JPF Home Page Forums Alan Grayson on Republican Health Care

Alan Grayson attacking Republicans

One word. . . IDIOT

It's no more than a cat fight anymore. . . minus all the appeal.

I just saw this on TV. What an intelligent argument... LOL Is this is the best they can do?

I think he should be Obama's VP choice in 2012. It's about time we had a democrat standing up and telling it like it is. ALL the problems that this country faces now have been caused by the conservative, right wing movement -- starting with reagan.

The best the repubs can do is that divorcing, pill-popping Limbagel guy.

Good morning, I hope everyone is well.

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

I couldn't get the link to work so I'm not sure which clip this is. If it's the one where he's calling Republicans Knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, then yes, he's being part of the problem and not part of the solution.

If it's the one where he says that the Republican health care plan is Don't get sick and, if you do, die quickly, then, I think he's being pretty accurate. Conservatives seem to think the status quo is fine - and that statement describes the status quo to me.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of those that are so against a single payer public option, because it seems like the way to go to me. Not that this is going to happen...

You can argue that the government can't do anything right but it won't work with me.

For instance, people pick on the post office all the time. In the 40 years that I have been receiving and sending mail though I have never had a piece go missing. And I can count the times they have been delayed on one hand. The fact that I can send a letter to California for half a buck and it will arrive in three days boggles my mind. On the other hand, one of these "private" companies won't even leave a package at my door. I have to drive 10 miles to get it from one of their outlets.

I've seen other instances where services normally done by the government have been privatized. For me, these have always resulted in worse service with little or no savings.

Your experience might be different. I'm just saying why a blanket statement that the government can't do anything right won't work with me.

So, getting back to health insurance. What, exactly, are your objections to a government run single-payer system? I'm not trying to start an argument here - it just seems so sensible to me that I wonder what I'm missing. Do you think that a company run by a guy making $20 million per year is going to make better decisions about whether to pay for something related to your health than someone who works for the government? Is it that you don't want the government having your private information (as opposed to a company)? Or is it that you are concerned that a government plan will try to cover too many people? Or something else?

I'm honestly curious.

Scott

Kevin,
With all due respect, or as much as I can muster, You are full of S*it. The problems, social problems that some want the federal government to take care of all started in the Franklin Deleno Roosevelt Adminstration and have snowballed every since. Now Kevin, after 70 plus years of doing it your way, WHY DO WE STILL Have all of these problems??? If the Liberal, Democrat way hasn't fixed the problem by now I have to ask, What Happened?? And if all these attempts at social engineering are still failing isn't it time to do something else?? The link no longer works but if it is the congressman from Florida saying the Republician plan is to die quickly it is just a desperate last gasp by a plan that was set up to fail in the first place.

So what part of the plan do you think is working Kevin? The people, by a large margin see the Huge National Debt going from 12 trillion to 20 trillion. They are not going to support it any longer. The dam has burst.

I think it was Abe Lincoln that said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Scott,
To answer your question, it will give the government more power. And the only purpose of government is to use force against the people it rules. To give more power to a group who's only purpose is violence against it's own people is just stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

Its not a public option either, get real. It's being forced down our throats. And if we opt to not get it we could face jail time. Communist bastards. It's not the land of the free anymore, it's the land of you do what i say when i say it.

This just goes back to what happens when the tables are turned. You all get all pissy when Joe Wilson calls Obama a liar (which he is). But when the roles are reversed and a Democrat is attacking the Republicans its perfectly fine. Perfect example of the double standard.

Ray,

Always great to see you get your condescending, pomposity assidiness all up in a ruffle.

******

For the rest of you,

Why aren't you working on your songs? It is a total waste of time to do anything here in this forum. No one's mind will be changed and no one can present a reasonable argument without putting someone down (except for maybe Mike D and Scott, but they lose points for trying to inject common sense into this cesspool).

Write a song, practice your guitar, work on networking. If you are spending time here, you are losing ground to someone who isn't.

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Doug:

I'm familiar with your general views of government. But I don't hang here all that much so I haven't seen your specific ideas. Are you advocating absolutely NO government? Or limited government? If limited, how limited?


Naomi:

If your goals are to impress people that already have the same opinions you do, you're doing fine. If you want to be taken seriously by folks who have different opinions, your approach needs some work.

There are too many differences between this and the Wilson thing to even draw a meaningful comparison. But then, double standards are often in the eye of the beholder.


Kevin:

The fact that Ray jumped on what was so clearly a trolling joke post (Limbagel ) makes me realize how primed many here are to interpret everything as a personal attack - indicating the impossibility of this forum being anything useful. Thanks for the reminder.


Scott

I dont try to impress anyone when it comes to politics. . . there's absolutely no need. I respect that everyone has a different opinion on how things should operate. We won't ever agree, and I respect that too.

Well, when I said impressed, I probably used the wrong word. Because you do impress me. Even though we will never agree on anything political

Scott

Hi Scott,

I will try to give you an intelligent answer.
1) I am sick and tired of taxpayers paying everything for all those who feel like they don't need to pay for anything. I realise that part of every tax dollar we pay now goes to cover the un/underinsured. Part of every dollar we pay in copays goes to cover the same. Every bill submitted to the insurance companies and medicaid/medicare is padded to help cover the cost of treating them. Understand please; I am not against helping the truly needy. I am against paying for people who can, but will not work. I am against paying for people who continue to have children knowing they can't pay for any part of their care just to get the free benefits the governmentt gives for having them. I am against paying for people who work under the table to avoid paying taxes yet have no problem receiving benefits from my tax dollar. I am against paying for all the illegal immigrants.
2)I truly believe we can fix the problems we have now by fixing the tort laws, cutting down on medicaid and medicare fraud, and exporting all the illegal immigrants.
3)I really don't want our federal debt to skyrocket any higher. Between the bank bailouts, and the stimulus, our great grandchildren will still be paying this off now. No one seems to realise that for every dollar that is spent, tax dollars have to be paid to support it. Actually, by the time they figure in the interest, that one dollar being spent today will be turned into many before it is all paid back. If anyone can show me where we are getting the money to pay for this I am perfectly willing to listen.
4)As far as the government doing anything right, look at all the money that has been stolen from our Social Security to pay for things it was never designed to pay, a lot of it in "Loans" never intended to be paid back. Look at Welfare. Look at how well they have run Medicaid/Medicare. Look at the VA and how it's hospitals are run. Look at the highway department with all the bridges they have been told are getting ready to fall down and all the stimulus money that is not being spent on them. Look at our borders. Look at all the business that has been run out of our country. Look at the unemployment rate...

Kevin,
Please do me a favor, look back at my posts and let me know where I have put anyone here down, called any names, or acted in anything less than good faith.

I am quite satisfied to take your word on it.

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Thanks, John. In my opinion you did.



I don't like these either. But I don't see why they would be magnified under a single payer plan. At least with a single payer plan, I'd think it would be harder to dodge the system.



I don't like these either. But I would think that a plan to require people to purchase health insurance would appeal to you for this reason.



We should probably talk about illegal immigrants on another thread. My understanding is that, yes, they are a drain on the health care system. But the studies I've seen suggest that when you consider their NET effect on the economy, it's neutral to slightly positive. I'm not using this as an argument for amnesty - I'm using it only as an economic argument.



Agree that the first two would help. Can't agree on the last point though. I just don't think it will work (for many of the same reasons that the war on drugs is a failure).



This scares me too. You are talking to a guy that won't even take out a car loan. My wife and I paid off our house way early too because we don't like being it debt. It makes me nervous.
But I don't understand why a single payer system would be more expensive than what we have now. Certainly we wouldn't be paying for fat cats at the top to make huge salaries and to pay dividends to stockholders. I believe in capitalism. But that doesn't mean I think everything should be subject to a profit motive. I think it's immoral somehow that anyone should make a profit off of insurance. Protect the folks you are insuring, pay the folks that work for you a decent wage, and invest the rest to help the pool of emergency funds grow. Beyond that, why should folks profit on insurance?

An argument for capitalism is that it stimulates people with good ideas to do new and creative things. I don't think we need any more creativity in the insurance industry. I think we've had enough.




I should have been more careful. Certainly congress gets a lot of things wrong. It's populated by folks whose chief skill is to get elected to something. I meant government agencies populated by workers just like you and me. I think they do a good job, by and large. You can argue that those folks are under the control of nutcases though. My response to that is that we have to quit electing nutcases. My other response is that they are no nuttier than the bigwigs running the insurance industry.



I don't know enough about these to comment. I thought Clinton did quite a bit to reform welfare but I can't remember the specifics. I know you work in the medical profession. What is wrong with Medicaid/Medicare and the VA?



In regard to the present discussion, the question to ask, and the one we can't really answer, is whether the situation would be any better if all highway building was privatized. Based on my experience though, it would be a nightmare.



I think that is our fault - not government. They are being asked to do something that is impossible. In my opinion, illegal immigration will never be stopped on the supply side - only on the demand side.



In my opinion, these are due to greed in the private sector.

Well, John there are some things we can agree on and some we can't. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like your objections are not so much against the single payer system but against government involvement. If so, I have to agree you have a point - I don't think we elect people of quality.

So what about non-profit co-ops? Would you find those more appealing?

Scott

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the response. I think the biggest thing I have against this is that those who can pay at all are paying for all those that can't, or won't. This is the public option. Everyone gets the same insurance but only taxpayers have to pay. That is why I made the list above of all those I don't want to pay for. I know I am paying some of their healthcare costs now but this would only make it much easier for them to abuse the system.

A quick answer on immigration. I have looked at the numbers too and there is no way a family of four with one member working under the table and the rest living off our generosity, ie foods stamps, free education for their children, free medical care at any hospital they walk into, and in a lot of cases welfare, can be a boon to our country. If you put him on the books at anywhere close to minimum wage the equation remains the same. If you add a few more children to that family it gets worse. Now add in the cost of all that are populating our prison system, all those that are in gangs and doing other illegal things we have to pay to police, and you will start to see what I am getting at. How to export them? We do not have enough workers on the books to do that without mobilizing the National Guard. That is what I suggest. It really isn't immigration, it is an invasion and should be treated as such. I agree that drying up the jobs by really punishing the companies and individuals that hire them would help. It would just take forever. We need to take our country back before it is too late. If we took some of the people on unemployment and trained them for border patrol it wouldn't be a bad idea either.

The only thing I have against non profit co-ops is that they would be unfair competition to the insurance companies and once they were driven out of business we would no longer have the option of using them. Other than the high cost of my insurance, driven there by the reasons I mentioned above, I like my health insurance. I like choosing my own Doctor, my own specialists, and the treatments I want to have. I work a lot of hours to be able to do this but I don't mind. I would mind if I didn't have those choices.

I can understand that, John. Hard to argue against it. Folks can say that you can keep the plan you have if you like it but that doesn't mean anything if your plan goes out of business.

I'm not sure I see the co-ops as unfair competition though. Private schools and public schools, for instance, coexist just fine. They appeal to people with different needs and resources.

In any case, I've learned a little more about the concerns that conservatives have about health care reform. Thanks for that!

Scott

P.S. As for how to deal with illegal aliens? Maybe we can bat that one around on another day...

Illegal immigrants are a whole different topic. . . lol. . .one that needs its on thread.

Given a choice I'd say NO government. Harm done by governments far out paces good done by government. Given reality I favor doing anything possible to make government smaller the larger/more powerful a government is the more harm it will do. For the same reasons I am against anything that gives government more power.

Anarchy would be an even bigger mistake. . .

Anarchy is the only system where you don't have the government using force against it's on citizens.

How could anything be worse than the 100+ million people killed by their own governments in the last century. And that doesn't count wars.

No person or group of people has the right to use force or the threat of force to make others do their bidding. Supporting government is like supporting a mob protection racket.

Hi Scott,

What happens is that as soon as they see a chance to use a much cheaper system, employers will do thier best to force employess to take that system even when it is against their own best interests. Once you have enough companies doing that the insurance companies, who cannot compete with a federally aided program, will lose their customer base and go under. There goes my choice of heathcare insurer out the window.
Sorry Naomi. I didn't mean to try to take over the thread with the illegal invasion issue but it is a huge part of our health care costs. As a nurse I see it every day.

Hi Doug,

I know how you feel about government, but without government in some form we revert to "The biggest club wins". No matter how you feel about it we need government. It does not have to be anywhere near as big, or involved in our lives as it is today, but we need it. We have seen anarchy, and it can be a fine tool to bring down a corrupt government, but it will never take the place of one.

Maybe, John...

Actually, I've been wondering how health insurance got tied to employers to begin with. We don't require employers to contribute to life, car, or homeowners insurance. So why health insurance?

Makes me think that a lot of problems could have been avoided if, on day one, we had simply made people responsible for buying their own insurance. We'd probably have better competition too since companies would have to compete for individuals, rather than companies. I don't think most folks have much choice these days - because their employers pre-select the (few) plans that will be available.

Scott

Hi Doug:

You actually have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do. If governments are killing 100 million a century now, I think individuals would kill 200 million a century if there was no government.

Seriously, I think there is an optimum. I see the scale from no government to oppressive government paralleling the scale from freedom to security. All security and no freedom is no good. But I don't think total freedom and no security would work either - for me at least - because I would use all that freedom to ensure my own security. It would be a full time job.

I don't know where the optimum lies - though I have the feeling that we're reasonably close to it.

I see from your previous post that, aside from practical considerations, you would favor no government. Have you ever been in a situation where you were among a reasonable number of people and there has been no local government? In other words, have you ever lived in a situation of temporary anarchy? I never have. I'd be curious to know how it worked. My instincts tell me it would work okay until the first drought hit - then all hell would break loose.

I think I have to agree with Naomi.

Did I just say that?

Scott

LOL Don't apologize, I could go on for days about illegals.



It's odd when no matter how different two people are there's always a common ground somewhere. Just like with me and Mr. Duncan, here we can't stand each other pretty much, but stroll over to the pedophile thread, and we agree.

Hi Scott,

Insurance got tied to employers for a very good reason. The more people that order insurance from the same company, the cheaper it is. Insurance companies vie for contracts with big employers. It started out with the unions fighting to get employers to offer it at cost to their employees and ended with what we have today. Sometimes small companies will band together to get better rates.I don't know if you have ever priced insurance as an individual, but it is very expensive, sometimes prohibitavely so. What will really help is allowing all insurance companies to compete in all states. It would also help if insurance companies weren't made to cover all situations for all subscribers. A lot of young people really don't think they need long term care insurance, and they are right. A lot of middle aged and older people don't think they need coverage for obstetrics, and they are right, yet most people have to pay for a lot of coverages they don't want or need.
There are lots of things that can be done to make health insurance better. That is what I believe our legislators should be doing. I think what they are looking at now will only make matters very much worse.
Hi Naomi,
Thanks.

Individuals kill by ones and twos. Governments kill by the millions. Not even close. And when you let governments do the killing they get to call it legal and the murderers get to be called president or congress critter.




We are reasonably close to a totalitarian system. Security can only come from being a slave.

Insurance got tied to employers in WW2 because with wages frozen it was how companies were able to give a person a better deal than the next company.

That's correct, Doug. It was a direct result of government interfering with industry. Roosevelt was a pretty good wartime president, but he was, after all, a Democrat, so he couldn't help but do some social tinkering. We froze wages and with the lack of available men due to the war, companies had to find creative ways to compete for good employees, so they began offering health care as part of the employment package.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the tidbit about WWII and insurance. I didn't realise that but everything I said about companies and insurance above is true.
One question about government, who would stop the criminals and protect the weak if government weren't there? One of the reasons people came together in groups was protection, both from animals, and other humans. The leaders of these groups was usually the strongest, not nec. the best, just the strongest. That was the original form of government. Without some form of it we will return to being animals.

Well actually the family is the most basic form of government. The advantage to the family as government is that it's self limiting by puberty. You just have to do what your parents say till you are grown.

With government we have become slaves, free animals or animals in cages. I think I prefer being a free animal with the accompanying dangers to being an animal in a cage.

But most people would prefer the safety. That is why we have government. Railing against any form of it is as useful as spitting in the ocean and waiting for the tide to rise. There are still places in the world where no government exists. You only have to find one away from all other humans to find what you desire, because as soon as another human enters the equation you will have government of some kind again. It all sounds very lonely to me.

The idea of not having any government is wasted energy. Why not spend your time trying to change the color of the sky.

Single payer systems in Canada and in Europe have failed/are failing to keep costs down, even though they regularly deny/delay treatment to those stuck in them. (Check cancer survival rates in the U.S. and in Canada and Europe sometime to see what delay does.)

Adopting single payer here would lead to the same problems.
The effects of the Democratic plans are really what the Dem concgresscritter quoted earlier was describing.

Folks, especially liberals, often accuse others of what they are doing themselves.

this is wat governments create

That's why they can see it in others -- experience!

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Doug: Are you even interested in music? I have never seen you post a single music related thought.

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

You're delusional if you think getting rid of government would save people's lives. You'd be endangering the entire nation. You'd put the citizens against each other(causing murder rates to rise). And we'd be wide open to more attacks from other outsiders(leading to more innocent people killed).

Yep I gig as Chipmonk Doug and Northleft.
CD I'd love to sell you is "Northleft" Acoustic Blues, Country and Folk. I've been out there gigging since 1967.

Sue anyone who think that governments save lives is delusional. The whole point of government is the use of force against those weaker than the mob.

Doug,

I saw one of your pics from a concert at a trailer park (Arizone/New Mex/texas?). Looks cool!

Kevin

________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Afghanistan had no Government, so the taliban took over.

They had a government and a new government took over. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

I'll be hosting an open mic Wed starting the 21st. Want to come down here to AZ and be a featured performer.

Doug explain to me then, what exactly your ungovernerned plan for the USA would be. I'm intensely curious.

Why do you need a plan. People should be able to do what ever they want unless they harm someone else. If you harm someone then self defense comes into play.

Well if there's no government who's to punish the wrong doers. Or will we just go back to the days of the Salem Witch Trials

What's Wrong with America's Health Care

Some 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Because employers increasingly are moving in the direction of providing Wal-Mart-style health coverage by shifting health care costs to employees, America’s workers struggle to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments—if they can afford such coverage at all.

Of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, 8.7 million are children. Read the AFL-CIO Executive Council's call for a universal health care system based on Medicare.

Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse—to decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost. Health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation. According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, health care spending rose 10 percent in 2002 and that followed a slightly more than 10 percent increase in 2001—the largest jump in more than a decade. In the first six months of 2003, health spending rose another 8.5 percent. Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage increased nearly 13 percent in 2002. As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage.

Employers are responding to growing cost pressures by shifting more and more health care costs onto workers, especially through larger co-pays and deductibles that must be paid at the time treatment is sought.

Employer’s demands to slash health care coverage for workers was the major issue in the recent Southern California grocery workers' strike and lockout in which nearly 60,000 workers saved health care benefits and beat back employer demands to freeze pension funds after holding strong on the picket line for five months. Under grocery management’s original proposals, a worker making slightly less than $20,000 a year would have had to pay nearly $5,000 to maintain the same level of benefits they had in the previous contract.

Other cost increases hitting workers include larger hikes in the cost of family coverage, less access to needed prescription drugs through stricter HMO formularies and higher prices for more comprehensive coverage. See the Consumers Unions’ Health Care Plans and Managed Care.

Consumers are using more prescriptions, at younger ages and for more conditions, and substituting newer, more expensive medications for established products. As a result, pharmaceutical spending increased by 17.4 percent annually between 1999 and 2000 and another 16 percent from 2000 to 2001.

The lack of quality health care in the United States also stems from our system’s lack of comprehensive quality measure and assurance programs, which unions now are establishing with community partners.

Our most successful public health insurance program, Medicare, is increasingly under attack at a time when the lack of access to health care is already a crisis in America. Most Americans ages 65 and older rely on Medicare, which serves more than 40 million beneficiaries in the United States. Instead of strengthening and modernizing Medicare to include a comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors, the Bush administration in late 2003 strong-armed through Congress a Medicare prescription drug bill that moves Medicare toward privatization. The Medicare bill also:

Forced 32.5 million seniors and people with disabilities to pay higher premiums and other Medicare costs.
Dropped coverage for out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100.

Prevented the federal government from negotiating lower drug costs and does nothing to rein in soaring prescription drug prices.

Threatened the employer-provided drug benefits of millions of retirees.


Our health care system lacks safety controls that endanger front-line workers and patients. Staffing levels are dangerously low in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities. As a result, medical errors are rising—and account for an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 needless death each year. See Medical Errors and Patient Safety and 20 Steps to Prevent Medical Errors from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

How can we fix our health care system?

Require employers to pay their fair share. The U.S. system of providing health care coverage is employer-based. Unfortunately, this system leaves too many working families uninsured or under-insured. Fifty-six percent of uninsured workers worked full-time in 2002. New incentives and rules can change this. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has proposed legislation to require employers of more than 50 workers to provide employees with health insurance, and in 2003, California passed a state law (PDF) that requires employers to provide insurance for workers or pay into a state fund to insure workers. With little federal action on health care, more states are addressing health care issues.

Beware of new “defined-contribution” health care coverage. Shifting health care costs onto working families already is creating hardship at the doctor's office and the bargaining table. Now, many employers are talking about passing most or all of the risk of rising health care costs onto employees by adopting "defined-contribution" plans (also described with terms including "vouchers,” “consumer driven health care,” “tiered benefits” and “fixed premiums”).

These defined-contribution plans can come in many shapes and forms, but they share one feature that makes them different and more harmful to working families than the traditional "defined-benefit" plans, which guarantee a certain amount of coverage. In a defined-benefit plan, employees are guaranteed a fixed package of health insurance benefits. But in a defined-contribution plan, the employer pays a fixed amount toward the premium, regardless of how much it costs, leaving it to the employee to pick up the rest. So under a defined-contribution plan, a worker in poor health or someone who has a family member with medical problems would have to shoulder a much larger financial burden than a healthier person. Learn more about these plans through health care research group websites.

Provide coverage for all children. To expand health coverage to the 8.7 million children in America who today lack health insurance, Congress in 1997 passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to work with the Medicaid program to cover low- and moderate-income families. Bringing eligible families into the program requires extensive education and outreach, and unions are playing a key role. But states are facing their biggest budget crisis since World War II. Confronted with three-plus years economic downturn, and the Bush administration’s cuts in state aid, coupled with larger financial burdens imposed by new and under-funded federal mandates, states are cutting back on health care programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP.

Help curb runaway prescription drug prices by supporting state legislation that gives lawmakers the power to negotiate drug discounts with pharmaceutical companies just as HMOs and insurers do. States then can pass savings to seniors covered by Medicare and to working families who lack drug coverage and make less than 300 percent of the poverty level.

Everyone loses when health care workers are forced to work overtime and are exposed to life-threatening diseases because of unsafe equipment. After years of struggle, health care workers won federal legislation to require safer needlesticks in 2000 and 24 states now have safer needlestick laws on the books. States can pass their own legislation mandating safety devices for needles.

Other Good Sources of Information:

The Families USA website is a comprehensive source of information on health care issues affecting children, seniors and other family members and provides opportunities for action.

The uninsured includes separate sections on the general population, children and immigrants. The site also features Proposals to Expand Coverage and an Advocate’s Corner that offers media tips, a legislative action center and other resources and tools for advocacy in the area of health care reform.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the largest U.S. foundation devoted to improving the health and health care of all Americans. A related site describes the Covering the Uninsured Campaign comprising 12 national organizations working together to seek solutions of the problems of the uninsured and help state coalitions enroll more eligible families in SCHIP and Medicaid.

The Children’s Defense Fund provides useful information about the SCHIP and Medicaid program eligibility rules and way to boost outreach and enrollment.

The National Partnership for Women helps women navigate various aspects of the health care system.

The National Health Law Project website is one of the most extensive resources for health care consumers and advocates. It’s a particularly good resource on health care issues affecting low-income families and the uninsured and links to a comprehensive list of organizations and agencies around the country.

See Consumers Union: Health for information on a variety of health policy issues, including on Health Care Affordability, Health Care Reform, Health Care Plans and Managed Care, Medical Savings Accounts and Medicare.

The National Coalition on Health Care is a broad alliance of unions, employers and advocacy organizations working to improve America’s health care. It’s an excellent source for policy studies on health care in the United States.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has conducted many studies on health care in America and its website contains a wealth of information, particularly from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. It also offers a news service providing updates on critical health policy developments.

The Center for Studying Health System Change is a nonpartisan policy research organization that designs and conducts studies focused on the U.S. health care system to inform the thinking and decisions of policymakers in government and private industry. Its studies contribute to the body of health care policy research that helps decision makers to understand change and the market forces driving that change.

The National Senior Citizens Law Center website covers Medicare, Medicaid, long-term care, nursing homes and other issues affecting seniors.

Source: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/

But the answer to this cannot be more government programs.That is Washingtons answer to everything and the question American taxpayers are finally asking is "Who will pay for all this?". It is a question we should have been asking for years. Without funding from a balanced budget this nation continues to go down the tubes and it seems most politicians don't care. The silent majority is starting to care.

Duncan,
You in Government or something? There is nothing wrong with Health Care in America or probably in most of the Free World. It is who will pay for it.

When John F. Kennedy made President he said: THINK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY. The only thing he forgot to add was Send money! But Duncan the people forgot to send the money!!! So we now have a 12 Trillion Dollar Debt and growing. So Duncan, just send the money!

Health care should be paid by government/taxpayer. Sure it is going to cost a lot, but most of you will be money in. A private/public company must make a profit for themselves or their share holders. Government does not need to make a profit, just pay cost. If you are paying $10,000.00 income tax, plus paying $5,000.00 health insurance, that is $15,000.00 that you don't own. If your government takes $15,000.00 tax from you and gives you free health coverage, you are out no money, and you don't have to worry about health coverage going up each year. Governments should be able to run health care cheaper than private/public hospitals can, just think of the buying power of governments when they send out tenders for medical supplies. Those bidding lowest will pick up billions in sales, so they will keep their profit margine small, thus saving millions for the government. Hospitals now keep a staff of people just sending out bills to insurance companies, with one supplier, government, most of this staff will not be needed, a big saving.