Letter to the Editor: The good ole days of medical care

As a full time resident/condo owner on Marco Island, I experienced a somewhat disturbing situation this past week. I was initially pleased that my medical insurance carrier through Broward County Schools, gave me two doctors’ names on Marco that have been recently approved as “in network.” I have been going to Naples over the past seven years for my medical and dental needs.

I made a personal visit to one of the doctors as I work in the same building. I was politely but firmly told, “We cannot accept any new patients, even those family members of long-time patients!” In a telephone call to the other doctor, I was told the same with a bit more regretful tone. Since I only need to see a regular doctor once per year for about 7 minutes to renew necessary daily medication, I am a bit disgusted at the aforementioned response. I am not yet “old” enough for Medicare and Social Security, and as a retired Florida educator, I am currently paying $608 per month for very unsatisfactory medical and dental insurance. I am hearing that Medicare won’t be much better!

I reflect back about 47 years ago to when I was a teenager growing up in the wonderful town of Pelham, NY. The 1960s was such a great decade, and life was much simpler with a strong middle class and respectful values. Due to an accident one winter evening, I sustained a broken nose and passed out in a pool of blood. The nearest doctor lived just two blocks away; he had an office on the side of his modest home. My mother called him and he said to come over immediately, even though his office was now closed. He packed my nose and monitored me for about two hours, free of charge! Another outstanding doctor in Fort Lauderdale also saved my life about 18 years ago; he, too, refused to submit his surgical fee to my insurance – again free of charge! I always remember both of these doctors in my daily prayers.

So, what has America come down to? Unfortunately, it is all about greed –- Wall Street, Corporations, Banks, and even Main Street. The “99 percent” are bearing the brunt and truly suffering. The image that doctors and dentists are entitled to fantastic salaries has become commonplace; lest I forget, malpractice medical lawsuits are also part of this equation. Also, if you do want “special attention,” you can also buy a “concierge” doctor for an additional several thousand dollar annual fee. It’s interesting to note that doctors in most other countries do not and cannot earn what they do in the USA. To add more “pain,” the insurance companies are also out of control with excessive annual rate increases and then not wanting to pay the bills when submitted. Whatever happened to the ‘Hippocratic Oath?’

Recently on TV I watched a heartwarming news segment which focused on a few very distressed cities that have been hit hard by the “Great Recession.” Some doctors and dentists were treating people who have lost their homes, jobs, and insurance coverages, free of charge. Thankfully, there still are some true medical professionals in America.

In the mean time, I am grateful and definitely feel fortunate to have a doctor and dentist in Naples (both accepting my insurance plans), a job, and the ability to maintain my residence on Marco Island!

Respectfully.

Janet O’Connell

Marco Island.

© 2012 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 31

suntan writes:

Welcome to the New Order of Obamacare.

ed34145 writes:

This situation existed long before "Obamacare", which, incidentally hasn't really kicked in. It's caused by the greed of private insurers. If we had a single payer system, this would NOT be an issue.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

The problem is lobbiest in DC. The health insurance industry doesn't want competition in the industry. You can't buy from a cheaper insurer in another state, that would cause competition. Then you have the pharmaceutical industry wanting their patents to never run out so they can charge what ever they want for their drug. Then you have the lawyers who will never allow tort reform. I could go on, but basically, if you don't like it, call your congressman. He might tell you he gives a crap, but he doesn't. All these groups are contributing to his campaign making him rich. He has no worries about his health care plan, when he's asked to join the same plan as the common American moron, he will say, hell no!

Government health care will be a disaster. Just like the student loan industry, Post office, Fannie & Freddie, HUD, Medicare, Social security is a looming disaster and I could go on but there is no point. If you can't see what is happening (99% can't) you deserve what you get. That will be people being turned away from the health care system and dieing. I know, I know, that can never happen in America? The financial system can never collapse, the people will be able to pay for the ever rising health care costs forever, there will never be riots in the streets like there are in Greece today? Keep telling your self that. We are becoming a nation of fools. By the time the 99% of people realize they are being screwed every time they turn around it will be too late.

Although in a sick twisted way I am kind of looking forward to that moment when 99% of the morons (USA citizens) realize they have just been smacked in the face with a two by four by the same fools they continue to vote for in every election. You reap what you sew morons!

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to suntan:

Welcome to the New Order of Obamacare.

Oh, another genius. The new Health Care laws have not even gone into effect yet - but don't let facts get in your way.

I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp this, but this situation has nothing to do with Obama. It has existed for decades. It has much more to do with the fact that most Americans derive their health insurance through their employers and most employers are "for profit" organizations with profit goals.

If anything, once Obamacare does kick in - AND ONCE AGAIN, IT HAS NOT EVEN STARTED YET - their is a much higher liklihood that increased competition will drive down costs.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

Oh, another genius. The new Health Care laws have not even gone into effect yet - but don't let facts get in your way.

I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp this, but this situation has nothing to do with Obama. It has existed for decades. It has much more to do with the fact that most Americans derive their health insurance through their employers and most employers are "for profit" organizations with profit goals.

If anything, once Obamacare does kick in - AND ONCE AGAIN, IT HAS NOT EVEN STARTED YET - their is a much higher liklihood that increased competition will drive down costs.

Palease McCheese,
It is you who are missing the facts. Portions of Obama care have gone into effect. The entire program is actually phased in over multiple years.

Last year insurance was opened up to people with pre-existing conditions. This is part of the Obamacare bill. Please take some time to seek out someone with a pre existing condition that applied for this program. It is ridiculously expensive and offers little benefit from a cost perspective.

Now lets define ridiculously expensive. I pay nearly $1,700 per month to insure my family as of February 2012. The cost rises about $170 to $200 every year in February. The people with a pre existing conditions will pay nearly double the ridiculous amount I pay.

You are correct. This is a problem that has been decades in the making. The government getting involved was (medicare, medicade, RX programs)the beginning of the problem. Much like the student loan program causing tuition to rise uncontrollably for secondary education. The guy delivering pizzas to put himself through school is now extinct.

Shockingly some truth came from Bernankes mouth 2 weeks ago when he said that health care is the elephant in the room relating to the budget. The cost increases are mathematically unsustainable for government and the people.

The days of employer subsidized health care are coming to an end. The costs are becoming prohibitive. Small and medium sized business will not be able to offer it. Finally, PLEASE name one government program that has EVER created competition and lower prices in the private sector? PALEASE!!!!

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

There is nothing wrong with people paying for health care. There is something wrong with costs skyrocketing uncontrollably with wages being stagnant for the majority of the population.

Klaus, where are you from? Who pays for your health care? I doubt it's you, and you alone. Answer the questions please.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot:

Palease McCheese,
It is you who are missing the facts. Portions of Obama care have gone into effect. The entire program is actually phased in over multiple years.

Last year insurance was opened up to people with pre-existing conditions. This is part of the Obamacare bill. Please take some time to seek out someone with a pre existing condition that applied for this program. It is ridiculously expensive and offers little benefit from a cost perspective.

Now lets define ridiculously expensive. I pay nearly $1,700 per month to insure my family as of February 2012. The cost rises about $170 to $200 every year in February. The people with a pre existing conditions will pay nearly double the ridiculous amount I pay.

You are correct. This is a problem that has been decades in the making. The government getting involved was (medicare, medicade, RX programs)the beginning of the problem. Much like the student loan program causing tuition to rise uncontrollably for secondary education. The guy delivering pizzas to put himself through school is now extinct.

Shockingly some truth came from Bernankes mouth 2 weeks ago when he said that health care is the elephant in the room relating to the budget. The cost increases are mathematically unsustainable for government and the people.

The days of employer subsidized health care are coming to an end. The costs are becoming prohibitive. Small and medium sized business will not be able to offer it. Finally, PLEASE name one government program that has EVER created competition and lower prices in the private sector? PALEASE!!!!

My family of four pays about $1000/month and I find that that is very typical among the people I have asked. Then of course you still have deductibles and co-pays. I recently switched from paying this to paying into my employer sponsored plan. This costs me about $550/month for similar coverage. However, by using my employer's plan (which they are subsidizing by $450/month as a benefit), I am locked into a choice of two different companies and four separate plans. At least under Obamacare, there will be more choices which will presumably drive down costs. I also don't see it as a government health care plan without a mandated use of a government option. I do find the requirement to have insurance a bit far reaching, but otherwise it is sensible to me. No one is going to force you to buy US government branded health insurance. I see it a lot more like buying car insurance. I am required to have car insurance to drive my car. There are many companies in this market who compete fiercely and as a result, every year I shop around for new car insurance and always either get it for the same price or lower each year.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

If obama care offers more choices for less than private insurers can now (it won't) it will come at the expense of the tax payer. Just like student loans. Every health organization will be guaranteed payment (just like educational institutions now) driving cost higher. It may appear to be less expensive on the outside due to government subsidization. In reality it is either going to cause your taxes to rise or Government deficits to continuing to rise exponentially.

With your thinking, private insurers will not be able to compete (or they will be backed by Gov guarantees like student loans) with the Government. Government soon takes over the entire industry (just like student loans) and prices rise faster than they are now. Don't look now but this is happening in the auto loan industry. Ally bank, formerly GMAC (taken over by the Gov) is the one lender out there lending to just about anyone with a pulse again to buy a new car. Can't allow deflation in new car prices. Government subsidization again. Must support GDP, durable goods. Not with real demand but with credit expansion.

Fed buying MBS, CMBS, subsidizing the mortgage market both commercial and residential. Can't allow further deflation in home prices or commercial real estate, or Boom! When does the private market stand on it's own two feet? When does free market capitalism return to the markets? (the answer to both is when debt interest exceeds government revenue) The Gov is propping up 30 years worth of bubble blowing in nearly every market because it knows the second it stops the deflationary death spiral goes into over drive. Greece has been doing the same thing for years. Now it can't. The End. There is no organic growth in any of the developed countries any more. It is all credit expansion. The Gov desperately needs people to borrow or the house of cards collapses. Soon you will be able to borrow for that cancer removal you need from?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

Klaus,
I have no idea what you just said. I pay 100% of my health care. Where are you from? If you are telling me you have full coverage health care for $50 per month? Where ever you are from will be broke within the next few years. At the rate health care costs are rising there is no country on the planet that can subsidize health care for their citizens at that rate. If you think I'm wrong? I'm not, Greece is example #1. Soon there will be other examples.

ajm3s writes:

Since we are on a rage of health care benefits, consider this latest contraceptive benefit requirement set by the federal government under the auspices of Obamacare.

Let me ask you, if the government should force health insurance providers to offer "free" healthcare for electives? I know Sebelius and some will claim this is a woman's rights issue, which again I cannot find in the Constitution. Others claim, this is a responsibility of insurance companies to provide benefits to all. Including electives?

Again, do you believe elective medications {i.e. contraceptives} or elective surgery {i.e. abortion} should be "free" through insurance mandates.

Wake up folks, Obamacare was to "bend the cost curve" and reduce the cost of healthcare.

This is not about healthcare, it is about government control of our lives. So providing mandates for free care for electives is about convincing the folks to go along and let the government force providers to offer the goodies.

Remember, the government that giveth can taketh benefits away just like insurance providers. Now choose which devil do you want to administer your healthcare? Interestingly, the healthcare providers like hospitals, and nurses, doctors are not in the equation.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to ajm3s:

Since we are on a rage of health care benefits, consider this latest contraceptive benefit requirement set by the federal government under the auspices of Obamacare.

Let me ask you, if the government should force health insurance providers to offer "free" healthcare for electives? I know Sebelius and some will claim this is a woman's rights issue, which again I cannot find in the Constitution. Others claim, this is a responsibility of insurance companies to provide benefits to all. Including electives?

Again, do you believe elective medications {i.e. contraceptives} or elective surgery {i.e. abortion} should be "free" through insurance mandates.

Wake up folks, Obamacare was to "bend the cost curve" and reduce the cost of healthcare.

This is not about healthcare, it is about government control of our lives. So providing mandates for free care for electives is about convincing the folks to go along and let the government force providers to offer the goodies.

Remember, the government that giveth can taketh benefits away just like insurance providers. Now choose which devil do you want to administer your healthcare? Interestingly, the healthcare providers like hospitals, and nurses, doctors are not in the equation.

This is NOT about government controlling our lives.

There is much that government does that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but that is still considered Constitutional. This is a concept that has been established since at least 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.

Actually, if you prevent government from requiring contraception in health care plans, you are effectively supporting the concept that government should be controlling our lives. Why should the government tell a citizen that they can not have access to contraception?

I find it interesting that some people seem to have such a hard time with the concept of the government having anything to do with health care, while the same people seem to have no problem with having the government involved with the education of our children, something that they are much more involved with than has ever been proposed for healthcare.

ObamaCare is not even close to national health care of the Canadian or European sort. Our public schools and Universities are completely managed by the government yet that seems to cause you no issue at all while the government setting basic minimum standards for health insurance causes you to cry socialism.

Change the channel on your TV and your radio and enter the 21st Century with the rest of us. FOX and Rush are not the answers you seek. Stop drinking their Koolaid.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

This is NOT about government controlling our lives.

There is much that government does that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but that is still considered Constitutional. This is a concept that has been established since at least 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.

Actually, if you prevent government from requiring contraception in health care plans, you are effectively supporting the concept that government should be controlling our lives. Why should the government tell a citizen that they can not have access to contraception?

I find it interesting that some people seem to have such a hard time with the concept of the government having anything to do with health care, while the same people seem to have no problem with having the government involved with the education of our children, something that they are much more involved with than has ever been proposed for healthcare.

ObamaCare is not even close to national health care of the Canadian or European sort. Our public schools and Universities are completely managed by the government yet that seems to cause you no issue at all while the government setting basic minimum standards for health insurance causes you to cry socialism.

Change the channel on your TV and your radio and enter the 21st Century with the rest of us. FOX and Rush are not the answers you seek. Stop drinking their Koolaid.

Honorable Mayor_McCheese:

Interesting, you believe I have not entered the 21 century, because the 20th century will be hailed as the post-Constitutional century when progressivism was dominant in its many forms, i.e. New Deal, the Great Society, and transformation of its programs beyond their intended scope.

So as I sip my Rush Koolaid, I ask are you talking about the rock group? Because Rush does not guide my thought but the group played a huge role in my rock and roll days. Imagine influenced by Rush, a Canadian band.

Now Mayor, if you have read the Affordable Healthcare Act alias Obamacare, its provides for the creation of a host of bureaus and boards; so vast I do not believe I can see any limits to its scope. Or am I listening to Rush, the band that is?

And please, court cases establishing judicial review is not my forte, but education administered by the Federal government is not within the scope of the constitution or to be defined by Washington DC. Education is a vital cornerstone that was recognized as a pillar to maintain a free people... but it was relegated to local communities and states to manage and fund. Only in the 20th century did the federal government begin to influence and play a role in education, and to my understanding, established ineffective and wasteful programs. It did so by offering federal grant monies to mandate programs and standards upon states and local communities, to conform to models that are to.....leave no child left behind. Quite a dismal record.

So please, I will ask is the federal government to establish minimum standards (for insurance companies)now to include free contraceptives? So now minimum insurance standards are in essence, to include electives that should be relegated to consumer choice NOT government mandates.

So I do not know what you are drinking, but the Affordable Healthcare Act, is truly about government controls, and now for elective drug choices.

In response to your question: "Why should the government tell a citizen that they can not have access to contraception?"

My response: Bizzaro? Citizens always had access, they just go to the doctor, get a script and then pay for them. Similar to other consumer choices we make every day without the need for an insurance provider. So its not about denying access, it is about the government mandating the insurance company MUST provide contraceptives in their policies.

Imagine health insurance is now required to prevent pregnancy, what I still consider an elective. I know of a host of other options to prevent pregnancy, should they be included in mandatory regulatory gobbly goop?

Sorry Mayor, I think you do not drink enough.... 8 glasses/day. Thank God there is no standard, because a fixed amount to drink is a myth.

Wake up. Its about control. And what's wrong with FOX programming, I think you would like the Simpsons.

Sincerely.
Your humble servant.

WizeOlMarco writes:

Back to the opinion writer's letter. Perhaps the issue is that the doctors have too many patients to accept more patients. The letter doesn't say the doctors declined the potential new patient due to 'unacceptable insurance'. So, maybe the real issue is, there are too few doctors located on Marco Island. Anyone know the real underlying issue?

ajm3s writes:

in response to WizeOlMarco:

Back to the opinion writer's letter. Perhaps the issue is that the doctors have too many patients to accept more patients. The letter doesn't say the doctors declined the potential new patient due to 'unacceptable insurance'. So, maybe the real issue is, there are too few doctors located on Marco Island. Anyone know the real underlying issue?

I do not know if there is one real underlying issue, but it would be nice to add a hint of competition. And market forces.

And the opinion writer's letter was wide in scope, where blame was cast across a whole spectrum, so I thought most comments were an extension of this lament.

But the opinion writer was clear when she wrote: "...grateful and definitely feel fortunate to have a doctor and dentist in Naples (both accepting my insurance plans)."

If she wants the good ole days, she will have to end Medicare, Medicaid, and comprehensive insurance and return to a time where physicians provided free care and hospitals provided payment plans in weekly installments that did not lead to personal bankruptcy.

And keep in mind, I believe employer-paid health insurance benefits grew when the federal government placed wage controls, thereby forcing employers to find new means to attract employees in a competitive market.

Now fast forward to today, where employers are beginning to forgo providing healthcare insurance in lieu of new fines from newly enacted law or reduce contributions and offer healthcare insurance with increase deductibles and co-pays to meet minimum insurance guidelines.

A bureaucratic heaven, but a consumer's nightmare.

But no one will give up what they currently have until it is simply unbearable, as when you think the good ole days were better. When you didn't have what you have today.

Quite a quandry!

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to ajm3s:

Honorable Mayor_McCheese:

Interesting, you believe I have not entered the 21 century, because the 20th century will be hailed as the post-Constitutional century when progressivism was dominant in its many forms, i.e. New Deal, the Great Society, and transformation of its programs beyond their intended scope.

So as I sip my Rush Koolaid, I ask are you talking about the rock group? Because Rush does not guide my thought but the group played a huge role in my rock and roll days. Imagine influenced by Rush, a Canadian band.

Now Mayor, if you have read the Affordable Healthcare Act alias Obamacare, its provides for the creation of a host of bureaus and boards; so vast I do not believe I can see any limits to its scope. Or am I listening to Rush, the band that is?

And please, court cases establishing judicial review is not my forte, but education administered by the Federal government is not within the scope of the constitution or to be defined by Washington DC. Education is a vital cornerstone that was recognized as a pillar to maintain a free people... but it was relegated to local communities and states to manage and fund. Only in the 20th century did the federal government begin to influence and play a role in education, and to my understanding, established ineffective and wasteful programs. It did so by offering federal grant monies to mandate programs and standards upon states and local communities, to conform to models that are to.....leave no child left behind. Quite a dismal record.

So please, I will ask is the federal government to establish minimum standards (for insurance companies)now to include free contraceptives? So now minimum insurance standards are in essence, to include electives that should be relegated to consumer choice NOT government mandates.

So I do not know what you are drinking, but the Affordable Healthcare Act, is truly about government controls, and now for elective drug choices.

In response to your question: "Why should the government tell a citizen that they can not have access to contraception?"

My response: Bizzaro? Citizens always had access, they just go to the doctor, get a script and then pay for them. Similar to other consumer choices we make every day without the need for an insurance provider. So its not about denying access, it is about the government mandating the insurance company MUST provide contraceptives in their policies.

Imagine health insurance is now required to prevent pregnancy, what I still consider an elective. I know of a host of other options to prevent pregnancy, should they be included in mandatory regulatory gobbly goop?

Sorry Mayor, I think you do not drink enough.... 8 glasses/day. Thank God there is no standard, because a fixed amount to drink is a myth.

Wake up. Its about control. And what's wrong with FOX programming, I think you would like the Simpsons.

Sincerely.
Your humble servant.

In fact, I do enjoy Family Guy so that makes me a Fox supporter I guess on some level.

I'm not talking about Federal Government control of schools. I am merely pointing out that government is involved in many areas of our lives and we don't think anything about it. Are you supporting some sort of Libertarian situation where there is no government regulation at all and just caveat emptor?

I don't understand why there is any sort of issue with contraception. This is a fairly well settled area. In fact many states - both liberal (NY) and conservative (Iowa) already require that ALL health plans cover contraception - even actual Catholic churches. These laws were actually signed by Republican Governors (including Romney in Mass) and this is a policy that has been promoted by the GOP for the last 10 years at least. The reason this is now an issue is because the GOP candidates are grasping for a "morality" issue and have settled on this. it is a nonstarter.

Why is is a problem for the federal government (or any state government) to establish minimum standards for an insurance policy. this is also fairly routine. Look at your auto insurance or homeowners. They are all regulated by some government imposed minimum standard.

I also am a fan of Rush the band. Maybe we can get them to play the Marco beach concert.

wonderful (Inactive) writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Someone left their strudel out in the sun too long, eh?

This was prob one of the gals that put an asprin between her knees for birth control?

G-----

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

Klaus,
You claim everyone should have free access to contraceptives. What you don't understand is that, IT'S NOT FREE!
Why do I have to pay for you or any of your family to stop procreating?

Klaus, skip the burger king and use that money for some trojans! Take her strait to the trailer!

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

In fact, I do enjoy Family Guy so that makes me a Fox supporter I guess on some level.

I'm not talking about Federal Government control of schools. I am merely pointing out that government is involved in many areas of our lives and we don't think anything about it. Are you supporting some sort of Libertarian situation where there is no government regulation at all and just caveat emptor?

I don't understand why there is any sort of issue with contraception. This is a fairly well settled area. In fact many states - both liberal (NY) and conservative (Iowa) already require that ALL health plans cover contraception - even actual Catholic churches. These laws were actually signed by Republican Governors (including Romney in Mass) and this is a policy that has been promoted by the GOP for the last 10 years at least. The reason this is now an issue is because the GOP candidates are grasping for a "morality" issue and have settled on this. it is a nonstarter.

Why is is a problem for the federal government (or any state government) to establish minimum standards for an insurance policy. this is also fairly routine. Look at your auto insurance or homeowners. They are all regulated by some government imposed minimum standard.

I also am a fan of Rush the band. Maybe we can get them to play the Marco beach concert.

McCheese,
A: Romeny is not a Conservative.
B: Yes government is involved in many areas of our lives. Why? Is it necessary?
C: Why can't people go to walmart and buy some condoms? The pill is cheap.
D: What is wrong with "caveat emptor"?
E: The Catholic church (I was raised in it) is as corrupt as the government, no credibility there.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

In fact, I do enjoy Family Guy so that makes me a Fox supporter I guess on some level.

I'm not talking about Federal Government control of schools. I am merely pointing out that government is involved in many areas of our lives and we don't think anything about it. Are you supporting some sort of Libertarian situation where there is no government regulation at all and just caveat emptor?

I don't understand why there is any sort of issue with contraception. This is a fairly well settled area. In fact many states - both liberal (NY) and conservative (Iowa) already require that ALL health plans cover contraception - even actual Catholic churches. These laws were actually signed by Republican Governors (including Romney in Mass) and this is a policy that has been promoted by the GOP for the last 10 years at least. The reason this is now an issue is because the GOP candidates are grasping for a "morality" issue and have settled on this. it is a nonstarter.

Why is is a problem for the federal government (or any state government) to establish minimum standards for an insurance policy. this is also fairly routine. Look at your auto insurance or homeowners. They are all regulated by some government imposed minimum standard.

I also am a fan of Rush the band. Maybe we can get them to play the Marco beach concert.

Mayor:

I look at healthcare not in terms of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, woman rights or human (fetus) rights.

I know a lot of folks hate us newbie constitutionalists, with our pocketbook constitution and new found "constitutional" religion; but this document is fairly simple.

You ask why do I challenge the laws that lead to regulations (and actually some regulations are not even supported by legislature) that are all around us? Because they are NOW increasingly adding fodder to social engineering against the core beliefs and conscience of many minorities.

And politicians, legislators and lobbyists play a dangerous game to meld science, religion and politics; they have excelled in using it for promoting agendas, to the point it is propaganda at its zenith and for all to embrace as fact.

My agenda: make no law, no encumbrance, no manner to force man to do that which he never intended to do through free will and conscience unto himself and let us not exclude in the presence of their God.

Consider, health insurance and contraceptives being regulated at the national level to offer "rights" that to some Americans, is an abhorrence. We all understand the dangers of mob rule, unless we are part of the mob; and we accept it as "minimum standards" because it is ubiquitous, and why would you not want to offer free contraceptives?

Sorry, I guess I march to a different drummer, and is to respect all Americans, I only hope Americans can respect minorities, that do not wish to be forced to offer "free" contraceptives or anything by decree of the federal government that is against someone's will.

The documents that set the standards for federal governance, were fairly clear: as in the use of terms such as "limited government", and the amendment that is considered to be superfluous:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

In fact, I do enjoy Family Guy so that makes me a Fox supporter I guess on some level.

I'm not talking about Federal Government control of schools. I am merely pointing out that government is involved in many areas of our lives and we don't think anything about it. Are you supporting some sort of Libertarian situation where there is no government regulation at all and just caveat emptor?

I don't understand why there is any sort of issue with contraception. This is a fairly well settled area. In fact many states - both liberal (NY) and conservative (Iowa) already require that ALL health plans cover contraception - even actual Catholic churches. These laws were actually signed by Republican Governors (including Romney in Mass) and this is a policy that has been promoted by the GOP for the last 10 years at least. The reason this is now an issue is because the GOP candidates are grasping for a "morality" issue and have settled on this. it is a nonstarter.

Why is is a problem for the federal government (or any state government) to establish minimum standards for an insurance policy. this is also fairly routine. Look at your auto insurance or homeowners. They are all regulated by some government imposed minimum standard.

I also am a fan of Rush the band. Maybe we can get them to play the Marco beach concert.

Here's a good reality check for the people. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/lo...

This not only affects the states, it is effecting the federal government. As costs rise, that portion of the federal budget will rise. This does not only affect the poor, it will affect seniors and everyone else very soon.

This is not a conservative or liberal problem. It is a simple 5th grade mathematics problem. Or common sense issue. The leaders of the world believe that mathematics doesn't matter or is irrelevant now. Like the ECB believing that they can solve the Greeks issue of being insolvent by loaning them more money (debt) in hopes their economy will grow while forcing austerity on the people, cutting jobs, and raising taxes. When you cut wages and jobs you cut the amount of money the government can collect in taxes. You also stop people from investing capital in their business or creating new business destroying the economy. Good Luck!

Anyone who believes Obama care won't become a huge portion of the federal budget is very naive. Simple mathematics says taxes go up, or government spending goes down, that includes medical, defense, entitlements, pork, everything. Or, we continue deficit spending and become Greece. Greece may be small but the countries to follow will not be. Japan is going to be the big one. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/0...

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

Klaus,
Please explain how the formula of government spending (with no intention of repaying, and debt has never been repayed by a deficit spending economy) and monetary policy of central banks makes 5th grade mathematics irrelevant. Please explain.

No person or government can spend more than they take in forever. Simple 5th grade mathematics. Medical care, military spending (ask ancient Rome), entitlements, pork, etc, etc, is unsustainable with out debasing the currency (inflation) until it is worthless. Ask Nero.

Keep drinking the kool aid, enjoy your bread and circuses, Colosseum battles, soon when your entitlements run dry you will wake up. That day is coming. Maybe not for you. But your children and grand children will never have the living standards you have enjoyed. A 30 year debt binge is coming to an end.

Do you even know what deficit spending is? We are runnig a $Trillion plus in the US now with no end in sight. As medical care costs rise the larger the need for deficit spending. Along with all the other rising costs.

Greece is broke. Yes there is corruption and waste in Greece. It's 10X worse in the US. Explain how borrowing them (Greece) more money will help anyone in Greece but the central banks. Answer that question and I will stop thinking it is you that is uneducated.

Klaus, I asked you to tell me where you are from. You have not. Why? I am born and raised in the US. My government has become corrupt and has many issues. I can say that. I promise you, where ever you are from you live here for one reason. Because it's better here than what ever dump you came from!

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

Klaus,
one more question you have not answered. Who pays your health care? Do you pay 100% of it.

Don't tell me you do. Don't tell me you are entitled to it because you paid in all your life. Your not. You paid in at levels that were relevant when a penicillin shot for gonorrhea cost $5 and the Dr. visit was $15. That's not the case now so you are sucking off my contribution (and your children, and grandchildren) to the system. The system that will be unsustainable by the time I'm eligible to collect though I've paid in all my life for people like you and for condoms for "underprivileged" people.

If you can't pay, you can't play! Simple as that. I can accept the fact that one day I may not be able to play (buying food may be more important?) due to the rising costs, they won't stop rising without the system breaking completely. I won't be alone. There have been many revolutions in many countries throughout history. This time will be no different.

Now, answer the question!

panola60 writes:

Obama promised that the Obamacare would save us money after its first year. Now we know that was not true. Costs have risen by nearly 10% after 1 year and it's going to get much worse.

Last weekend it was revealed that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare, backtracked on the analysis he performed two years ago. He told officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado the price of insurance premiums will “dramatically increase” under the reforms.

Also a recent study by the insurance regulators in Ohio showed that Obamacare will push health insurance premiums up by 55% to 85% once the thing — monstrosity? — catastrophe? — abomination? — becomes fully operational in 2014.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

Klaus,
My dump comment was out of line, sorry. Your analysis of the EU is correct. That is not the point I am trying to make. What's happening in Greece is their own fault. My point is that all the developed nations are going down the same path as Greece in one way or another. Nations like families cannot borrow forever. Eventually debt comes back to bite you through inflation, currency devaluation, or deflation, or a combination.

If health care continues to rise at the rate it's now rising it will break the system. Or all poor and soon middle class people will not be able to afford insurance. So what then? We let them die? The government cannot pay for 300 million American to have health care without cutting spending somewhere else in the budget. No one in DC is willing to make any cuts so they just continue the deficit spending to keep their place in DC.

Someday soon someone in DC is going to have to have a conversation with Americans (a conversation 99% of Americans don't want to have and choose to ignore) and explain that the government cant pay for everything and some programs will be going away. Unfortunately that someday will never come, the deficit spending will just increase, and we will end up like Greece on a much larger scale.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

That is the problem! That is why my insurance rises $150 to $200 a year. Because I am paying for the uninsured. So is the Gov. And so am I through my insurance. Bottom line. People will have to just die. Sorry! The costs continue to rise because my family and the Gov pay what ever they have to to make sure people here don't "just die". Sorry, but that can't continue forever. Just like college tuition can't go up forever just cause the GOV will pay what ever it costs.

WizeOlMarco writes:

in response to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot:

That is the problem! That is why my insurance rises $150 to $200 a year. Because I am paying for the uninsured. So is the Gov. And so am I through my insurance. Bottom line. People will have to just die. Sorry! The costs continue to rise because my family and the Gov pay what ever they have to to make sure people here don't "just die". Sorry, but that can't continue forever. Just like college tuition can't go up forever just cause the GOV will pay what ever it costs.

"People will have to just die. Sorry!"

Please tell us what is the cost-value of your life...$500; $5,000; $50,000...?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

I can't. Maybe you should write your congressman and ask him? I do know that the cost to the Government, millions of self employed citizens, and thousands of small business owners will soon be unsustainable. The system is broken, and out of control. I have some ideas as to how to fix it but I don't have all the answers. Here are a few, tort reform, opening insurance across state lines, get the drug lobbiest and others out of DC. That's a start.

It will never happen, lawyers don't want tort reform, insurers don't want competition in the industry, and the drug companies don't want cheaper drugs. These groups spend Billions in DC lining the pockets and funding the campaigns of your representatives. So I will say again. Please pose your question to the people you voted for. I'm sure they care. Ask him/her what type of medical coverage they have and what it costs them. Ask them if they plan to use Obama care?

Once you are done asking questions you may wake up to the fact that your representative doesn't work for you. He works for the lobbiest. You are just some schmuck he has to lie to to get elected and re-elected.

WizeOlMarco writes:

I share what I interpret to be your level of cynicism. To my thinking the real solution is to open up the medical industry to more providers; increase supply. The key to that, expand medical education by making basic medicine part of grade school and high school curriculum, such as what once existed for home economics…before dismissing this, consider the many basic medical functions such as drawing blood, taking temps/other vitals, handling records and test interpretation, general physiology, etc. In other words, mandatory biology classes. A general medical practice degree should be attainable in 4 years of college by modernizing the curriculum to integrate technology. The AMA (American Medical Association) should be relegated to specialty medicine. I’d change federal and state laws to allow (dare I say mandate) drug manufacturers to sell directly to end users and change inspection standards to coincide with how the food supply is inspected, less intense but still in-place. I’d leave tort reform alone (I’m not a lawyer) as it is a market check on the outcome of business activity. I agree, open the insurance industry, not only across state lines but across country borders, i.e. worldwide insurance competition, plus federal and state insurance pools, and allow insurance providers to own hospitals and medical offices. A model exists for this – the telecommunication industry 1980’s deregulation.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

WizeOlMarco,
Some good ideas there. As I said earlier, I don't have all the answers. None of us do. Unfortunately, this topic of conservation will not be had in DC and certainly not with the people.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot writes:

conservation was supposed to be conversation. oops!

Fossil writes:

I swore I would never do this again. But here goes one more time. Logic people. Think. Because all these anti-government folks insist on using fear to make their points, I'll do the same: If we get rid of all government involvement in health care i.e. OBamaCare, Medicare, Tri-Care, VA Care, Medicaid, only the wealthy will be able afford health care. That means just 1% of us. Costs will never stop rising. Health Insurance policies will always demand higher premiums and deductables. Doctors and Hospitals will soon stop accepting insurance because the insurance companies will always be fighting for every dollar. Results of the negative market influences are inevitable. The electorate of this nation will soon demand a single payer system and the politicians (Republican, Libertarian, Democrats)will inact into law a single payer, mandatory government sponsored and run program. I say, let's do it now and avoid the pain. Close down the health insurance industry today. Will we experience a brain drain of doctors? I doubt it as every modern nation on the planet already is doing this. Where will these doctors go? To the moon with Gingrich? Used to be folks studied to be doctors because they wanted to help people. We are referred to specialists who charge a premium and don't even know us. Soon we will get our primary care providers (family doctors) back. I don't blame the insurance companies for the rising costs because they are doing what business does, which is to pull as much money from your pocket as they can. That's what happens when you let business do something that benefits ALL of us. They monopolize and gauge consummers as much as they can. Hospitals are slaves to the rising cost of equipment utilities and wages. The big pharma companies are the greediest of the bunch. This is the future. There is no other solution and it will eventually occur. So let's do it now.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features