Posted by Thevoice (anonymous) on January 17, 2010 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It needs massive reform, starting with a cap on charges. Forcing people to buy insurance with the law is only going to result in companies no longer covering portions and forcing people who make the average national wage of 11 an hour, 25k a year, to spend 9k of that on health care insurance. After paying for that insurance and the 7k in taxes on it, they will have an actual 9k to live on. Why work?

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on January 21, 2010 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wood,

It is not healthcare reform We have the best healthcare in the world. If they would rename it health insurance reform, then it may make sense. However, over 80% of the country is satisfied with their health insurance. Why not give a tax credit to those with none, who purchase a policy, then they will not be uninsured. There is no way this is about insuring those with out insurance. This is purely government control which is what all liberals want. 1 trillion dollars for health insurance for those that do not have it? Doesn't even come close to that. Health care costs as much as it does now because government interferrence and ambulance chasing attorneys. Get them both out of the mix, let insurance companies compete across state lines and the costs will come down. No major legislation needed, no trillion dollar tax on those that already pay too much tax.

Posted by jhuck (anonymous) on January 21, 2010 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The easiest and most cost effective way to make health insurance affordable for all who want it is to get the government out of private business. No B.S. federal bail outs, no unneeded legislation, and no ridiculous laws requiring people to enroll in health insurance plans or be fined / jailed, etc. The only reason a large company fails is because of inadequate management abilities, and that’s it! The bottom line is let them fail. People will loose work, but it will all work out in the wash. One door closes another one opens that’s how the world works. Capitalism has always worked and will always work. The insurance companies will regulate themselves and the consumers will get better coverage at a more affordable price. Not allowing insurance companies to offer health insurance to potential customers because they are over state lines is absolutely ludicrous. Where is it the government’s right or responsibility to provide health insurance for people without insurance? The answer is it is not the government’s right or responsibility. Remove the government from the equation and watch how fast these issues resolve themselves. Less government = more money and better results for the tax payers!

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on January 24, 2010 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

79Tiger; I think you may be mistaken about the US having the best health care in the world. I think it would behoove you to do a little more research starting with http://www.time.com/time/health/article/... I think this particular poll shows there is a desire for Health Care reform.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on January 24, 2010 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

79Tiger; Do a search on How Does Britain's National Health Service Work. I think the link I provided may have expired. Sorry. The poll I am referring to is the one in the Tribune, concerning Health Care reform.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on January 24, 2010 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jhuck; Unrestricted Capitalism is just as dangerous as unrestricted Government. Corporations and Businesses have become to large and unmanageable also doing away with competition. I am not that knowledgeable about Anti-Trust laws but was under the impression they were in place to curtail this practice.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 25, 2010 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" 80% of the country is satisfied with their health insurance"

That's just stupid, given that nowhere near 80% of the country even HAS health insurance. Get your facts straight before you lie.

Ambulance chasing attorneys? That's the dumbest argument for health care costs I think i've EVER heard. You really don't have ANY idea what happens in this system, this crappy, antiquated, decrepid system you nutjobs think is soooo perfect. Its junk, crap, and we're getting left behind on this, just like education and science. But hey, we've got better guns and missles than ANYONE!

Give me a break....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 25, 2010 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mick,

here's a better article, or actually, a report, probably saying about the same thing your's was trying to say:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/...

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 25, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

or how about this one:

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?i...

I know righties.....its all lies...no one can do anything better than we can....

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on January 25, 2010 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jonferguson; Thanks for providing the two links on Health Care. They are excellent! Very informative, I have bookmarked both for further exploration. This country needs a Single-Payer Health Care system. Washington has really bungled an opportunity. The complicated and difficult to understand system they are trying to come up with is unbelievable. It is comparable to the Prescription plan, which has a lot to be desired. If we would just go to a Single-Payer plan for all Health care needs it would make things so much more understandable, efficient and manageable. I realize there will be bugs in the system at first but we could work those out. Also, an important plus, is no one would slip through the system and not receive the Health care they need, in fact, this would be the premier achievement.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 25, 2010 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After reading your logic behind it, and researching for myself, I have to agree with you mick. It seems to me, through what I've read, that a single-payer system is the way to go. Other countries are having great success with it, and it removes the doubt, plus the outcomes in those countries make us look like a 3rd world country.

Posted by jhuck (anonymous) on January 27, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers: I respect your point of view, but I couldn’t disagree more. The true rewards of capitalism can only work if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Large companies do not become “unmanageable” they become more complex and harder to manage. Anti-trust laws were created to regulate the market and place restrictions on monopolies and other very large conglomerates. However, I feel that the government has no business interfering with the private market. This land is free and the federal government does not have any business interfering, regulating, providing money to, etc., etc., etc., with private businesses. Our government has a serious propensity to “under regulate.” By this I mean that they like to address half the problem and ignore the rest. Under regulation is far more dangerous than fully regulating a market, because now you are only providing the legal loop holes (that shouldn’t exist in the first place) to the ultra rich and further segregating this segment of our country from the common people. Which is the exact opposite of what they (politicians and lobbyist) claim these laws are in place for. This is proven time and time again on even a county level. Here is my stance: the feds have no right in private business (period), but I am one man and can’t stop them all. So if they are going to regulate the market then I feel they should regulate it. I was brought up with the understanding that you don’t start something without the determination, dedication and resources to finish it correctly. This is a rant for another day, but I think you understand where I am headed with this.

Thanks for your varying opinion…

Jon

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 27, 2010 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jhuck,

Although I appreciate your point, I think most of it is moot, because of one simple belief (yes, i said belief)

I, along with MANY others, don't feel that health care should be considered a "market"

Freedom of speech isn't a market. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren't markets. That's the level many Americans put healthcare on. You can't market a moral responsibility.

This is why so many people feel the way I do. Being cared for in a time of sickness should be a right, not a profitable transaction.

Just my opinion, for what its worth....

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on January 28, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And would you be willing to spend eight to 12 years of your life, post high school, to provide that service for free Jon? You are all a sorry lot.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on January 28, 2010 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who said anything about free? That makes no sense at all.

Posted by jhuck (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonferguson: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights; healthcare is a privilege. I disagree as I feel that a lot of American’s (at least the ones I know) do not feel that healthcare is a right. However, if you don’t believe me read our Bill of Rights and you will not see a single mention of healthcare. Is that because it wasn’t so expensive over 200 year’s age? I seriously don’t think so. But the bottom line is that it isn’t the government’s responsibility to provide food, medicine, shelter, education, etc. to its people. The way this country was established was free market capitalism and sadly we got away from that some time ago. The folks in Washington should have waken up the precise moment when our imports surpassed our exports, but that didn’t happen and we are looking at the results of a “regulated” market. Healthcare expenses are no exception to this…

Jon

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting thing about the constitution. Our founding fathers, which conservatives like to "lay claim" to, weren't all in agreement with the constitution as written:

It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty.

And as far as the Bill of "Rights" goes:

Though they are incorporated into the document known as the "Bill of Rights", neither article establishes a right as that term is used today. For that reason, and also because the term had been applied to the first ten amendments long before the 27th Amendment was ratified, the term "Bill of Rights" in modern U.S. usage means only the ten amendments ratified in 1791.

A quote from Alexander Hamilton, who is basically saying no to a bill of rights, because it leaves too much out, and too much to interpretation, and offers a chance to say NO, because its not included in the bill of rights:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Posted by WhatAJoke (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this question needs "reformed" --- it's been up here way-y-y too long.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 8, 2010 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WhatAJoke: I disagree with your comment. This vital issue is still receiving votes. Thanks Tribune for allowing this to continue. I plus others are following this with interest. Health Care is one of the vital concerns of our country if not the most important.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

300 million people in US. 12 million people need health insurance help. Obama's agenda is to use his health care reform to get his socialistic foot in the door, and at the same time destroy the best health care in the world.
Whew,almost missed this, and I think I voted "NO", 3 times.

And the republicans should not meet with Obama unless he agrees to start from scratch.

How's the weather your way Mick.