictating what types of services can be covered.

I have a huge problem with a Medicare rule change made in 1999. Any Medicare patient, receiving care at home, is being forced to divulge all personal medical information, sexual information and emotional information.

All of these government contractors record anything a patient tells them. They record whether or not the person is depressed or if they use excessive profanity, etc., etc. This allows each contractor to act as their deputy or proxy , which means a total stranger is speaking for them. That is the situation involved in any single–payer plan. The main point is that all citizens forfeit a confidential doctor-patient relationship.

We are rapidly moving toward a loss of privacy, increased costs, and reduced choices.

Aquila, you might want a single-payer system, but I think if you really look at Medicare as a prime example of what goes wrong when the government is in control, you would change your mind. Well, you might not. LOL! But, my thinking is that if the writers of Obamacare pushed this through with no Republican on board and actually intended to move us into single-payer, it is just blatantly sneaky and dishonest at best.

I will go on to state that the medical industry, which includes Big Pharma, are largely to blame for where we are today. The increased costs have a lot to do with overbilling, dishonest research, etc. But the answer is not forfeiting a doctor-patient relationship. And the answer is not increasing taxes, increasing costs, and reduced choices that a single-payer system would certainly bring us. Competition is the only driving factor for any free-market society. We should have implemented purchasing across state lines to see how that worked for us. It was a simple solution to begin with.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Michael D. Tanner discusses the single payer system on CBN’s NewsWatch (video imbed)
Top down rationing..."The problem with the single-payer system, ultimately, is that it means, someone else besides you is going to be making decisions about your healthcare."

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

And you really believe that? lol

I need a surgery on my knee. I have an HSA. However, I don't have the funds for it. Guess what, my surgery is being "rationed" because I don't have the money. I might have to wait until next year. In fact, historically speaking 45,000 Americans die every year from treatable conditions because healthcare was rationed to those who can afford it.

You'd have a case if everyone had care. What's better? A slight delay on elective procedures? Or no treatment at all that could cost a person their life?

I have friends and family in Canada that laugh at these kinds of statements all the time. Is their system perfect? Nope. But, it's better than ours. You have one complaint over the time it took for something non-life threatening in what... every 10,000 cases? Remember, they voted Tommy Douglas (founder of their system) as the most beloved Canadian.

So what would you choose?

A delay of a couple weeks for an ankle surgery? Note (they will have nice meds for you and you'll most likely have paid time off work). Or... no surgery at all because you can't pay for it???

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Waiting and waiting is on the same level as not getting healthcare at all, IMO. Where are the Canadians going to drive to when America makes it illegal to have private practice?

My neighbor suffered from ovarian cancer a couple of years ago. Doing a bit of digging and calling around, she found contributions to help pay her medical bills. There are ways without having to wait and without forgoing surgery because you don't have the money.

I agree that both systems are flawed, but I would prefer to be in control of my own healthcare and not my government. I want the leverage and right to seek out my own funding, not be on a waiting list.

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

With rising costs, I doubt this pdf report shows anything different.

Leaving Canada for Medical Care 2011

In 2011, a significant number of Canadians—an estimated
(46,159) —received treatment outside of the country.2 Increases
between 2010 and 2011 in the estimated number of patients
going outside Canada for treatment were seen in British
Columbia (5,565 to 9,180), Saskatchewan (943 to 1,221),
Manitoba (933 to 1,436), New Brunswick (282 to 526),
Nova Scotia (851 to 1,271), Prince Edward Island (44 to 54),
and Newfoundland and Labrador (130 to 433). Conversely,
Ontario (23,192 to 18,172) saw a decrease in the estimated
number of patients who received treatment outside Canada.3

Conclusion
In 2011, an estimated 46,159 Canadians received non-emergency
medical treatment outside Canada. In some cases, these
patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources
or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology. In others,
their departure will have been driven by a desire to return
more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or
perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability.
Clearly, the number of Canadians who ultimately receive their
medical care in other countries is not insignificant.

2 The products of the percentage of patients receiving non-emergency
treatment outside of Canada and the number of patients treated in
Canada as estimated in Waiting Your Turn are shown in table 1.
3 Estimates from 2010 are from Esmail (2011).

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...011-ff0712.pdf

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Let's look closely at the spin...

In 2011, an estimated 46,159 Canadians received non-emergency
medical treatment outside Canada.

It should be noted that Canada's system doesn't always cover cosmetic surgeries. Many leave Canada for such procedures. Also, many who have the resources might leave Canada for faster service... the privilege of the well to do.

In some cases, these
patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources
or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology.

Ah... but what it doesn't tell you is that for many of these individuals the Canadian system also helped pay for the treatment abroad through NWT and programs like AHCIP. Yes, they can seek treatment from specialists abroad if there aren't any available for their condition. That's a far cry from what most Americans get with their insurance.

In others,
their departure will have been driven by a desire to return
more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or
perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability.

True, if a Canadian feels that they want speedier services or believe that they can have faster recovery times... they are free to seek treatment elsewhere. Remember, many qualify for assistance when seeking these services too! As for "superior" quality care... that's relative. Here's an interesting tid bit I was told about. Once, a Canadian official actually traveled from Canada to Florida for a procedure that was actually PERFECTED in a Canadian hospital in his own province! When asked why he sought care in the United States in a facility that was even behind the curve on the research, he explained that HE DIDN'T KNOW! Evidently, he didn't do his homework. lol

Clearly, the number of Canadians who ultimately receive their
medical care in other countries is not insignificant.

Let me guess... you believe that? LOL

Hey, there are many Canadian forums. And most Canadians know English. I have an idea... Why don't you take this information and just TRY to "expose" their system for being the terrible system you think in comparison to the United States... see how many agree with you! LOL

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

*eye roll*



I've sought a few resources. They say I make too much to get assistance... and technically, I already have insurance. So far, I haven't qualified. I've discover that not every region or state is the same. I'm glad she received some contributions to help her along. Hopefully it wasn't that expensive. However, many have to declare bankruptcy (medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy). Also, there are countless stories of individuals who raised money and went as far as they could go with their treatments... only to watch their resources dwindle as time passed and they eventually had to cease treatment and prepare to die. To deny this is a mockery and a blight on the value of human life.

Well... if you have health insurance, discontinue it. Depend on the good graces of others, like you're admonishing others to do. Most don't put their own hide where their opinions are. ;)

Also... the private sector has limitations or where you can seek care and what doctors you can or cannot see too. I actually had to find a new family doctor when my plan was changed several years ago. The idea that private insurance gives you choices and that a Single Payer system wouldn't is an illusion. Imagine, arguing that under Single Payer you'd have to only go to the doctors your plan permits you to see. Then two weeks later, your company changes their insurance plans and... you suddenly can't see the doctor you've been seeing for nearly 10 years! LOL Get real. ;)

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Thanks for your input, Aquila. I have a one-way bus ticket being sent to you for your road trip to Canada. Have a nice trip. :canada :heeheehee

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

You can't deport Aquila!

Aquila you are free to stay in the States as long as you like. Now whether you get kicked out of AFF is a whole different story. :laffatu

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

Believe it or not... I truly enjoy my time in Canada. :)

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

lol

Re: Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare
 

:toofunny
I'd like to visit Canada myself. Have some friends who visited and didn't come away with a good impression of the people there. They are pretty picky, so some of that could have been on their part. :heeheehee