SH-
Thanks-and thanks again. Finally a concrete idea! That is all I want-viable alternatives instead of criticisms and/or flowery philosophy about ''how things should be'' or how ''responsible'' one should act. Because NONE of the dozens of posts in this or jazzwriters thread even started to address my question-RE:46 million Americans who face certain death sentences if diagnosed with a health crisis requiring a $100,000-$250,000 surgery or treatment series.
Maybe your post will inspire other answers 2my ??

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the Americans people to stop making promises about what his health plan will and will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

Haste makes waste and I fear that the baby is going to be thrown out with the bath water.

As flowery as you may think that my philosophies are, Paul, once you peel back the layers of this onion far enough one of the bottom lines is personal responsibility. If that elephant is not addressed, and if all that we are going to do with a new plan is put bandaids on open wounds by "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", in time the wounds will start bleeding all over again.

The other bottom line is that the powers that be are not listening to all of the concrete ideas - they're in too much of a hurry - and that is a major issue. If we are going to do it, let's take our time and do it right - let's consider everything, flowery or not. I am also not convinced that in the mean time 46 million Americans will face certain death if diagnosed with a major health crisis. I know people who work in emergency rooms and I am pretty sure that no patient who walks through the door is thrown back into the street to die. When folks who can afford to pay their medical bills are hospitalized they are charged a fee for indigent care - to pay for those who can not afford it, so something is already being done to help those people who are less fortunate (it may not be the best way, but it does offer them something). I'm not saying that our current system doesn't have problems, but I think that it is only fair to mention what is happening on the other side of the fence. Let's not totally demonize the medical profession as evil folks who are going to allow 46 milliion people to die (I know, that is not what you wrote, but one could interpret it that way). There are many more millions of people who are receiving (and paying for) good care, so let's give some credit where credit is due...because if we forget about that part of this equation we will throw the baby out with the bath water and that would be the biggest mistake of all!

I really am going to drop out of this thread this time - it truly is giving me a headache! : )

Responsibly and Respectfully yours,

The Golf Widow

The only one I directed a comment to is SH. It was a sincere thank you to him. I had-specifically asked 30-40 posts back that the 46 million who have lost, can't afford, are deemed uninsurable etc--simply be addressed. Everyone ignored the question. The plan in Congress may or may not be flawed but at least that plan addresses the 46 million. And don't tell me that those 46 million would have the care-if at all-that Pat Swayze or Bill Gates would get. Statistics are that 20,000 Americans die each year simpl

(cont'd),-Simply because they lack insurance. If they all went to Swayze or Gates doctors they would be guaranteed treatment? You know that that is not the way it happens.
If by some miracle they do get chemo, surgery, radiation,
by some miracle, the care will be shoddy by comparison. And I think I'd get a fist down my throat if I told one of those 20,000 to be more responsible as they searched for a place that would treat their lung, pancreatic, cervical cancer, or operate on their heart,gratis.
20,000!!!

BTW-last add-for now:
I do think that the plan...and any alternate plans SHOULD be discussed and debated...with January-30- 2010 as target-date to vote.
Meantime, follow SH's lead and post some PRACTICAL ideas. And please, don't sweep those 46 million(and 20,000 who die every year simply because of insurance issues)-under the rug.

No, those 46 million would not get anything close to the same care that Patrick Swayze or Bill Gates or Ted Kennedy or President Obama would get - and if this health care plan is not well thought out, neither will the rest of us. I can not offer a large scale practical solution at this time - and that is my point - there are many layers to this issue and a hurried solution may solve the problem for some but open up a Pandora's box for others, and then we will just shift the burden and not lift it. I think that long term, successful, concrete/practical solutions can only be found by looking at all of the factors and weighing things out. Sadly, I think that expecting that anyone/everyone in the general public would ever routinely receive the same medical care as the folks noted above is a bit "flowery" on your part (although it is one flowery wish that we both share). I think that we all bring our personal experiences to the table and we each have a "utopian" idea of how it should be - that is why this issue is a difficult one; I think that we all want the impossible and settling for anything less is difficult. I am not heartless - we had a dear friend who did not have medical insurance and he had some very serious post surgey complications - we, and our community, gave him money and held fundraisers and we were able to lighten his financial burden - that was a small scale practical solution, and it worked - maybe looking at the big picture will make us realize that there are also some small scale solutions available. I just don't know. Try as I might, I can not answer your question, but I respect your search for an answer and I hope that you find it. Now I am signing off - for the third time - three strikes and I'm out! : )

Here's my hope; it seems clear-that SOME kind of new plan is on the way-
If that is the case,
let's just make sure that it is debated and ''tuned up'' and that ideas from all sides considered in both house and senate. Perhaps they can commit the same number of weeks/months that they spent in that-ULTRA important baseball steroid business-that wouldn't be too much to ask...and
time better spent.
And I hope that there's alot less of the ''if we can 'beat' the President on healthcare, it'll be his waterloo''-

Paul - please try to back up some of your rhetoric. We have the best healthcare in the world here. It only needs to be tweaked with some controls over what insurance companies charge doctors, period...and some tort reform would also be helpful. (Kat, I recall you had a very bad red tape coverage experience and that's unfortunate but I think that is the exception) Paul, I am surprised living in southern Cal you aren't more shocked over what is happenning. In what other country can an illegal alien walk into a A++ healthcare facility and get free treatment !!. Trust me, this country does not let people die. Also don't forget that most of the "uninsured" do it my choice. And many of these are choosing NOT to buy healthcare EVEN when they are working for a company that is footing 1/2 the bill!!! They'd rather have that premium satellite movie package, TIVO and a big flatscreen. Priorities a little out of whack I would say. But when they see their neighbor or relative illegal exploit the system and convince them, "don't pay for healthcare, it's free!", this sort of enabling distorts reality and hurts everyone.

I did it! I got it! It’s every freelancer’s dream come true. The President has granted me time for not one but two interviews. I’ll have only a few minutes for each one, and the subject is health care. Each will be aired on a separate cable network. Really! Both networks have asked me to adhere to their strict editorial guidelines. I thought at least some of you guys here on Magic Island might enjoy a sneak preview of the questions I’ll be asking. I offer them here in a side-by-side comparison so you can see that I’m making every effort to be fair not only to the President but also to my network sponsors and their audiences.

Hello Mr President. Welcome to Fox

FOX 1. In order to escape long waits, an increasing number of Canadians come to the U.S. for medical treatment every year. What does that say about the difference in quality between our two systems? Also, what does government-run health care in Canada do wrong that government-run health care in America will do right?

Hello Mr President. Welcome to CNN

CNN 1. In order to escape long waits, an increasing number of Canadians come to the U.S. for medical treatment every year. Have Canadian officials asked you to send some of your advisors, a delegation of some kind up there, to show them how to eliminate long waits and rationed care? I mean, surely they would want to learn how to save money and add jobs at the same time. If not, do you think our friends north of the border might be…and let me say this gently… might they be a little too proud to ask for our help?

FOX 2. By some estimates, a government takeover of health care will mean a takeover of about 18 percent of this nation’s economy. Many are saying, Mr President, that given the inaccuracy of your predictions and your, shall we say, limited success in mitigating these very tough economic times that we should exercise caution in moving ahead with your version of health care. What do you say to your critics?

CNN 2. By some estimates, your plan would move about 18 percent of this nation’s economy to the safe hands of government. A few on the right are saying, sir, that given some inaccuracy in your earlier predictions and your, as yet, unfolding success in mitigating these very tough economic times, we should think twice about your version of health care. As a man, as a human being, do you ever feel the need to shield your family from hearing this kind of hurtful rhetoric said about their husband, their father?

FOX 3. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recently penned an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. He writes: “Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.” As you know, Governor Jindal is exceedingly popular, especially with Conservatives, many of whom would like to see a match-up between you two in the 2012 presidential race. How do you answer the Governor’s statement?

CNN 3. There’s a lot of hoopla on the right about a recent editorial written by the governor of one of the southern states. Question… When it comes to governors, does Sarah Palin have even an ounce of credibility to speak out on this or any other issue given her abandonment of the people of Alaska under a firestorm of ethics charges?

FOX 4. You’ve said that a central tenet of any health care legislation you sign is that it must not add to the budget deficit. Yet, you support the House version which is now stuck in the Ways and Means Committee precisely because members of your own party are concerned about funding a bill they say is too expensive. How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

CNN 4. You’ve said that a central tenet of any health care legislation you sign is that it must not add to the budget deficit. With so much at stake, shouldn’t you just urge the House Ways and Means Committee to sign on to the bill and worry about the details later? Do we risk getting bogged down in the minutia here?

FOX 5. A recent study by the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan industry research concern, found that if the House bill does become law nearly half of those who now enjoy private medical insurance, through their employers, will be moved to a government plan. If your administration has research data that says otherwise, shouldn’t you release that information?

CNN 5. A recent study by the Lewin Group claims that if the House bill does become law nearly half of those who now enjoy private medical insurance, through their employers, will be moved to a government plan. Some charge that Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, and their millions are behind the study. Is there any truth to these charges? And what do we know about this shadowy group?

FOX 6. Needless to say, this is a very complicated undertaking. We’re only now learning of some features that a good many Americans may find hard to swallow. Let me give you just one example. As it is now written, the House bill has a provision that would force tax payers to prove to the IRS that they have health insurance or pay a fine of up to $2,500. Are you okay with that?

CNN 6. Needless to say, this is a very complicated undertaking. As it stands now, the House bill runs well over a thousand pages in length. Would you care to hint at any pleasant surprises that Americans may find tucked away in your health care reform package once it becomes law?

FOX 7. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, a Democrat, Released figures that contradict your claims of deficit neutrality in regard to your health care proposal. Last Monday you summoned Mr Elmendorf to the White House. What was the purpose of that meeting, and what do you say to those who say the only purpose of such a meeting could be to pressure Mr Elmendorf into maintaining a lower profile on this matter? Is such a meeting even appropriate since Mr Elmendorf works for the legislative, not the administrative, branch of government?

CNN 7. You recently invited Mr Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, a Democrat, to the White House. Did he admit to making some serious mistakes in estimating the cost of your health care proposal? Will he be allowed to stay on in his current position?

FOX 8. Before we get out of here, Mr President, I must ask a question that’s on the minds of many of our viewers. One looming issue in all this is the possibility of government funded abortion. Given your unqualified support for a woman’s right to choose, this probably isn’t a major concern for you, or, for that matter, the majority of those in your party. But do you feel that it’s fair to ask those Americans who do not share your views, to offer their tax dollars to fund a procedure that they feel is morally, fundamentally wrong? Where is the moral high ground on this issue?

CNN 8. Before we get out of here, Mr President, I must ask a question that’s on the minds of many of our viewers. How’s Bo? Is he a wonderful pet for Sasha and Malia? What are your thoughts on being a dog-owning family for the first time?