Note: by "health care industry" I am referent to the health care insurance industry. I unwittingly excluded the referent word "insurance" many times in this post.

It is indeed a crying shame that our government thinks more of our defense industry, oil industry, and tax cuts for millionaires than they do the citizens of the country.

The health care issue is not just an issue of children that lack health care. Is it not a fact that in every home of a child that does not have health care there is at least one adult, care giver, without health care as well? How are parents that lack adequate health care supposed to raise healthy children, also that do not have adequate health care?

The so-called moral majority has so-screwed the moral fiber of our society, and left the majority of citizens in anguish that it is insane. This majority includes any without health insurance, any on Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans benefits.

One really must look at all of these areas, and the area of our levels of government concerning health care, to understand the relativity of this problem. The health insurance industry is a normal benefits/costs organization that is the nature of these stock driven public financed organizations.

When the health care industry has a market that is shrinking, then, they must cover their costs by increasing their cash flow by raising their prices. This is old school economics. However, this has exacerbated the health care crisis in the United states.

Why is the health care market shrinking? Government. Think of the list I just mentioned of people that are not included in the health care industry market. When you add up all of the people with Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and the ones with government insurance you can see the shrinkage of the private health insurance market.

The are 60.1 million unduplicated Medicaid recipients, and 39.6 million Medicare recipients. both HI (Hospital Insurance) and SMI (Supplemental Medical Insurance) inclusive. Factor in Veterans receiving VA medical benefits, and Governmental employees receiving government medical benefits and you have one-third to one-half of the United States population.

Now factor in the estimated 45 million people that are without any type of health care and the private health industry's market comes into better focus. The federal government is already supplementing, or out right providing health care insurance for one-half of the country, while another one-fifth of the country cannot afford health insurance and do not qualify for government health care plans.

That leaves the insurance industry with just 30% of the population as a potential market for their product. Show my work, okay: 1/2 +1/5=7/10, therefore 70% are out of market,leaving just 30% within the health care industry's market. Is it any wonder health care insurance premiums have gone through the proverbial roof? They have to balance their books on the backs of just 30% of their actual market.

Okay, Democratic congress, now you have the ball, so take the offense and do something with it!!

Once again, Republicans are are exposing their ignorance of working class majority issues.

Romney had projected monthly costs at $200 when he first proposed universal coverage. And based on information from actuaries reviewed by the board last fall, the panel had expected to get plans with a premium of about $260." [Boston Globe, 1/20/07]

For people that are currently living paycheck to paycheck, how can they afford this extra cost to maintain health insurance? The politicians need to stop dancing around the problem, using the problem as a campaign wedge, and resolve the problem. Our elected officials, all politicians, were sent to Washington to solve these conflicts. By definition, that is the meaning of politics; the art of resolving conflict.

pol·i·tic--(pŏl'ĭ-tĭk) adj.
1. Using or marked by prudence, expedience, and shrewdness; artful.
2. Using, displaying, or proceeding from policy; judicious: a politic decision.
3. Crafty; cunning.

davidual:
But is that politic, or pork?
If they are going to charge $260 per mo for "universal" health care, are they going to include provisions that will cover starvation?
The only health the Republicans are interested in are the health of the insurance industry's profits.
The pigs are lining up at the trough.

I made the mistake of having to go to the Emergency Room without Health Insurance and it took me a year to pay off that bill. I had to work overtime.

I know first hand , what it's like to go without Health Care. We need Universal Health Care because what the idiots on Capital Hill don't seem to understand is, that the people who can't afford this are not all poor and uneducated and living in the slumps. There's a lot of single people who have to pay for everyone else's shet through our taxes, but we get no break. But because we have to pay our own bills, rent, food, gas ext, we cannot afford the high cost of Health Care Insurance.

Congress needs to get a clue. The face they think they see on the uninsured is not the only face.

Single Payer insurance is the answer. HR676 has been re-introduced by Conyers/Kucinich. The House Progressive Caucus supports it. Now, can we get more Democrats to be brave and back this bill?

Romney had projected monthly costs at $200 when he first proposed universal coverage. And based on information from actuaries reviewed by the board last fall, the panel had expected to get plans with a premium of about $260." [Boston Globe, 1/20/07]
****

Deval Patrick is trying to fix up the crappy law put in place by Romney. By and large, people in Massachusetts hate this plan. Small business is refusing to help out and many people are electing to ignore the law because they see no reason to buy crappy high deductibles health care plans that are expensive!

Mandated insurance is a boondaggle for the insurance companies. The net result is that it will kill employer sponsored group insurance. At that point, 50 million uninsured will become 150 million!

Single payer is the answer.

I haven't had health insurance for over 9 years due to a job change. The coverage I get for just under $500 per month is capped at $75,000. For $795 a month, just about the same as my mortgage, gives me a higher limit, but doesn't include my rural hospital, that is widely acclaimed nor my doctor for the past 30 years.

So I see my doc when I need to. I get no physicals or preventative care other than what I give myself. I pay when I need services. I am lucky so far I have been able to pay for services rendered. I worry about the cost of the mammogram I need tomorrow.

Until we get away from the concept of health insurance we will never solve the problem. Putting a money making enterprise between the patient and the medical care needed will make the corporation rich and the patient poor and in poor health. Not all doctors are in it for the money, but most need to earn a lot of money to pay for the office, equipment and support staff. Many now employ too many people just to collect from insurance companies.

Health Care Not Health Insurance!

there is NO reason why the American public cannot all be enrolled into either the same plans that our Politicians enjoy OR expand the Medicare plan so it is for people under 65 also. this is called spreading the risk, so those who utilize the coverage are spread amongst those who maybe get a physical every 2 years.

but after working in the health insurance industry for 30+ years, I have to say that subscribers must be willing to share the risk. They must be willing to take copays on services.

AND until the government regulates the Drug industry, cost of health insurance will remain catastrophic. I have seen breakdowns of group rates, and the single highest annual cost is prescription drugs. This industry is financially raping the american public.

Realestate agents choose their profession as an independant and should be responsible for their coverage.-Something missing here.
Preexisting conditions can be acceptable, but if you ever had insurance you can continue it.
What does 36 other nations have to do with this wonderful USA?
Going to the doctors or paying rent, what a scare tactic. If you go to the emergency room you will get medical coverage.
I suggest the Dems. stop giving to the ILLEGALS!If you can give away, then give to the elderly who have served this country and paid their taxes for 70-80-90 years. what do they get??????
thank you

My wife and I are independent contractors in Real Estate - and as is the case here, we simply cannot afford health insurance on our own (thank goodness we don't have children yet - what a nightmare THAT would be!) Like most workers in America, we struggle to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table, and enjoy an occasional evening out. Nothing new here. Now to the point:

On Thursday, February 22nd of this year, my wife decided to drive herself to the Emergency Room of our local hospital, because she had been feeling "unusually tired and worn out" (her words). Upon a quick diagnosis (because she was unusually pale) the ER staff determined very quickly that she was severely anemic, and apparently had been for several months. If she had not checked into the ER that morning with the way her blood count was registering, she in all likelihood would have come home from work even more exhausted than when she left that morning, gone to bed, and somewhere in the night her body would have given out and expired from lack of oxygen and nutrients. Without insurance there was no doctor to see regularly. Without insurance there was no chance that we would have known she was anemic to that dangerous level. The irony here is she became anemic after having gastric bypass surgery, because no insurance would cover her being dangerously obese. Now with the gastric bypass, she dropped the weight but she now carries a "pre-existing condition". It's a double edged sword.
After having six pints of blood pumped into her over the course of two days, and after remaining in observation an additional two days, the hospital discharged her, with explicit instructions to see our county clinic in one week. I have spent the better part of today "in discussions" with various members of the county clinic explaining to me that my wife firstly has to have an existing registration with the clinic in order to be seen, and secondly newly registered patients must wait until an opening appeared. Thankfully an opening appeared in April (insert sarcastic tone here.)
As independent contractors it has become painfully clear to me that under the existing health care system, we (my wife and I) would more likely fare better living in an apartment and working for minimum wage rather than actually owning our own home and working as real estate agents. I now must worry about how to pay off over $50,000 in hospital bills - and this is not counting the doctor's fees or other tests that the hospital had to perform - as well as maintain a roof over our heads, keep food on our table, and now pay for the vitamins and medications that my wife should have been taking all along, if we had regular doctor's care.
The system must be overhauled, it cannot and should not be "fixed". That would have about the same effect as putting a bandage on a severed limb.

Australia has a universal health care system that does work and works extremely well. It was the Australian system that was of great interest to the Clinton administration, but unfortunately that administration was unable to pass such a system in the United States. In Australia everyone is covered by government provided health care, with the option of private insurance if people want that option. However, all tax payers in Australia pay an additional one and a half percent of their taxable income to fund their universal health care. Not everything is covered, but all the necessities are, so everyone is guaranteed free treatment if they need medical help. To read more on the Australian system see this link http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/about/about_us/aus_health_system.shtml

The Australian system may not work in the United States, but it should give people something to think about and help generate some ideas on what may be possible.

Health care should not be an economic issue - it should be a basic human right.

Arrests and Death if Delay!!!
by David Reed
Published Wednesday, 03/07/07 @ 2:59 pm on Blog For America
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/20031#more

"...there is only one Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council meeting left until the tenative date of March 26, 2007 in which the homeless there will be abandoned on to the streets in the cold weather to either be arrested and/or die! Click here to see what the conditions are like for the homeless there at this time: http://messages.yahoo.com/Cultures_%26_Community/Issues_and_Causes/threadview?m=tm&bn=18067484&tid=972&mid=992&tof=10&rt=2&frt=2&off=1 The best way to intervene with results is to attend the next Ann Arbor, MI City Council meeting and object! I was one of the homeless abandoned in said City last year after appearing at several Ann Arbor, MI City Council meetings with three other homeless advocates only to find out that the press censored the entire situation to keep it from the general public!! It was made clear to the Ann Arbor, MI Mayor and City Council at the time that the homeless could be rescued from the impending halocaust with not only existing resources but also Federal grant money that would have increased said City's revenues!!! Click here to see the details of the next Ann Arbor, MI City Council meeting: http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/citycouncil/index.html These homeless people about to meet with the next annual halocaust are your relatives, neighbors and friends! Why wait another minute to rescue these U.S. citizens as our Constitutions and Ctiy Charters require due to the public safety provisions of the law?

Posted by David Reed on Blog For America

This sounds serious. I hope someone who can be helpful in U.S. Government or in Michigan State Government will look into this situation with the homeless people in Michigan that David Reed is concerned about.

Belwether Dominionist Christians Following Political EXTREMIST Scapegoats

The Frauds of the Clergy

by Thom Hartmann

Published on Monday, April 25, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Why would a multi-multi-millionaire Senator, who consistently votes to harm the hungry and the poor who so concerned Jesus, join forces with religious fundamentalists to stack this nation's highest courts? Could it be because he and his wealthy Republican friends see huge financial benefits for themselves and their corporate patrons in a compliant court?

At the "Justice Sunday" event hyped to national prominence by Bill Frist's appearance, Chuck Colson told America that we should read the Federalist Papers to understand the intent and the mind of the Founders.

Apparently Colson overlooked Federalist 47, published by James Madison on February 1, 1788. Titled, "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts," Madison wrote about how important it was that the different branches of government serve as checks and balances on each other.

"No political truth is of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty," wrote Madison of the concern about any one particular group dominating all branches of government. He added, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

A paragraph later, Madison quotes the Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu, inserting his own capital letters for emphasis:

"'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he [Montesquieu], 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.'

"Again: 'Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.'"

Or perhaps Colson could read Federalist 48, in which Madison quotes from Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia."

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body," wrote Jefferson in this commentary quoted in Federalist 48. "The concentrating of these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government.

"It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

Jefferson added, "An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one ... in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

"For this reason, that Convention which passed the ordinance of government [the Constitution], laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.''

Unless, of course, you are a Republican sponsored by massive corporate interests and willing to invade people's bedrooms to score political points with religious extremists.

The real power of the Republican Party is held by the corporatists - who Vice President Henry Wallace called "the American fascists" - whose loyalty is to hereditary wealth and corporate rule. (As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.")

But this is such a small minority of Americans that Frist's wealthy fascists had to bring along somebody else. They chose the religious fundamentalists for their unholy alliance.

The fundamentalists want to replace the Constitution with their unique and particular interpretation of Christian scripture. Their main assertion is that this nation's first laws were based on the Ten Commandments.

The Founders disagree. As Jefferson famously wrote in his "Notes on Virginia":

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

In fact, Jefferson said, the idea that this nation was founded in Christianity, or that the Ten Commandments were a pattern for the Constitution, was a "fraud of the clergy."

"Christianity was not introduced [to England] till the seventh century," wrote Jefferson in a February 10, 1814 letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, "the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. ...

"In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are."

But the bottom line for the corporatists is that if the religious conservatives - whipped into a frenzy by the thought that a woman may deign to control her own body - can change the courts to be more "conservative," the corporatists can be sure that the "conservative" judges are both opposed to abortion, and also radically in favor of corporate interests and hereditary wealth.

By helping out religious extremists, Frist's corporate fascists will have much greater power to put into place judges who won't overturn laws that deny the working class access to bankruptcy courts, the right to sue as a class when harmed, and will give multinational corporations the freedom to import, pollute, and profit at the expense of small businesses and communities. They'll get judges who will outlaw birth control at the same time they outlaw unions and the minimum wage.

It's nothing new, really. Most recently, the Saudi royal family made a similar deal with their religious conservatives. The oil barons gave the fundamentalists the power to enforce their religious agenda, stacking the courts with fundamentalist judges, who in turn acted as enforcers to preserve the oil barons' political and economic power.

It worked for two generations, until the fundamentalists became so powerful that they decided the oil money should be theirs. The religious movement to take control of Saudi Arabia's wealth was led by none other than Osama Bin Laden, who suggested that oil should sell for $200 a barrel, with the proceeds subsidizing evangelism around the world.

The House of Saud was appalled and threw him out of the country, so he went back to Afghanistan and hooked up with the Taliban, men after his own heart, and decided to take on the power that he felt was propping up the royal family - America.

Thus the ultimate irony, that a radical Catholic speaker at Sunday's telecast would complain that his bunch was perceived by many as "America's Taliban." All while George W. Bush had moved over a billion taxpayer dollars to churches through his "faith based programs," and fundamentalists avoided paying billions in taxes by promising to stay out of politics.

As Jefferson said in a June 5, 1824 letter to Major John Cartwright, "What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Frauds of the clergy in the Middle East brought us 9/11, an explosion of Muslim conservativism, and a fourfold spike in terrorist incidents worldwide, while enriching the Saudi oil and Afghan heroin industries, and helping George W. Bush lead the world to the brink of war.

The merger of corporatist Republicans and the new "frauds of the clergy" could bring this nation to an even more terrible crossroad, unless Americans of good conscience contact their members of the Senate to support Jefferson's and Madison's ideal of democracy.

The number to reach any member of the Senate is 202-224-3121.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?"

********************************************

There can't be a scapegoat without a belwether. The belwether is the castrated sheep that 1st follows the scapegoat. I consider the dominionists Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson to be belwethers because they are acting like the castrated sheep that follows the political scapegoats, Conservative Right Wing REPUBLICAN EXTREMISTS Politicians, to lead the herd of sheep to slaughter. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson need to be aware that the belwether is always the 1st sheep killed.

Lazarus was not a rich man, but was a beggar, now Lazarus is in Heaven. Where is the rich man? Being rich is in no way a sign of God's favor.

Martha A. Miller

I spelled bellwether wrong in the above post. Bellwether has two ll's. The bellwether wears the bell that rings the alarm for all the sheep to follow the scapegoat in to be slaughtered. Conservative Right Wing REPUBLICAN EXTREMISTS Politicians are the scapegoats and the clergy like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and John Hagee and all others doing likewise are the bellwethers. All bellwethers need to be aware that the bellwether will not get away unscathed. How can Christians allow themselves to be so deceived?

Isn't it funny that Cuba got a better health system? However, I think even when you receive health benefits from your employee it is still very expensive compared to Germany, Sweden or England. To change the health system you had to change the complete American society which is based on the strongest survive and not like European societies on on altruism. Which is also very ironical, because there is a high percentage in the States that deny Darwin's theory and live it at the same time.

However, to change the health system you need some backbone - but as long parties and politicians just looking at the quotes for the next election - nothing will change.

Doc Twain:

I read every word of what you posted on Bill HR676. I think it is wonderful and I hope it makes it through Congress and becomes law. I didn't see anything, but it may have a kink here or there that may need to be worked out after its improvision, if it makes it. HR676 is the best thing that has happened in Congress in relation to the people of the United States in years. I expect the Right Wing to do their best to knock it down in the Senate if it gets through the House. The last thing the Right wants to be doing is helping the poor and middle class in reality, as they are into taking -- not giving.

Thank you and God Bless you for posting HR676. I will pray that by a miracle HR676 will get through Congress, not get vetoed by Bush and become law, so that no person in the United States will ever be without health care. I think HR676 is a most worthwhile endeavor and God Bless each and every hand that had a part or will have a part in its enactment.

Doc Twain:

I reposted your posts on the Democracy For America "Blog For America":

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/20066

Hope you don't mind.

"In the general course of human nature, a power over man's substance amounts to a power over his will." -- Alexander Hamilton

=

"We meet," it said, "in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin.... Corruption dominates the ballot box, the [state] legislatures and the Congress and touches even the bench...The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced.... The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few." -- The founding convention of the People's Party – better known as the "Populists" (1892).

=

"Abolish plutocracy if you would abolish poverty." -- Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1877-1881) - 19th President of the United States

=

"All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for thir future security." -- The Declaration of Independence (1776)

http://tinyurl.com/usq4x

I believe there is a fixed idea that health/medical coverage is the same thing as health care. In my opinion, it is not.

I recently had to take my son for some emergency care. Nothing vital, and he is fine! But it cost a total of about $1000, with all the bills. Yes, this is a problem. But it is far less of a problem to pay for the care received, than it would be to have the ongoing drain of $200 or $400 or ANY amount per month, paying for medical services not needed.

The idea that we should pay month after month feeds into the insurance industry, and the pharmacuetical products industry. Is it wrong to pay for insurance? Maybe it's the only way. But until we realize that medical "coverage" and medical "care" are not the same, we may continue to have an unsolvable situation. A change in thinking is needed, with a new idea.

I've worked in a physical therapist's office in Brooklyn. He recieved most payments from Medicare and insurance, and could barely cover payrolls, rents, and so on. The staff all cared about the patients. No drugs were prescribed. But patients had trouble paying, he had trouble covering bills.

So, can readers sit back, get a cup of coffee or tea, and give it some thought? What would have to happen to give needed CARE to all U.S. residents, while allowing medical personnel to also do well? It seems to me that that is the ideal in all this.

I had a similar situation and I was management with several serious illnesses couldn't get my medicines that cost approx 2,000 a month. Tried to buy insurance on the outside and was told sorry. Try medicaid but I made too much. I had to quit my job in order for me to have my health coverage taken care of by the state of CA
I think that its a dam shame that hard working men and women have to resort to these type of measures in order to live. Something needs to be done about the whole system

Mar. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

Advertisement

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

Seeing what happened to my daughter and her family when my son-in-law's job got shipped overseas, I know we need a safety net for working families.
They had a son on medication, the doctor kept telling them they had to keep him on it. They didn't have the money to keep up the prescriptions. The costs of the prescriptions was more than their rent.
There is no help for kids in those circumstances. The next job had health insurance, but wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions. Heh's off the meds, but it's not been easy for them.
As a military retiree, I'm on Tricare Standard. I looked at Tricare Prime, but decided I couldn't afford it.
I have a deductible and have to co-pay for medications. The co-pay's fairly low, but it won't cover a patented medicine if a generic is available. The problem with that is that generics don't always work as well as the patented one.
When I turn 65 I go on Tricare for Life, which means I have to sign up for Medicare parts A & B in order to be on Tricare for Life, then Tricare becomes the secondary provider.
It seems like a sell-out in a way. When I signed up for the Army we were promised full health coverage for life if we retired, and little by little those benefits have eroded.
If I lived closer to a military installation, I could go to the Troop Clinic, but would have to sit and wait while all the Active Duty personnel get treated first.
Still I'm better off than a friend of mine, who had to go on VA medical care because of his disabilities and can't get the medication he was prescribed because it's not on the VA's list of medicines, and the ones that are on the list don't work.
It's a two edged sword because you can't be on Tricare and VA medical care, it's an either or, and once you go on VA, you can't go back to Tricare.
Just another way that the government has reniged on promises to veterans.
But I'm still better off than people without government insurance.

The MA universal healthcare law is so freaking stupid. Insurance in this state is ridicolous, the auto industry is a freaking monopoly basically. Getting forced to buy crappy insurance sucks. I have health insurance and the way they dictate every aspect of care just to save them money is absolutely ridicolous when you are entitled to what your benefits really are. (aka being forced to buy generic and buying higher doses and splitting tabs)

Please explain THIS to me. My daughter was admitted to the hospital overnight. The bill turned out to be $5500 because the hospital conveniently lost my insurance information. After they got the information and processed it, the insurance company disallowed nearly $3700 of that charge. In other words, when the hospital charges insurance companies, they only make $1800, rather than the $5500 they charge the poor insurance-less schmucks. Who is to blame here!!??? Do hospitals intentionally charge exorbitant rates to the uninsured to offset the small payments that they get from insurance companies? Does that make ANY sense?

Unions See Their Star Rising
By David R. Francis
The Christian Science Monitor

Monday 12 March 2007

The AFL-CIO's chief organizer sees increased desire in the US for union representation.

American corporate executives spend several hundred million dollars a year on "union avoidance" lawyers and consultants (less politely called "union busters,") to keep their companies union-free.

Other costs involved in campaigns against trade unions may well boost the bill above $1 billion a year, estimates management professor John Logan.

The United States, says Mr. Logan of the London School of Economics, is the only industrialized nation to have a "union avoidance" industry of any size engaged in helping management resist unionization, undermine union strength, or unload existing unions.

This industry, consisting of dozens of law firms and consultancies, has ballooned since the 1970s. Its success is one reason why trade union membership has declined to 7.4 percent of nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and 35 percent of nonsupervisory government workers, or 12 percent overall in 2006, down from 12.5 percent in 2005.

That success, say trade union supporters, hangs on intimidating workers with bullying techniques that are accommodated by toothless laws and pro-management federal institutions.

But Stewart Acuff, organizing director of the AFL-CIO, the confederation of American trade unions, is not discouraged. Public opinion polls show, he says in an interview, that over the past eight or nine years more and more American workers want union representation.

A 2006 poll finds that, given a choice between a union and no representation at all, 32 percent of nonunion workers would vote for a trade union. And 90 percent of unionized workers would vote to keep their union.

Perhaps that's no surprise. Studies find that unionized workers are paid better on average than nonunion workers in the same industry. And that fact explains in some degree why management figures it's worth hiring "union avoidance" professionals to keep union organizers at bay. In fact, 70 percent of firms facing a union organizing campaign hire them.

Further, these "union busters" create demand for their services by stirring up management fears that unionization could have dire consequences for their firms, says Logan. They contribute to the aggressive and adversarial nature of US labor-management relations, he says.

Encouraged by the Democratic Party's success in last year's congressional election and the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act by the House of Representatives on March 1, Mr. Acuff sees a revival of the union movement ahead.

That bill received support from 13 House Republicans. Acuff predicts that when the Senate takes up the legislation, it will get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, but not the two-thirds vote needed to escape a promised veto by President Bush. So it may take the election of a Democratic president in 2008 to get labor laws amended to facilitate more union organizing, he says.

The proposed law provides for real penalties for firing a union organizer. Though illegal now, the penalty for such firings is so immaterial that companies do so in 1 out of 4 workplaces where unions are attempting to organize employees, finds Kate Bronfenbrenner, an expert at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

Currently, in cases where an illegal firing is determined, the worker gets only back pay minus any earnings he or she has received from a replacement job. After seven years, a worker in one case was reinstated to his job and got a mere $1,300 in back pay, notes Lance Compa, who also teaches at Cornell.

The proposed law would provide for a $2,000 penalty plus triple back pay.

Under existing law, managers can "predict" that their plant and jobs could be sent elsewhere, often to Mexico. But they can't "threaten" to do so - a difference that is meaningless to workers concerned about jobs in uncertain times.

The Free Choice Act also would change when unions are recognized. At present, management can insist on an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. Professor Bronfenbrenner holds that these elections are not really by secret ballot. Management or their consultants can find out how each employee will vote by one-on-one interrogation of employees, secret surveillance using ID badges, or other methods. Union backers feel threatened, seeing the prospects for their jobs fading, she says.

The proposed law lets unions be recognized if they get a majority of workers to sign a card saying they want union representation. The US Chamber of Commerce charges that this would threaten workers' choices, making them vulnerable to coercion by union organizers.

Still, Bronfenbrenner sees public opinion shifting in favor of organized labor, possibly influenced by Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, and William Richardson - all supporters of the Free Choice Act.

If unions grow, this "worker power," Acuff says, can provide an alternative to "unchecked corporate power" and push more workers into the middle class.

-------

I have worked in the medical field for over 20 years,and have seen many senarios just like this.What a sad country we live in,that all people are not provided health care. Personally,I don't see the great benefits of the medicaid system,and I certainly don't see the elderly making out the way our health system stands at this time,or the common folk working paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet!!!! What I do see,after working in nursing homes,taking care of our elderly,and in the hospital setting,taking care of working patients,how unfair the system really is. Certain medications,procedures that are not covered under their plan,or no insurance at all. I am all for socialized medicine. Every individual is deserving of the same medical attention. A person can work their whole life,pay into social security and end up not able to seek the medical attention they need, or be told by their insurance company that something is not covered. I would love to see our elected officials pay into social security,and worry about their health and medical necessities being paid for by their social security monthly allowance!!