Posted by 2ndClassCitizen on 11/08/09
Last updated 11/08/09

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Obama should listen to fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev. The former supreme leader of the Soviet Union says Obama should start planning the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Now both the American patriot U.S. Foreign Service Officer Matthew Hoh, and former president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev are on the same page, in advising against further involvement of US military in Afghanistan. Please Mr. President, listen to the people, listen to the experts, listen to the former world leaders. Bring our troops home!

The article is entitled "Gorbachev gives Obama advice on Afghanistan" and can be found on cnn.com's political ticker.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/08/gorbechev-gives-obama-advice-on-
afghanistan/

(for some reason I can't get this link to work but you will find it on a search)

Posted 11/09/09 ladynurse Festus, MO

Narsiccistic people don't listen to anybody. They don't learn from other peoples mistakes, and rarely learn from their own. BO is a narsiccist. He loves himself more than anything or anyone, and because he thinks Nationalized Healthcare is a good idea, it will be done. WE THE PEOPLE need to pay attention to what this scumbag is interested in. What HE likes will become law. What HE doesn't like will become illegal. Period. He is a loud-mouthed demanding whiny-a$$ baby that insists on getting his way, in EVERY situation, and will cause pain and suffering to those that oppose him or his will. I 'officially' give up. I think I'm just done with all of the phone calls, emails, petitions, rallys, protests, etc. They were going to win anyway. "Resistance is futile." WE THE PEOPLE need to realize that with this bunghole in office, it's every man for himself. I guess I'll be seeing you all in prison or interrment camp, or wherever the 'Chosen One' decides the likes of me belongs. Andrea Berghold

Posted by 2ndClassCitizen on 08/09/09
Last updated 08/09/09

If you have ever taken a prescription drug, chances are you have experienced side effects. For example, diphenhydramine is an excellent antihistamine but it also tends to cause drowsiness. Hydrocodone is a great pain reliever but it tends to cause constipation. In health care delivery systems the prescription is not without side effects either.

When it comes to paying for the services of health care providers, Americans have many options. They can pay for them themselves. They can contract with an insurance company and pay them a premium in exchange for "coverage." Americans can obtain a job with an employer who offers to pay some or all of the premiums as benefit of employment. Americans in many cases can also go to the social services office of the local government and apply for subsidized health "coverage."

It is important at this point to define "coverage." Coverage is simply another term for payment. It is important to note that coverage is often limited, meaning certain services, drugs, etc... even if prescribed by a physician are not "covered" by many health insurance plans. I think we can agree that most anyone would prefer a plan which covered anything a doctor might prescribe for them, especially considering that it is their health and life that is at stake.

Some may question what would it cost to provide this kind of coverage for a person, let alone an entire nation. I would not venture a guess as to an actual number of dollars required for such a plan. So rather than speculate as to cost, let us just assume that it would be expensive, very expensive. So expensive, that as far as I know no one has or provides this type of coverage. Therefore the only way a person can truly have access to every possible treatment and remedy in health care is to have the ability to pay for it themselves.

This of course means that health care is currently rationed according to a person's ability to pay for it. This is good news for a person of means, but what about the person without those means? (Let's lay aside for a moment the fact that people without means tend to qualify for the public assistance versions of health care plans subsidized by taxpayers). The person without the means to pay for health care still has options. They have options because in a free society, in the end it is about money, not health care. This means that in a free society a person without the means to pay for it simply must secure the means. I believe this process is referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "the pursuit of happiness." This nation was founded on the belief that government ought to facilitate this pursuit not get in the way of it.

Unfortunately that is exactly what state and federal agencies throughout this nation are doing. They are infringing on Americans pursuit of happiness in the form of taxation. Taxation is taking possession of the fruits of our labor. The fruits of our labor are arguably the most basic right we have. If we are not free to use the fruits of our labor as we so choose, we are not free. Furthermore these agencies are infringing on our pursuit of happiness in the form of regulation. These regulations coerce us with threats of violence/imprisonment to do things we would not otherwise do. Again these agencies are depriving us of our freedom. For the most part these regulations are benign, such as requiring people to obtain a license to drive a car or practice medicine. Nevertheless they do infringe on a person's ability to do as they wish even if it would cause no harm to their fellow man for them to have those freedoms.

But getting back to health care, we see that one of the side effects of providing health care and health care "coverage" is the cost. Many have argued that the government can help improve the cost of health care. But clearly this is not so. If every health care procedure has a cost, then the only way the government can "reduce" that cost is by forbidding a health care provider from providing that service to a patient (or by setting price controls which is just a round about way of forbidding service from being provided at a rate that will support that delivery of that service). Please don't forget that in order to forbid and prevent this service from being delivered the government must employ "watchdogs" to prevent it from happening.

I hope that we can all see that the simple act of deliberately rationing care is in fact, expensive. Furthermore government involvement in health care will inevitably lead to increased taxation and increased rationing. We may need some changes in our "health care system," but is more government involvement the kind of of change we need?

I just wanted everyone to be clear about the side effects. Any questions?

Posted by 2ndClassCitizen on 05/22/09
Last updated 07/19/09

I oppose government health care. Ever work in a Veterans Administration hospital? I have. So I know what the government can do with health care and I am appalled.

The current system of third party payers is not serving the needs of everyone, but no system will. Get it? No system will meet everyone's needs! At least now though, here in the US you have the choice of earning health care coverage through your employer or not. You have the freedom of choosing your own doctor. You have the freedom to a second opinion. The point is that now we have freedom. The choices may come with costs but they always do.

When government takes control of the system your choices will be put up or shut up. End of story. Only the elites will truly have access to quality health care in their private clinics. Senators and CEO's are never going to settle for public health care on par with criminals and libertarians. The public will be treated like cattle at best.

I know there are many out there (doubt many of them read this website) who live in a fantasy world. In this fantasy the government can take care of all problems if the state is given enough control and oversight (ie. we move closer to fascism). I believe it has been tried before. Ask a survivor of the Soviet health care plan how that worked.

Rather than go to the extreme of state run health care, why not find some middle ground? Insurance companies are part of  the problem. Government gave them their monopolies back in the Nixon days. Government and insurance companies are in bed together. The need to get out of the health care business. Together insurance and government are leaching the lifeblood of the providers and patients like, well... LEECHES! Take insurance and government out of the picture and let doctors practice and patients make choices for themselves.

Only when patients and providers can choose the best course of action unimpeded will the system ever work again. Only then will we cease to be herded like sheep. I am a pharmacist and I see everyday how the government and insurance companies drain the lifeblood out the the health care system in the US.

And still it is the best health care system in the world. If you are going to get sick, where do you want to be? Beijing? Bombay? I think not.

Freedom of choice, not government control. Get government and insurance companies out of health care altogether.

Posted 05/22/09 Son Of Liberty Erie, PA

You so need to get this published!