Health Care: The Industry Steps Up. Maybe.

The complete lack of specificity in this announcement should tell you that its to be treated with the utmost skepticism — AHIP hasn’t explained, for example, how it going to reduce the 30% plus overhead costs of its members (compared to 3% for Medicare), nor has PhRMA acknowledged that one of the biggest wastes of health care dollars is the result of PhRMA’s advertising campaigns for new drugs that treat diseases we didn’t know existed (like “restless leg syndrome”… now, every time my leg twitches, I’m worried about that) or provide so little additional benefit over generic drugs that they aren’t worth the much higher price (promoting lower risk of side effects that are infrequent in generic-available medicines to begin with — and I’d bet big bucks that advertising that emphasizing the the side effects of these generic drugs greatly increases the reporting of those side effects to doctors).
_

Puh-leeeeze -
.
This is good news only in that it shows somewhat the lay of the land — that the industry is scared that reform is actually going to happen. Other than that this is just pretense — a PR salvo to show that they’re supposedly “doing their part,” hoping that the MSM and various legislators latch on to this as a reasonable, serious-minded, and level-headed alternative to BHO’s wacko-socialist ideas.
.
Don’t take the bait.
.

I too simply take this a s a sign that the Insurance industry wants to board trhe train before it leaves without them. I don’t share some people’s reflexive distrust of business but I do look forward to the the day when use of the phrase ‘pre-existing condition’ only results in confised stares rather than knowing nods.

It makes me wonder how much more they have squirrelled away now that they have shown such largesse by whipping out this particular bone.
.
I honestly think it’s a load of crock, myself. I remember years ago the military was skewered relentlessly on and off the stage over $900 hammers and $15000 toilets – but nobodey is really investigating the inefficency and corruption I think exists behind the mere $2 cotton ball. Must be because $2 cotton balls are so much cheaper. Never mind that there are a lot more of those…
.
As for RLS, pluk, I’ve seen it, and it isn’t very pretty. I felt the same way you did. I was wrong on that.
.
But I do agree that they are way overboard on the advertising. Besides, if it’s a good drug, the doctor should prescribe it, otherwise, no. Why the elaborate ads?

“major players in the health care industry are vowing to “do our part”
.
That should read the major players who make tremendous amounts of money off of the health care industry. Because they are not providing health care. They are denying health care in the pursuit of profits. This is the way our system works and any insurer who does not operate in that manner will be out of business pretty darn quickly. So I expect that the majority of these savings the major players are not disclosing are the cost cutting measures that will in the end hurt Americans in need of health care and the doctors and nurses who actually provide that care when all is said and done.
.
This in the end is about protecting the status quo with smoke and mirrors so don’t be too suprised when the horror stories start coming in the years ahead.

I agree with you all that these major players are trying to protect their interests.
.
I do think this is great as they cannot back out now and say that the savings will not be there if a public plan is added.
.
What will the Republicans have for a major talking point now?

“What will the Republicans have for a major talking point now?”
.
That Wanda Sykes was a big meanie for picking on Rush Limbaugh.

The proposal, which lacks specifics, is merely cover for the pro for-profit health-care industry and their congressional pawns.

The translation for “reigning in costs” is the denial of coverage and services to more people.

The Lewin group estimates that more than 130 million Americans would opt for the government plan with it’s lower overhead costs and resultant lower costs for us. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because we know we’ve got a broken system that gouges us or is it because we’ve all developed a taste for socialism? It’s just another example of changes being forced down our throats that we’re demanding. The public plan would kill their business model? Isn’t their business model based on prying every last nickel they can out of us because we have this selfish fixation on staying alive? The major players in the healthcare industry can cut costs by 1.5% a year IF they get to help shape the changes? That’s nice of them. If there’s a public option they’ll have to cut costs far more than that if they expect to compete. What they’re basically saying is that if they get their way and we keep things pretty close to the way they are now we’ll get a peck on the cheek after they rape us financially. Let’s hold out for a shower, breakfast and a box of chocolates.

The Powers That Be in the health care/health insurance industry manipulate price escalation with alacrity. The only relation to anything, internal or external, would appear to be that health care costs and pressure for health care reform increase and decrease together. Since they can control the former, they use this flexibility to tamp down the latter. This practice tends to prove that costs are drastically inflated, but we rarely see anyone taking notice of that part of the issue.
.
The message from the industry, which seems inexplicably to work time and again, is “We get it now. You can trust us to do better. Oh, and nobody needs all that government remedy stuff that limits our options.”
.
As Clueless Leader once said, “Fool me twice…”

Krugman’s article is very realistic but encouraging. I find it highly amusing that at the end of his article he adopted the term “medical-industrial complex,” a term he’d attributed to the administration at the start. It’s a great label, evoking images of Eisenhower issuing dire warnings. I hope the Obama admin sticks to this nomenclature; it’s one of those phrases that has the potential to shape the public debate to their advantage.

I concur with the ambivalence here, but might suggest it is unquestionably better for the industry to come out like this than not.
.
As for Sykes/Limbaugh, Joe Sudbay offers some useful context on the msm reaction: Pundit ponders whether Rush will go ballistic over Wanda Sykes.

The key to any successful social structure is to align things so that “looking out for number one” and “doing the right thing” happen to correspond.
You can all complain about the greed of insurance companies but all they are doing is operating exactly as designed. The larger problem is the coziness between business leaders and the Governement entities that are supposed to be keeping an eye on them.
.
All the shouting about ‘socialism’ you’ve been hearing lately is just the whining of the kid who’s hand has been caught in the cookie jar.

PD, speaking of “socialism”, I find this article by Sara Robinson to be one of the most clear and concise pieces on the Canadian system: 10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

[...] are “voluntarily coming together” to present President Obama with a letter promising to reduce the growth rate in annual health spending by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next 10 years, lowering spending overall health care [...]

I concur with the ambivalence here, but might suggest it is unquestionably better for the industry to come out like this than not.
.
wvng,
.
Oh, I agree totally. Just remember that EVERYTHING is a PR/marketing problem with thse groups. Morality only enters into the discussion insofar as how it fits into their marketing plan. They will be “morally” outraged (or it will be the “moral” and “ethical” thing to do) if the plan calls for it.
.
Above all, hold onto your wallets while you are dealing with them They don’t have YOUR welfare as their PRIMARY (or even secondary) concern.
.
Everyone that is saying that they are trying to gain a seat at the table in order to affect parts of the coming legislation to their advantage is spot on.

“Leave us alone — we’ll regulate ourselves. We promise!!!”
Sounds familiar, huh?

wvng-From your link. Are you friggin kidding me? Anonymity granted to remark about Wanda Sykes? No that’s down right offensive.
.
Another GOP strategist who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said that Sykes’s remarks about Limbaugh were “way beyond the pale” adding: “In essence she was saying, ‘He’s an anti-American terrorist and I hope he dies.’ It’s hard to see how that’s in good fun.”

The key to any successful social structure is to align things so that “looking out for number one” and “doing the right thing” happen to correspond.
.
Paul,
.
It’s that definition of “doing the right thing” that’s the stickler. Whose definition do you use?
.
For some, “doing the right thing” means upholding free market principles above all. For others, it’s an issue of giving coverage to as many citizens as possible using whatever philosophy that works. And also throw in a few variations between the two.
.
We’ve got a number in this country who have managed to meld their religion and economic principles. They have managed to convince themselves that God meant for them to have as much as they want of everything – that “looking out for number one” IS “doing the right thing”.
.
How do you deal with those who have rationalized their greed and coated it with a religious fervor?

“…more than 130 million Americans would enroll in a government plan — which private insurers say would effectively kill their own business model.”
.
Dean Baker has useful thoughts on what exactly is wrong with their business model: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/baker.php

On the one hand you have the public and businesses that can no longer afford medical costs that have skyrocketed. On the other hand you have the monolithic healthcare industry that is going to do everything they can to keep things the way they are. People are going to overwhelmingly back a system that allows them to keep more of their money regardless of any abstract labels that get thrown about. When a single major illness can ruin a family financially, scare tactics are the least of their worries. They’re already scared. Living in dread that someone in the family gets sick and your life savings are going to vanish almost overnight is going to render bumper sticker slogans like socialized medicine and nanny state government meaningless. Ask senior citizens if they hate being covered by Social Security or Medicare. Ask them if they hate the idea of cheaper prescriptions. Ask them if they’d like more money in their pockets so they can afford to eat better or not have to choose between food and medicine. The system doesn’t need tweaked. It needs changed. Sometimes there is a perfect storm that changes everything.

[...] about the news that health care industry folks said they want to do their part to cut costs. Time’s Karen Tumulty points out that it’s a pretty vague promise and gives her take on what it actually means. She [...]

OT Purified Repub party. h/t David Shuster via Twitter
.
http://www.markfiore.com/political/party-purifier

OT, but Dilbert nailed the Financial Industry in this Sunday’s strip.
.
Might fit many of the others too, come to think of it.

If there was ever a time to get something done, now is the time. With the republicans distracted by their own personal apocalypse, some meaningful reform just might be able to get accomplished. I’m out of here. Gotta donate blood before work. Have at it folks.

PD: “The key to any successful social structure is to align things so that “looking out for number one” and “doing the right thing” happen to correspond.”
.
Speaking of aligning interests, you might be interested in this economic incentive experiment with farmers that my organization is doing: Farmers as Producers of Clean Water: Providing Economic Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Non-point Pollution

If there was ever a time to get something done, now is the time. With the republicans distracted by their own personal apocalypse, some meaningful reform just might be able to get accomplished.
.
sacredh,
.
If we had good, strong leadership in the Senate, I would agree. The stars are aligned pretty well right now for decisive legislative action.
.
Unfortunately, we have who we have . . . who seems to be looking for reasons to cave and bend.

wvng @ 10:43: Fascinating article. (“10 Myths about…”)
.
KT – Maybe you can do a series comparing the pros and cons of the American system vs “socialized” medicine.

art: i think that is really hard to do, because different countries’ situations are so … different. very enlightening story here on how each of these systems developed:
.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande

ditto what Art said. KT, what about an honest, side-by-side comparison of different heath care systems in the pages of TIME? A good place to start is that “10 Myths …” article. Another is this Frontline episode by TR Reid: Sick Around the World

Private health agents/brokers are taking action to block government-run health care. They’re framing it that some policymakers think their role is an unnecessary expense and that their services could be replaced by a government call center. Private agents/brokers probably make an effective argument if you are an individual who has either experienced great relief in knowing you can personally discuss questions and changes with your agent, or if you have had horrible experiences with call centers such as medicare. It may not be as effective to those who’s workplace provides health insurance coverage, as they usually feel pretty far removed from a personal agent/broker anyway.
.
http://capwiz.com/nahu/issues/alert/?alertid=13295106

KT: “i think that is really hard to do, because different countries’ situations are so … different.”
.
KT, it’s been done often enough, just not in the msm where more people will see it. Plenty doable. Read the “10 Myths …” piece that not only exposes myths about Canada, but puts them in context by comparing to the good ole USA “system. For example, Myth #2:
.
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:
.
First, as noted, they don’t have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.
.
Second, they don’t have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid — quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren’t interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.
.
One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don’t realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don’t operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.
.
Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor’s debt is roughly half that.
.
Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family’s major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor’s mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it’s no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.
.
Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they’re not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don’t have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company’s liability.

plukasiak, please don’t pick on restless legs. I had it, with legs twitching and jumping; I’d change positions and feel better for a few minutes, and then it would start again. I could not sleep for days at a time. Fortunately, my family physician did a blood test and confirmed a B vitamin shortage, the cause of most cases of restless legs.

art: i think that is really hard to do, because different countries’ situations are so … different.
.
Karen,
.
Then how about a comparison of what the doctors have to go through for reimbursement and what lower-income (not just upper – I imagine the current system looks just fine to them, but include them for reference too) patients have to go through to obtain treatment?
.
Use the so-called “socialist” systems that have been in existence the longest (as an example of where we could be) and those who are still in the growing stages (so we can see what the road ahead might look like).
.
We know this isn’t going to be easy. But just saying that “socialized” medicine (or any part of it) is off the table because the treatment decisions would be taken out of the hands of doctors and patients should be easy to address now, as the “bean counters” of the insurance companies are doing just that anyway.

KT: Thanks for responding. I will definitily read the New Yorker article.
.
Hard, yes – but not possible?
.
I confess I’m less interested in how, politically, the United States would move to, say, a Canadian model. The Powers That Be have already decreed that American Exceptionalism precludes us from adopting any other country’s system. (And to be clear: I understand the principle that any reform must be reform of the existing system. We don’t have the luxury of designing health care from scratch.)
.
But what about the claims that “socialized” medicine results in worse outcomes, or longer lines, or rationed care?
.
Or, from wnvg’s link:
.
“5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor. Scurrilously False.”
.
And yet I’ve heard this before as well. Is the GOP spreading lies? (That would be a true shock.) Or is the story more complicated?

KT–
.
I honestly think the most important determinant of the outcome of the public option is how it is reported. If the teevee people let the opponents get away with their current incoherence “A public health care plan is socialism. It’ll suck. And everybody will sign up, killing off the free market solution,” then we will rack up a third case of obeisance to outright lies from the insiders. (peddling lies about Iraq and trusting the banksters).

Ezra Klein isn’t impressed by the proposal.
.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=is_the_health_care_industry_on
.
I think this sums up best what I agree with him on as being the potential drawback.
.

The big test is not today. It’s a month from now. In June, the Finance Committee will release the first version of its health reform bill. If the bill is what we expect — something along the lines of Baucus’s white paper, or Hillary Clinton’s campaign proposal — and these industry groups not only endorse it but explain how they will save money within its confines, that will be something to celebrate. If they use the credibility they’ve attained today to unleash a more vicious assault tomorrow — if they grimly say that they proved their willingness to work with the administration but this legislation and its public plan and its insistence on evidence and its payment reforms sadly proves the administration’s unwillingness to work with them — then that will be a rather less cheery outcome.

Has anybody yet even mentioned the fact that businesses will no longer have to foot the bill for medical insurance?
.
Huh? Wha?

KT, you’ve been outvoted. It really isn’t that hard to do an apples to apples comparison, starting with issues highlighted above, as long as you ensure they are apples. And it would be easy to do in a very accessible “this happens here, this happens here” as in the “10 Myths …” article.
.
You have repeatedly said that you hope we can have an honest debate about health care policy in this country. If you choose to accept this assignment (heck, Drudge is Halperin’s assignment editor, and we’re much better than Drudge), I believe you would materially contribute to an atmosphere that allows honest debate on this seminal issue.
.
And we must have that debate.

And yes, Gunny, “cost reduction” to the insurance companies means “less health care.”

btw, Karen: I’m not trying to pick on you! You’re doing great reporting on this issue.

I’m not impressed either. What the industry is proposing is a decrease in the increase in the rate health care costs go up.
.
A crock of sh!t.
.
See http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/horray-second-derivative-of.html for an idea of what a second derivative is…

btw, Karen: I’m not trying to pick on you! You’re doing great reporting on this issue.
.
She is indeed. KT, please ask Joe to read your columns and posts before he writes about health care policy in the future.

Yglesias on the politics of the moment: Whatever kind of backstabbing these industry groups may or may not do in the future, they won’t be able to take back the fact that once upon a time they stood beside the White House in agreeing that it’s possible to achieve massive cost-savings without compromising patient care. That argument may well prove hugely important, politically, to getting a package through congress.

plukasiak, please don’t pick on restless legs. I had it, with legs twitching and jumping; I’d change positions and feel better for a few minutes, and then it would start again. I could not sleep for days at a time. Fortunately, my family physician did a blood test and confirmed a B vitamin shortage, the cause of most cases of restless legs.
_
my point about “restless leg syndrome” wasn’t that it didn’t exist, or wasn’t ever serious — rather that all the commercials about it have made people think its something they might have that requires a drug to fix it. I’m assuming that you knew that something was wrong, and didn’t need a commercial to tell you that yuo had a problem — IMHO, ads for prescription medications should be directed at doctors, and not consumers.

Agree with pluk at 12:37. I complained about these commercials and was directed to some research (sorry, no longer have link) that showed that after seeing a commercial, enough people go to doctor and demand drug that the ads pay. Assume with the endless various e-disfuntion ads it’s a matter of convincing consumer that one is better than other. If they are on one and it isn’t perfect the ads encourage them to go to doctor and ask for a switch.

She is indeed. KT, please ask Joe to read your columns and posts before he writes about health care policy in the future.
_
and while you’re at it, could you start reporting on public education … maybe your work could mitigate against Joe’s continual idiotic assaults on teachers!!

rather that all the commercials about it have made people think its something they might have that requires a drug to fix it.
.
pluk,
.
I wonder if more isn’t spent on marketing with these companies than they are on R&D.
.
Regarding new product rollouts: Sometimes the list of potential “side effects” at the end of the commercial are almost as long as the commercial itself.
.
Anyone note how they seem to recycle the same drugs for different issues? I can remember a birth control drug that also had the “side effect” of clearing up the user’s complexion. Users were warned of other, more damaging “side effects” (bugs) at the end and told NOT to use the drug as a Clearasil replacement because of the other things it might cause (clots, bleeding, death, etc.).
.
Now, there’s a drug being marketed to help with acne in teenage girls. However, users are warned not to use it if they are “pregnant, might become pregnant, or could become pregnant” (old birth control pill “feature” is now a “bug”?) The harmful effects are pretty much the same as before, but you have to be paying attention.
.
New product is really an old product with a new name and different marketing. The old product features are now bugs to be avoided and the old bugs arer now the point of the product.
.
No R&D required. And the public (for the most part) doesn’t even know the difference.

The only and real question is; “when was the last time any government program was run efficiently, and cost effective?”
.
Answer: “never”.
.
Taking away the right of Private Insurance to any American is one step closer to Socialism. There is absolutely no reason that both Private and Public Insurance cannot co-exist. Let the 50 million or so Americans who currently do not have health insurance, pay into a Government backed program. The reason it is not currently done, is that people without insurance are choosing not to budget their dollars and pay for insurance. The $120/month or so that it would cost, these individuals choose not to buy and they spend those dollars on cable TeeVee or other non-essential goods and services.
.
We do not need a Universal Healthcare Program for everyone. We simply need a government backed insurance program for those people lost between Medicaid (welfare and disability), and somewhere around $30,000 per year income. But, the big government and big entitlement program Democrats LOVE to spend our tax dollars and tell us what we should and shouldn’t do. The progressive Democrats want a socialist based economy, and without a Universal Healthcare program in place that dream will not be realized.
.
Stand up and be heard America. Just say “No” to Obama! Tell him we do not want his meddling government programs or his social welfare.

Pointing and laughing … ha ha ha ha ha … breathe . . . ha ha ha ha ha hah!

Rusty, there is no such thing as health insurance at $120/month. Where do you live? I pay $310 for a policy with big deductions and copays in Pennsylvania, where people from other states move because the health insurance is so accessible and “affordable.”

I’m with joyfulalternative – when I had to buy my insurance as an individual, it was $847/month. If I was buying for a family, it would have been closer to $1200 a month. I currently have lousy insurance through my (retired) husband’s employer (an insurance company, ironically enough). We still have to pay $300/month for my coverage alone. Rusty, where can I get your insurance that only costs $120/month?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/battle_lines_1.asp
.
Interesting that few are talking about the intergenerational issues regarding health care.

from WSJ op ed/Weekly Standard article above: Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. — that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Its annual bill is $227 billion, and so far this fiscal year is rising by 17%.

Do you really think Medicaid has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers? How is that possible, when Medicaid is for low-income people and aging parents presumably would be covered under Medicare? And what does that have to do with the total cost or how it is rising? How does that show that Medicaid is going to (implied – undeserving) middle-class?

Another question – do you think the system we have is fine? Or do you acccept that we pay twice what every other industrial nation pays for worse outcomes, our doctors work twice as hard because they have to deal with 100′s of insurers, and we have at least 47 million without any insurance (and that was before the Great Recession started). If you believe we need to reform our system, what are your thoughts in that regard? Does any other country offer a health care solution that is acceptable to you? Or should we just let health care be something only for those who can afford it?

KT, please ask Joe to read your columns and posts before he writes about health care policy in the future.
.
Amen, KT, amen.

Do you really think Medicaid has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers? How is that possible, when Medicaid is for low-income people and aging parents presumably would be covered under Medicare? And what does that have to do with the total cost or how it is rising? How does that show that Medicaid is going to (implied – undeserving) middle-class?
_
actually, yes it has.
_
Medicare does not provide for long-term care (like nursing homes). What generally happens is that middle-class seniors who require nursing home care spend most of their assets on the nursing home, at which point they qualify for medicaid.

Thanks, pluk, for clarifying that. So, it still means the previously financially solvent seniors need to spend all their assets (and if married, the one who isn’t sick is now officially poor) so they qualify for this “middle class subsidy”. I guess the kids are supposed to pay for the long term care, as well as insure themselves, and their kids oh and don’t forget to save for college and retirement. Some subsidy.

I used to edit a small community newspaper targeted to Seniors in NYC and I remember doing a story on this back in the 80′s. It doesn’t make sense to me to force someone to spend down all their assets until they are penniless before you will help them. And, if I remember correctly, you could only go to a nursing home facility, medicaid would not fund a home health aid, etc. So the surviving spouse is homeless and we spend more than we have to to put someone in a nursing home.

[...] “Healthcare: Industry Steps Up. Maybe” by Joe [...]

My congressional representative just called. He left me a message about how he feels about health care reform. I posted my open letter response to him here: http://whatchannelareyouwatching.com/archives/165

You’re doing great reporting on this issue.

thamtuvina

“”"If there was ever a time to get something done, now is the time. With the republicans distracted by their own personal apocalypse, some meaningful reform just might be able to get accomplished.”"”

This should be the quote of the day.

Dr. Manus Dakadil

http://dakadil.blogspot.com/

OT Purified Repub party. h/t David
http://mrsaurieng.info

[...]hand you have the monolithic healthcare industry that is going to do everything they can to keep things the way they are. People are going to overwhelmingly back a system that allows them to keep more of their money regardless of[...]

i not understand
federico cristiano
Mooveramps skatepark

Yeah Dilbert nailed it about the end of capitalism but even the rich need poor people to look after them – so it is in their own self interest to mke sure there are enough health poor people around

.

I thought if you cannot afford health insurance currently and end up in the hospital, there is help from government? Does this new plan mean that now health insurance will become mandatory like car insurance?

Beck @ http://www.profitseo.com

It is no surprise that this health care reform plan is politics written all over it. How is it we are to believe that in a capitalistic system we are to depend on the government to ensure a health care system in place that actually makes a profit. Does the post office make money? Does AMTRAk make money? Last time I heard they were in the red. http://helpwithmarriage.info/reviews/get-ex-back/

What pathetic weaklings we Americans are. For profit corporations own and operate this country. We line up into two camps, left and right, and as we call each other names, the corporations grow more wealthy and powerful. They kill us for profit. And we just take it.

Look at the White House. Look at the House of representatives. Look at the Senate. Every single politician is corporate owned and directed. Every single one of them! Republican or Democrat. Independent or Socialist. they all have one thing in common: Staying in office is more important to them than anything else. Including the health and well being of American citizens.
Stephanie Mcnealy
Famous Philanthropist Customer Service Team

See you at the top

Health care should stay in private hands. The government will create a beuacratic nightmarecounseling marriage

On the one hand you have the public and businesses that can no longer afford medical costs that have skyrocketed.
WordPress Themes
Wordpress themes city offers free wordpress templates and WordPress themes to download. More and more high quality free wordpress themes and fashion cute free wordpress templates, hoping you like them!

read me…

Next step is the explanation of the needs for the region of public health of all, whom you want to include in the plan of medical insurance. This stage can be sufficiently complex. You and others in a good health as a whole? Someone is some already exi…

The industry steps up….

we all die faster!! we could slow down..

our earth can’t take that much not anymore..

Simon (Fashion Bop)

http://www.fashion-bop.com

http://takagi-exp.co.jp/

http://yksports.net/I'm from Vietnam leekien … so grateful for your article … it very well, hope to get acquainted with people

I rather disbelieve any hints or over statements of cooperation from any industry that views the general public as profit fodder. We are deluged daily with advertisements and products that erode our health. And we wonder why our health care continually goes up in costs. We need to wake up as a people and vote with our wallets by ceasing to buy “cheap” foods that are poisoning us and speak up. Here’s an example of one man who did and is shaking up an whole industry: http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2010/05/the-impact-of-one-mans-outrage/

OT, but Dilbert nailed the Financial Industry in this Sunday’s strip.
.
Vong bi – Vòng bi –

Sign
==================
TNHH KYOTO Viet Nam

http://www.resaleugg.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1341&products_id=10233

“health reform is actually going to happen”

“doing their part,” hoping that the MSM and various legislators latch on to this as a reasonable, serious-minded, and level-headed alternative to BHO’s wacko-socialist ideas.
http://www.capssupplier.com