Journal Community


Explore Group

What's your view on government-mandated health-care coverage?

Through the words of individuals who are struggling with issues at the heart of the health care reform debate, The Wall Street Journal shifts the focus to those most affected by the decisions of lawmakers in Washington.  Rupert Clark, 23 and single, doesn't have health insurance and he doesn't want it.

Watch Mr. Clark's storyview the multimedia presentation and share your thoughts, below.

Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    Here's my 2 cents worth on this very important issue before the Senate. I believe a public option would be healthy for American families. Competition would secure lower premiums. I believe that Senators are being supported by the health care industry so they are more interested in getting campaign contributions than my family’s well-being. We elected them to do what is in our, “The American People's" best interest. I for one will work 24/7 to make sure that any Senator that tries to block or delay this vote does not get re-elected to any public office again. For the past 50 years or so health care costs have kept rising to the place it is now. I have insurance and my wife and I have to pay $13,000.00 a year before we get any benefits from the policy. We have an HSA and we have to spend $6,000.00 before we get any services covered under our policy. You tell me what is wrong with that picture. Those in the senate that are rambling on about Kill Grandma etc are just short of retarded and almost Anti-American in my personal opinion. This economy is a product of old thinking and old politics that have all but drained our country of economic stability. I think those claiming to be the Tea Party are some very disturbed people that are creating a cause that is against the people of this country's best interest.




      It won't lower costs, it will raise them. And Democrats know it.

      And it won't enhance competition, it will kill it. And Democrats know it.

      Neither of those are goals of this bill, but that's what's being said to the public, because it plays well politically. In other words, it's a lie. And "Democrat insiders" know it.

      1 Recommendation


        Don, you are entitled to your opinion and the way I see it the liars are the republicans with they are going to Kill Grandma routine and The Right Wing nut jobs know that. We all have opinions and I respect most people's although I don't agree with a lot of them. You are very professional in your response so I find it easy to keep an open mind to consider every word being discussed about something as important as health care. I have coverage and I pay dearly for it. If I offer a policy and I hold all the cards there is nothing to compete with me charging higher prices! I can keep raising the cost each and every year and that is where we are now in very deep trouble so I personally welcome the public option and I will be willing to bet the costs will come down or the greedy will be the BROKE and needy :)




        I don't use the word "liar" easily or loosely. It's a serious charge, and therefore needs strong evidence of its existence. "Liar" meaning, someone stating something that they know to be false.

        I will present some of my evidence for Democrats lying:

        Will lower prices:

        Will enhance competition:
        And the bill before the Senate right now sets prices and coverage, imposed upon insurance companies. How does that enhance competition? Imagine if McDonalds and Burger King were told by government what food was to be on their menus (thus, their menus would be identical) and what their prices would be. That's enhancing competition?

        I'd like to see Democrats take you up on your bet: Put something into the bill which states that if it doesn't lower prices, then it will be repealed. 100% removed as law. Would you be o.k. with that?



          I use whatever word fits the moment when it comes to idiot politics. Any one who promotes that the Public Option was designed to "Kill Grandma" is a total LIE in my personal opinion.



          And one more, Lou:

          That's White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, in response to a (very aggressive) question about "Why is Single Payer off the table!" His response: "The objective is what's important, not the means"




          It's amazing how much, uh, wrongness you squeezed into two short sentences.

          1) A lie is saying something that you know to be false. Ergo, a person could be wrong, but not a liar, if he doesn't know it's wrong. And so to prove a lie, one must establish that it's false, and was known to be false by the person who said it.

          2) Who said that the Public Option is designed to Kill Grandma? No, Lou, the point about Grandma has to do with rationing care. And it's no secret that's exactly what's done. Check out Britain's "NICE" program. The government puts a price on you. Currently, I think it's around $22k. If your care exceeds that amount in a year, you get cut off. If you have a life-threatening illness, then bye-bye. And as we age, we typically need more medical services, which equals more money. So, what do you think will happen, when the government program runs short of money? And someone has to decide who/what/how that's done. Who do you think will make those decisions? Ultimately, it will be politicians. Republican, Democrat, or whoever is in political power at that time.

          3) You might want to read this Newsweek article, written by an Obamacare supporter:

          It's titled, "The Case for Killing Granny".

          And if we have Single-Payer (as all of those Democrat politicians in the videos said they want, and think that Public Option = gateway to Single-Payer) then you have no option. And that's on top of the fact that Public Option mandates to *private* insurance companies what must be in their policies, and what they shall charge.



            I live in the UK and know about NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence); this rational approach to health care used in the UK is just what the US needs. The US spends twice the amount per capita on health care as most of Europe and its objective results are lower. That is because it spends it money based on politics, threat of litigation, and profit. This entity focuses directly on the cost benefit of health care - it does a very , very hard job,trying to rationally decide how to spend limited funds for the most benefit.

            If you are rich and self funded and pay for all (and i mean All) your own health care then read no furrther. But for the other 99% of us we pay premiums or taxes and then either the government or an insurance company decides what care we get. The best way to do this is through rational analysis - not counting coloured ribbons worn by the populace. An excerpt from an interview of the Director of NICE follows:

            "Rawlins: All health-care systems are facing the problem of finite resources and almost infinite demand.... We are best known [for looking] at a new drug, device or diagnostic technique to see whether the increment in the cost of that treatment is worth the increment in the health gain....

            Time: How is that measured?

            Rawlins: It's based on the cost of a measure called the "quality-adjusted life year." A QALY scores your health on a scale from zero to one: zero if you're dead and one if you're in perfect health. You find out as a result of a treatment where a patient would move up the scale. If you do a hip replacement, the patient might start at 0.5 and go up to 0.7, improving 0.2. You can assume patients live for an average of 15 years following hip replacements. And .2 times 15 equals three quality-adjusted life years. If the hip replacement costs 10,000 GBP [about $15,000] to do, it's 10,000 divided by three, which equals 3,333 GBP [about $5,000]. That figure is the cost per QALY."

            Rawlins was asked by the interviewer, "You are basically deciding how much a year of life is worth?" He agreed, admitting that this is "controversial," but it has to be done."

            END OF QUOTE

            I admit this might sound a little controversial also, but how else does one decide to spend limited funds to provide the most benefit. this analysis needs to be done by all insurance companies and/government to "ration" care, because care is a limited resource which must be rationed.

            I accept that his algorithm and formula can be debated. But like the BCS system, atleast it is a system which is based on logic; and we can understand it and if we don't like it we can try to change it. It is not put a finger in the air and decide who gets care because you are black or white, or rich or poor or because you have a good lawyer or whatever,,, it is care based on providing the most benefit...

            1 Recommendation


            Dear Don, you are very polite and express your opinions very well, however what you call "evidence" is propaganda from my point of view for lack of a better word. My response to your multiple posts directed towards me is being made with all due respect, because I have a very different opinion than yours.

            I am 67 years old and I am very involved with community and local government every day.

            I founded and operate a non profit agency every day and we deal with many diverse populations, some from lower, middle class and some from more affluent backgrounds and the one thing the youth all have in common is poor health care insurance, once they are over 21 years of age. As for the older population most of them have either lost a job and have NO health care insurance or they could never afford it.

            My family has good coverage but it costly us over $600 a month ($7,200.00 per year) and our HSA first has to pay an additional $6,000.00 before we get any benefits from having health insurance. I for one am glad that the health care reform passed. I'm not naive enough to believe they have eliminated all the problems with our health care system in this bill, but it is surely a step in the right direction in my opinion! The example I just offered above is real " verifiable evidence" of the cost of health care insurance to a family of 2 me and my wife.

            Back to the topic of "evidence" the author of an article has an opinion (some of those opinions are bought and paid for by health care companies) and that opinion is not and should not be considered "evidence" it should be considered an "Opinion" from the author and benefactor (i.e. Big Health Care Corporations).

            Health Insurance corporations and spending big money to overturn the changes why? Because it will reduce their bottom line and it will open the door for new providers and that is where competition starts, more options reduces costs! Simple Mathematics......

            Hey Don, lastly what kind of work do you do?? it seems that you are putting a lot of direct energy into the issue of health care.



          Warren McInteer,
          (I'd respond directly, but there's not "Reply To" link showing below your name, so I'm replying here. It's a glitch in the forum software).

          Thank you for the thoughtful, informative, and honest response.

          I dispute some of your numbers, but regardless, the underlying logic is enough to discuss. Here are the essential points as I see it:

          1) You claim that U.S. results are lower than U.K.. But it depends on how you run the numbers. With different statistical methods, you'll come out with different results. E.g., a point you essentially agree upon, is rationed care. And you know what that means: people are cut off from medical services, when the price exceeds a certain amount. Obviously, such people who are cut off don't do better than if they weren't cut off. I.e., their "results are lower".

          2) You say that a part of our current private medical insurance costs are "political". You'll need to explain how that works. But even more ironically, you suggest that the way to de-politicize medical decisions, is to put them under complete control of political appointees. What can I say.

          3) Another source of expense is litigation. On that we agree. And Republicans here have been pushing for tort reform for years, but Democrats aren't interested (quite possibly because trial lawyers represent one of the largest contributors to the Democratic political party). And then, how do you think that nationalizing it, reduces lawsuits or the costs of them, without some sort of legal reform (similar to what could be done in the private sector)? Why?

          4) You say that "profit" causes higher prices. Well then, I presume you're a Socialist or Communist (or if not, then you should be, if you're intellectually consistent on this point) because what you're saying is that any industry that's nationalized, becomes more efficient. Even though, that flies in the face of a brief review of history, including in the U.S.. Government owned or controlled enterprises always end up being less efficient, not more. And Democrats know that this won't lower expenses, it will raise them. I repeat, they know it. If you want evidence of that, then I'll provide it.

          As for rationing the cost of medical care, I accept that we all can't have everything, the same as we can't have the best of everything in any other area of our lives. For most of us, we have to ration our personal expenses, buying "x" but NOT buying "y", because we have limited funds. But the big and essential question is, who makes that decision? Do you want a central government planner, deciding that your medical procedure isn't worth the cost, or do you want to make that decision yourself? That political appointee can't/won't be able to make any decisions, unique to you and your situation. It has to be one-size-fits all.

          The better choice is free market competition, where a well-informed public can choose what kind of coverage they want, and are willing to pay for. There are a number of things we can do towards those ends, if Democrats will allow it, and/or, if they're voted out of office in future elections. Government control is the wrong answer. America was founded on the idea of limited government -- the government staying out of our lives, as much as possible. That's the "rugged individualism" Americans are famous for. And we help each other in the process: our charitable contributions dwarf that of Europeans, and American conservatives do far more of it than liberals. And that is a byproduct of liberals looking to government to solve problems and help out others.

          Just say no to government control. It may sound NICE on paper, but the end-result is more expensive, and handing over control of your life to political appointees.

          What's more, it may well be unconstitutional here in the U.S.. E.g., how can the Fed. government tell you that you can't get a medical procedure? There may just be some Supreme Court battles to come, if this gets signed into law.



          I have to disagree with you. The TEA PARTY people are some of the best informed on what is REALLY going on in this Administration. They understand how our country was formed and the basis on which it was formed and it was not SOCIALISM! I am a 70 year old senior citizen still working full time and paying for medicare monthly AND I pay over $500 a month for my husband and myself for private health insurance which pays the brunt of our bills. Medicare pays virtually nothing! Let me tell you that you have not seen anything like high costs of insurance until Mr. Obama's plan gets in full swing - I would like to hear your comments in 2014 when this boondoggle really gets heated up. It is going to break the back of the US economy and anyone who can't see that coming does not know how to read a simple spread sheet. Thank you.



    The Journal is hardly an expert on economic analysis - and what will improve competition, etc. Trust the CBO, not the Journal.

    Second, in response to the actual discussion question - young people must be forced to buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions and unanticipated consequences. If the guy in this video were to end up with Lyme disease, or Hodgkins lymphoma - which have nothing to do with his healthy care routine - and are real risks - then he would go bankrupt, and the costs of his coverage would be passed on to taxpayers. Yes, its rational for him, but it puts a burden on the system, and on the rest of the taxpayers. He says that he would rely on other networks... is he really going to send his parents a $1 million medical bill? Or is he going to declare bankruptcy and go on medicaid. We can talk about personal responsibility all we want but the fact is that if you choose to go without insurance, and you end up needing serious heath care coverage, then its on the taxpayer. It does seem like its unfair that young people will pay higher than market rates in order to subsidize health care for the elderly... but that's the AARP's fault... and, if we wanted to solve this "compulsory buying out of pocket problem" just raise taxes by 2 percent and have automatic medicare + 5% for all... it would be that simple.


  • Federal provision of health care and a federal mandate requiring individual Americans to purchase health care insurance and providing for a fine or criminal penalty when they refuse to purchase health care insurance are both unconstitutional.

    Next question?


  • I am not opposed to congressional intervention regarding health care reform, but it's "solutions" are so stale, so subject to monied interests, that innovation reform is impossible.

    The proposed bills (all of them), aim to dictate human behavior, treats the entire medical field as "greedy," and is intended to crush the private insurance industry.

    I live in rural Maryland, and my "reps" in Congress only listen to 3 highly populated Baltimore-area counties. I am spitting into the wind when I vote.




    Will Republicans ever have a viable alternative to the public option? I doubt. However, I show that such alternative is possible

    All Republican proposals, including H.R. 3400 do not address the fact that an individual cares only about life span health coverage. Starting with this approach, we eliminate the pre-existing conditions issue, as there is none when we are born, or conceived, taking conservative approach that life starts at conception.

    H.R. 3400 calls for more competition in the current system, what is good. But it does not change the system. In particular, it does not stimulate both young and healthy to buy health insurance out of their own will. Without their contributions, no system will work.



    The government can run:
    Social Security
    H1N1 inoculations
    Washington, D.C.

    I guess I could continue, but will not, except to say that the government also is responsible for the Military, which, Thank God, is able to run itself with slight presidential and congressional intervention.

    We do not need the "government" inserted into our health care. The comments above regarding the "success" of european health care would not be supported by most of those under those systems, as in Canada.

    Let us work on reducing debt and deficit and get back on track of being America, not europe.


    • It’s impossible to work on the debt/deficit without addressing health care. 90 million people are on govt-provided health care. Spending for these programs in 2007 was more than $700 Billion (of $2.2 Trillion total). Add in govt employees, military, etc., and the increasing number of folks who qualify for help now that so many are unemployed, we’ll surely spend more than $1 Trillion this year on govt provided health care.

      No country in the world has a health care system that a majority of their citizens are completely happy with, but the US ranks lower than Canada, the UK and other countries that pay half of what we do per capita. New Zealand rated higher than the US, and spends about a third of what we spend. We could cover virtually everyone in the US for the $1 Trillion we’re spending for those getting govt provided coverage if we spent what they spend per capita. To dismiss the fact that these countries are getting more bang for the buck because it doesn’t fit in with free-market ideology seems pretty silly.

      A distinction needs to be made in this debate between PROVIDERS and INSURERS. Even single-payer advocates do not propose socializing health care PROVIDERS. It has been proposed that we socialize INSURANCE. While insurance company profits only account for a small amount of health care spending, 30% of our health care spending goes to administrative overhead. This is money spent to shuffle paperwork, fill out forms and argue about coverage. Are the insurance companies providing services that are worth that? They’re really just middlemen, aren’t they?

      Is a for-profit bureaucrat really preferable to a govt bureaucrat? The plans that the private health care companies have put out are far more invasive of the doctor-patient relationship than anything that I’ve seen proposed in legislation, and they want tax dollars to pay to research and support them.

      Where did folks get the idea that a private plan would cost less? All of the private insurers’ plans I’ve seen call for an expanded role for government in health care – more folks on Medicare and Medicaid. They argue for aggressively enforced individual mandates and want well-funded subsidy programs to help people buy private insurance, but don’t want us taxpayers to be able to negotiate any kind of deals for all this money we’re spending. WellPoint has even suggested that anyone with a chronic illness should be on Medicaid rather than a private plan. Their whole plan seems centered on privatizing the profits and socializing the risks.

      I just don’t get why so many folks who are so suspicious of government are so blindly trusting of corporations.




        1) You say that even single-payer doesn't socialize medicine. Not true. If the U.S. government is deciding what is/isn't paid for, then essentially, they are socializing the providers. It's only if the "single payer" gave us a voucher to do with as we please, that we'd be free to make decisions with providers without government interference.

        2) You say that people in the U.K. and Canada are happier (based on recent polling) than the U.S.. But even with those polls, far more Americans like what they have, and don't want it changed, than those who do want it changed. Why are you ignoring that? What's more, those systems in Canada and the U.K. are indeed designed to help the vast majority of the population. What you don't want to be, is that other 10-20% that requires expensive procedures, like cancer screening and treatment, or hip replacement when the government appointees decide you're too old to warrant the cost. That's what rationing is all about, and that's how they save money.

        3) Democrat insiders know that ObamaCare won't save money. On the contrary, it will cost more than if nothing were done. Check out this article, written by an economist, a Democrat, ObamaCare supporter, writing for the very liberal New Yorker magazine:
        Or if you prefer a shorter summary of it, here's a WSJ editorial referencing that article:
        No Democrat has outlined how any of this will save costs, and you're just taking it on faith that it will, because Democrats have told you.
        But consider this: If government can run an industry better than private companies can, then isn't that an argument for Communism? It is. And then, show me a Communist country that is efficient, successful, and humane to its people. Good luck trying. That doesn't mean that Capitalism is the source of goodness, but rather, it's an essential ingredient for success and liberty.

        4) As for "trusting corporations", I don't trust them any more than I trust government. As such, I would not want just one of them to have ultimate control over all Americans. I want them to compete with each other to earn my premiums. And I want as much information about them and what they're offering, as possible, so that I can make wise and informed decisions. That weeds out the worst of them, and rewards the best. And that's how we succeed, prosper, and excel as a nation and people.


      • Don,

        1) Single-payer would put us all in one risk pool, it wouldn’t socialize health care delivery. No matter what we end up with, people far removed from the doctor and patient are going to be deciding what will be paid for. Every health insurance plan out there today has limits and restrictions, and that’s not going to change no matter what we do. We all know that we can’t afford to pay for everything for everybody.

        2) 70% of us feel that we need health care reform, and well over half feel that there should be a public option. You can’t point to the other statistics and ignore these. There are a lot of folks in the US who are satisfied with what they have. I’m one of them, but I’m not blind to the fact that my situation could change drastically if I were to become seriously ill and unable work for an extended period.

        It sucks to think of telling grandma that she’s not going to get the expensive treatment she needs because she’s over the age limit, but does it suck less to tell the 35-year-old working man that he’s not going to get the treatment he needs because he doesn’t have insurance or enough money to pay himself? That’s the kind of rationing we do now. If you have a plan that will eliminate rationing altogether, I’d like to hear it.

        3) I’m not expecting any savings. The changes in the plans aren’t significant enough to allow us to cover all of the uninsured and save money. I expect that health care reform will slow the growth of overall spending and decrease per capita spending. There has been hollering about how this will cost taxpayers an additional $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. What we don’t hear is that doing nothing will cost taxpayers double that in the next 10 years and health insurance premiums will double in less time than that. For me, that would really suck.

        4) I don’t see anyone out there championing regulations to get health insurance companies to open up to consumers, and I don’t think it’s likely they’re going to do it voluntarily. Corporations have consistently resisted calls to increase transparency for consumers, claiming they’re too time-consuming or too difficult, and they most often prevail. When we do make rules, they’re full of loopholes and exclusions, and enforcement mechanisms are weak or nonexistent.

        Insurance companies know they can’t operate the health care system – it’s right in their reform proposals. They call for significant expansion of government health programs. They favor an individual mandate with healthy subsidies and aggressive enforcement to make sure that folks comply, but oppose giving govt the ability to see that the money is well-spent. Using tax dollars to buy millions of individual plans rather than one large group plan seems pretty wasteful. I thought we were against government waste.




          1) Again, the difference is who's deciding what we (don't) get with the policy. With Single-Payer, government appointees decide that for all Americans. With private companies, we choose what plan we want, by choosing from among those available. Some people will have different life priorities than others. And, with different companies competing for our insurance money, that opens up possibilities for innovative new ideas being developed for how best to structure it (and then we decide if we like the innovations).

          What's more, if the overall system costs more than doing nothing (which it will) then we all get less medical care for the dollar.

          2) I'm one of those 70% who thinks we need reform. ObamaCare isn't reform, it's a radical transformation. For all of America. The Republican plan is reform.

          No, I'm not opposed to rationing. I do it every day, because I have a limited amount of money to spend. If I buy "x", then I know that I *can't* buy "y" with that money. Difference is, I'm the one making the decision, not Big Government. I do not want some little group of Federal political appointees deciding if I will live, die, or am allowed to get a surgery.

          What's more, when it comes to paying for health insurance, how is that one bit different from all of your other life expenses?: Home, food, utilities, transportation, etc. By your reasoning, all of our life needs should be paid for by government. Sounds nice, but it's not. Ask people who live in countries that function like that.

          3) By "saving money", that wasn't relative to today's dollars. That's relative to the current course and making no changes. It will cost more -- a whole lot more -- than doing nothing. And thoughtful Democrats know that. There are no significant cost-saving techniques in the bill, other than reducing the quality and quantity of services provided. Democrats aren't doing this to save money.

          4) The Republican plan proposes that insurance companies be allowed to sell policies across state lines. Right now, they can't, and that severely limits the number of options we have.

          As for information, I'm a strong believer in that, in place of government laws and regulations, and would support laws that require providers to spell out what's included, as much as possible, for side-by-side comparisons from one provider to another. I don't doubt it can get messy when you get into the details, but it's necessary.

          As for what insurance companies (and other health industry companies) have supported during the past year, they have no credibility in speaking for what's best for us. It's clear that many of them jumped into the nationalized health care wagon, because they figured it was a foregone conclusion that it would happen, and so they wanted to have a good seat at the table, and hoped to be able to help craft legislation to their favor. They've been fools. They were hoping to have a seat at the table, but ended up being part of the meal. With the Public Option, insurance companies will be government functionaries, and their prices & policies set by government. With Single-Payer (which eventually will follow Public Option) they'll be finished.


        • Don – Sorry it’s taken a while to respond.

          “With private companies, we choose what plan we want, by choosing from among those available.”

          That’s not the way it works, though. We have a primarily private insurance system now. The majority of us in the private insurance market are covered by employer-provided plans. We see the doctors they cover, pay what they tell us to pay and are danged glad to have it. The choices that folks with individual insurance plans can make are all about limiting their coverage, but even after they’ve weeded out the things they don’t need, they’re paying more for their insurance than folks on large group plans that cover all the things they’ve weeded out.

          Our current health care system actually limits many folks’ choices in other important areas of their lives. I know quite a few people who would like to start their own business or go back to school or who just hate their job and would like a change, but are stuck because their job provides health insurance for their family and they can’t afford to give that up. A couple I know planned a life of unmarried cohabitation but ended up getting married just to get him on her health insurance plan.

          “No, I'm not opposed to rationing. I do it every day... Difference is, I'm the one making the decision, not Big Government.”

          No one is making decisions about health care rationing; we’re just letting folks fall through the cracks. We have people who getting care that’s unnecessary and people who desperately need care and can’t get it. That’s a pretty asinine way to allocate our limited health care resources. As difficult as it may be, we need to find a more rational basis for rationing than, “Will insurance pay?”


          Unless the Republican plan has some strong regulations and enforcement mechanisms (I don't think that it does), this would just be a big sloppy kiss to insurance companies, and we’d likely end up in even worse shape than we are today. Allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines would encourage them to move to states with lax regulation, and consumers would suffer. We saw this happen with credit cards, there’s no reason to expect that it wouldn’t happen with health insurance. More than 25 years after deregulating credit cards we’re finally starting to look at the negative effects it had on consumers. There’s no reason to expect that things would be different with health insurance.




            No problem about the delay. Actually, it's easier for me if you don't (smile).

            Re: Employer vs. private plans, all of those things can be worked out, and Republicans are all for fixes for it. Ergo, none of it argues for government run insurance.

            "No one is making decisions about health care rationing;"

            But you just said, that, at least with privately-chosen policies, we choose our limits of coverage. And that often is determined by an annual dollar amount of coverage. Within that dollar amount, we can make our own choices. That's our personal health care rationing plan. And/or, different plans can get more specific about what they do/don't cover. And likewise, we can choose which one we prefer. That's why we need more competition and more options.

            Re: "We have people who getting care that’s unnecessary", you're probably right, but again, who decides if it's "necessary" or not? As has been noted recently, it's being decided that mammograms "aren't necessary" until you're 40 (or was it 50? I can't recall). And a primary factor in deciding whether it was "necessary," was how much it cost. And who's to say if it's necessary? Nobody argues that women can't get breast cancer below that age. Or that early detection can't help find growing cancers. The likelihood increases with age, but it's still significant at younger ages. But when government is in charge, the decision is made for you. Why aren't feminists pushing for "a woman's right to choose" on this one? Dems want Americans to pay for elective abortions, but don't give women a choice about mammograms?

            "people who desperately need care and can’t get it."

            Do you really know of such people? I doubt it. Medicaid covers the poor, and anyone is cared for who walks into an emergency room (at public expense...). What exactly are they in desperate need of?

            The numbers of "chronically uninsured" are pretty small. We have very generous public policy right now. You don't see anyone dieing on the streets, do you?


            That's just a statement of faith, Nena.

            Consumers wouldn't suffer. They can choose plans with higher limits imposed by the state they live in, or choose a plan with lower limits, offered through companies based in other states. It's their choice. Maybe they'd prefer to have another $500/mo. in their bank account, than what their state wants them to have for insurance coverage. Money problems cause stress, and stress causes illness. I could easily make a case that taxing people more, and forcing them to pay for more than they want, can lead to more illness, simply because of how much harder you're making them work to pay for what you think they should have.

            I don't know what you're referring to about credit cards. But I do know that I have a multitude of options available. If I don't like one, then I'll choose another. What regulations do you think should be imposed on them?

            Bottom line, Nena, I don't doubt that there are problems with the current system. And I'm all for reforming it. What I'm not for, is a government takeover of the health care industry, and that's what Democrats want. Government-run anything, wastes money. If it can be private, it should be.

            What's more, why is health care expense any different from any other expense? Why not apply your arguments here to home building and lending? Or auto manufacturing, sales, and repairs? Or utilities? It all comes from the same place (our bank accounts) and all are essential needs of survival. If you think that government agencies can do these things better than private industry, then why not push for a complete government takeover of all industries?


  • The Obama Administration and other well intentioned proponents of government-mandated health-care coverage are quite premature in their efforts. Even assuming that a fair, balanced and equitably financed health-care fix can be established, our nation's health care needs pale in comparison to its needs for food, clothing and shelter - those necessities that the greatest segment of our electorate will have to provide for themsleves out of their SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS! It is urgent that the President, his administration and congress deal with securing the financial future of our Social Security System before it turns its attention to the singular needs of the nation's healthcare system. After all, well fed and adequately sheltered and clothed Americans will be able to maintain their own health - before it even becomes a broad concern requirinhg more efficient and equitable healthcare!



    The entire health care debate is misplaced. In the middle of the worst economic crisis of the last 50 years, we should be focusing on the economy and very little else. Yes, we should repair our health care system, BUT NOW. And when we do, we should focus on reducing costs before any attempts to expand coverage. The idea that we should deal with health care now is madness. There is no remote possibility that Congress can create a solution that will reduce costs and not increase our tax or debt burdens. In the meantime, businesses, small and large, are in a partial state of immobility due to uncertainty. We deserve better.



    Don Hansen, your comments are terrific.
    Thank you so much for taking the time to post them.
    I couldn't agree more.


  • IMO, the Journal needs to publish a specific health-care-reform plan which it would support. Altho I agree with the general thrust of recent editorials--that the currently-proposed "reform" would be most ill-advised, I'm also aware that there are substantial problems with the status quo.

    The appearance in print, of a specific plan, would help readers form and communicate more-specific opinions concerning its various facets. Hopefully, persuading a few Democrats that the current Senate bill would create too many problems, and should be scrapped.

    Somewhat related, it might be helpful to post an online poll, where readers could express multiple-choice opinions on various facets of both the current, and the new, proposals. If at all feasible, broken down by legislative district. Once the poll were taken, overall results could be printed, and breakdowns by legislative district published online.

    Poll respondents should, ideally, have the option of providing identifying information; something on the order of name, phone number, and zip code. Enough detail to support an audit of the reported totals. Poll-result summaries broken down into "identifiable" and "non-identifiable" categories.


To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…



Most Active Discussions