I does seem absurd to turn the entire health industry inside out for 20 million people. But I don’t think that we will ever go back to the point of doing nothing about it.

Romney would of been better than Obama no matter what. Refusing to vote is what gave Barry the winning edge. Congrats on that game plan.

Very interesting. I actually kind of like Romney and think that he is probably the best choice for the Republicans at the moment, but he sure does ride the fence a lot. This is a little scary, being that I also agree that it looks like he wants to expand government, not limit…

Exactly.

Romney, Huckabee, and the other RINO’s we were presented with are as bad, if not worse than those rolling under the Democrat banner (who, in turn, are falsely calling themselves Americans, when, in truth, they are little more than Communists)

DeMint, Palin, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Bob Smith would be just what America needs.

Goon,

Did UND have some players just get arrested?

um…. he did this in mass, right? what made you think he thinks its bad NOW?

Geez Rob, what do you want him to say?

We need to reform healthcare. We need to ensure that 47M Americans have access to healthcare. Don’t ignore that there is a major problem. There is a major problem with Americans not having healthcare and with the high costs of healthcare. Let’s frame the problem.

So the solution certainly needs to be debated, not rushed through Congress and certainly not rushed through using budget reconciliation. Do you want Romney to say, “No problems with healthcare, Move Along, Nothing to see here?”

I think that there are far better solutions to healthcare than nationalizing it, forcing electronic medical records, rationing care, and cutting reimbursement rates for doctors. The reality is that we need ideas on healthcare reform and from the Republican side, there aren’t a lot of ideas coming out. We need a national debate and we need solutions. At least Romney wants a thorough debate on the issue and wants Obama to slow down. Slow down probably means that nothing happens because Dems won’t get it done if it doesn’t happen right now and they don’t have the political capital to make it happen.

Give the guy credit for being diplomatic.

Give the guy credit for being diplomatic.

yup, lets give him a participation trophy! THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS DO. no freaking way. if he talks he needs solutions.

wanna control cost? limit liability to doctors to $20.00, serve only legal citizens (or foreign that want to pay cash) and get rid of insurance companies. make everyone pay for themselves and costs will drop. A 10 minute visit with a doc should not cost $200. $1,600 per hour to talk to a doctor?!?!?!?!?!? it should cost $50. Think about that! its STILL $300 per hour!!!!

you wanna insure the uninsured? No. anyone can get health care right now. all they need to do is show up. and when they DO show up, they pay the same inflated rates we all do. i knew a dirt poor scum bag with $50,000 in medical debt. she wont have to pay a dime so the hospital (you and me) have to pay for it.

The “reform” that is needed is to strip government control of how insurance is structured, that way you can purchase the insurance you need, not the $1000-2000 per month shit they want to ram down American’s throats.

I agree with that.

I don’t agree with every American having access to healthcare right now. It is prohibitively expensive for private individuals to obtain services because they are charged significantly more than insurance companies are. I also believe that if you lack insurance and have anything more significant than an occasional cold, you are easily forced into bankruptcy by any sort of major illness. When you get sick and don’t have insurance, you are in deep shit.

The people without health insurance are the tweeners, those in the lower middle class that work. A vast number of them are young Americans that choose not to carry insurance because they are healthy. But there is a major problem with insurance affordability for companies and individuals and people should have reasonably priced options.

The solution is in the market, not by the government and it still should offer individuals real choice and that choice should include not carrying insurance if they want to. It is because of overregulation of health insurance companies and mandates on what services they must provide that costs are so high. Indemnity coverage with moderate deductibles should be affordable but right now my grandmother at age 61 pays over $300 a month for a 80-20 policy with a $3000 deductible because she is self employed.

You can dislike Romney-care all you want, but his hand was forced in Mass by an overwhelmingly Democrat controlled legislature that would have just overridden any veto. It is a disaster but the guy has shown the ability to actually run a business, has saved the SLC Olympics, and has won in a Blue state. The other realistic choices are a Southern White Religious Governor that advocates and has raised taxes and Sarah Palin that is inexperienced aside from a brief stint as AK Gov and has resigned the only real experience she has midstream. Romney outpolls all of them and is right on most issues. He beats the hell out of McCain (even though he is done) and in my mind is a better candidate than Palin or Huckabee plus he has an established ground game. He has the financial ability to take on Obama.

Sorry, it is against Federal and state laws to refuse medical care to anyone. Period.

If you want to frame the issue as simply being able to walk into a doctor and get care, first off you are wrong. You only are entitled to EMERGENCY CARE, not all Medical care. What this means is that if you do not have health insurance, doctors and clinics can and do refuse care unless it is a medical emergency. And as a practice, if it is an emergency, doctors immediately call an ambulance and send you to the ER. So your solution and your frame of reference is that simply because you have the right to walk in to an emergency room and they have to treat you, NO PROBLEM. Healthcare is fine. Just work out payment arrangements and we are good.

The reality is that for non-emergency care, if you go to an ER, they will triage you, examine you, and send you on your way after running a bunch of tests if they think it prudent. This usually costs better than $1000, so if this is your strategy for healthcare as a patient, it is because you do not intend to pay the bill anyway, hence why illegals and indigents access care in this manner. This places a huge burden on ERs because they are overcrowded with minor problems and overcrowded with people that do not intend to pay their bills. So in effect, ERs are forced to provide expensive care to people that cannot pay for it.

If you go to a doctor, they want payment upfront. And they want an exorbitant amount because their rates for private payers are significantly higher than the medicare reimbursement rates. If you don’t pay up front, they will not treat you and THEY DO NOT HAVE TO. The system you describe and say works is badly broken and it places a huge burden on our hospitals to treat non-paying patients, which they pass on to the folks that can pay.

Government forcing itself in between you and your doctor IS THE PROBLEM.

BTW, it is the government that forces doctors and hospitals to treat patients in the first place, otherwise healthcare providers would not see the uninsured, even in a emergency situation, unless they prepaid or had the ability to pay cash.

Insuring that all citizens are treated equally is one of the purposes of government.

Is healthcare like any other service? Government doesn’t force the supermarket to give me food if I cannot pay for it. It doesn’t force the gas station to let me fill up my tank if I can’t. Why should people be entitled to healthcare for free if they do not have insurance or cannot afford to pay for it.

You still have not addressed my point about doctors not having to provide services to non-emergency patients. You said that doctors are obligated to provide services to folks without insurance. Your premise that there is not a problem with Americans having access to healthcare was:

Sorry, it is against Federal and state laws to refuse medical care to anyone. Period. You walk into a doctor’s office or hospital and you will receive medical care. That is the facts.

Do you stand by that statement or do you care to revise it in light of the reality on the issue and does that change your overall premise that we don’t need to do something?

Healthcare costs are out of control because of government sticking its dick where it was never meant to go, and scumbag lawyers, such as John Edwards, using “malpractice” as their personal cash cows to become millionaires no matter how many people they bankrupt or kill

Finally, healthcare costs are out of control because of Federal mandates on what services an insurance company must cover, because of overutilization of care from healthcare systems that do not pass costs along to the consumers (medicare and medicaid are the worst because they have no copays), and because of hospitals bearing the cost of the uninsured. Tort reform needs to happen, but there are also real instances of medical malpractice and real people do die from the negligence of healthcare providers.

limit liability to doctors to $20.00

Really? Why not limit liability for people that get hit by drunk drivers to $20 too?