It sounds like SH is saying that all Americans should be able to obtain the same medical treatments that the late great senator received, regardless of their income or standing. I agree!

I hope Rush does do it. Can't anyone see the hipocracy of a sudden push to call the healthcare bill "Kennedy Care" when his care represented nothing to what the bill he endorses does?

Plus....how tacky...the body isn't even in the ground yet. But in the words of Rahm Emanuel....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Wow...and we use to think wire-tapping would be an invasion of privacy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

It's laughable to think that conspiracy and partisanship is behind being against the healthcare. The proof is in the pudding.

A couple things are obvious. The money must come from somewhere and it's from one of two places. Either extravagent tax increases or shifting of services from old to young and illegals as well as rationing. Just the thought of the government "looking at your net worth" and bank account statement info to determine "what you can afford." gives me the chills.

If I am going to spend $10-15K per year for my families healthcare I want to be able to shop it around to the best program that meets my needs. Kat is right, we need some reform but what is presented in front of us is a pile of crap.

Steve, you're right... but they would have done this if you needed Medicaid for a nursing home or assisted living.

This is why we need reform...

1. We need a transportable catastrophic insurance coverage wuth no frills. Every citizen deserves this.
- this will create interstate competition for a policy - if the territory expands, the rates drop
- we can use existing allocations to fund those without insurance. That's right - revamp Medicaid.
- elimination of misleading gatekeeping by insurance access to specialty care and for "experimental"procedures. That's right - a commitment from insurance to consider lower cost testing in a timely fashion - not simply deny it for 5 or 6 years.

2. We need the ability to purchase additional coverage - according to what we need and want - not what our employer has negotiated
- transparency in underwriting is needed
- elimination of claims denial for pre-exiting conditions

3. We need tort reform - to eliminate the fear of huge malpractice and to eliminate unnecessary testing

4. We need Electronic Health Records - to eliminate the waste of multiple record keeping

5. We need to lead healthier lifestyles - and avoid the complications of an unhealthy lifestyle (like President Kennedy's fitness programs in school)

Kat, I went through this last year as executor for my father who is in a nursing home. Best I recall I remember filling out the applications and it asking about net worth and investment income, etc. If you were beyond a certain threshold, you would not qualify for any $$ assistance and that was about the extent of it. My father has a decent "nest egg" yet still gets great medical benefits. I think what we are talking about here is taking it to another level where the government would actually have access to one or more of your accounts for mandatory auto withdrawals, etc. for services rendered. Is it possible that people with large nest eggs would get MUCH less re-imbursement for medical care "because they can afford it"?

This is what income redistribution is all about and we know President Obama is a big fan of it.

In addition to all of the other factors that are more directly related to actual health care I also hope that what ever is done does not take away the incentive to "do well for oneself" or compromise one's privacy (although I fear that it may be too late for that), especially if comes in the form of a sell out to any special interest group(s). I think that another layer of this (that may come across as anger, paranoia, racism, greed, etc.) is that many people are really worried that changing the system to give more rights to others will take away the rights, money, freedoms and choices that they currently enjoy - it is a concern because two wrongs don't make a right. I hope that we can do better than that!

"We" can, but the real question is whether those in Congress have the will.

I think that it is their duty and I think that it is our duty to (respectfully) hold them to it!

In principle, that appears to be what's happening with people going to these meetings. However, we don't all agree on what it means to "do better" than the present bill.

I do not like the contrived meetings, or the "shouting matches", so I understand what you mean by "in principal this is what's happening". It may not be the most productive of methods, but I still think that the more ideas and perspectives that are respectfully thrown into the ring, and are then respectfully and dutifully considered, the better the chance of coming up with the "best" plan. Yet your question still stands - does Congress have the will? Many in Congress are so far removed from the trenches and so wrapped up in personal agendas and special interests (I'm sorry but I think that this is a very sad truth) that I honestly don't think that they get it (and they SO don't get that they don't get it). They have sailed along for so many years that they just don't know any better - and the funny thing is, they think that "WE" don't know any better so they must think for us. They'll say that they work for us but then there is the "but not in my backyard" part of the deal. Scary. Too much bitter chocolate for me today? : ) I am eating more chocolate these days - because it's good for my health! : )