EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senators to Square off on Public Insurance Plan
WASHINGTON — Advocates for a public insurance plan — the idea that has generated the most passion in the high-decibel health care debate — are pressing for a crucial test vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday they want a full debate on whether the government should create a health plan to compete with private insurers and sign up middle-class workers and their families. Up to now, the government has covered the elderly and the poor.
Rockefeller and Schumer had hoped their moment would come Friday, but with the committee moving slowly through hundreds of amendments to the sweeping legislation, the public plan debate was pushed off until next week.
The public option continues to enjoy broad support in opinion polls. But Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., pointedly omitted it from the far-reaching proposal he put before the panel this week, saying he doesn't think it can pass the Senate.
Liberals are eager to prove him wrong. Regardless of how the showdown goes, the battle is expected to continue on the Senate floor.
"Even though the public plan may be an underdog in the Senate Finance Committee, don't count it out," Schumer said. "It's going to be a fight that goes all the way down to the wire."
Many Democrats see the government plan as way to force accountability on what Rockefeller called a "rapacious insurance industry." Conservatives see it as a step inevitably leading to a government takeover — Medicare for all.
The Finance Committee is seen as a key testing ground because it is dominated by moderates and conservatives, generally reflecting the makeup of the Senate.
Rockefeller and Schumer plan to offer slightly different versions of a public plan, aides said. Under Rockefeller's version, the government would set payment levels for hospitals and doctors. Schumer wants negotiated payment rates, similar to what private insurers use.
Baucus has proposed setting up nonprofit co-ops as an alternative to a government plan, an idea that liberals dismiss as ineffectual. No Republican has voiced support for a public plan, although Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine says using the threat of government competition could be a good strategy to force insurers to keep the cost of premiums down.
The public plan also will be one of the top items on the agenda in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has scheduled a three-hour leadership meeting Friday morning to try to resolve differences among Democrats.
Democratic leaders are groping for consensus as they work to merge health overhaul bills passed by three separate House committees into a single piece of legislation to bring to the floor. They hope to finish by next week but plenty of issues are unresolved, ranging from restrictions on abortion funding and whether to strengthen measures to prevent illegal immigrants from getting government subsidies, to the shape of the public plan and how to pay for the bill.
Pelosi has made clear that her preference on the public plan is to structure it so that payment rates to doctors, hospitals and other providers are linked to Medicare rates. "It saves the most money," she told reporters Thursday.
But moderate Democrats prefer a different structure, one that would allow the health and human services secretary to negotiate payment rates with providers. They say Medicare rates are way too low and basing a public plan on those rates would result in underpayments to hospitals and providers in their districts that are already getting squeezed.
The Finance Committee spent much of the day Thursday focusing on how seniors would fare in a revamped health care system.
Democrats agonized over how to soothe worried seniors but decided one idea was too risky because it could antagonize the powerful drug industry whose support is critically needed for President Barack Obama's broader overhaul.
Thanks to Medicare, virtually all seniors have reliable insurance coverage — and most are happy with it. But with Democrats planning to finance an overhaul by cutting $500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, many seniors are worried their benefits will be devalued. Republicans have seized on the issue, forcing Democrats to scramble.
The Finance Committee on Thursday defeated a Democratic amendment that would have gradually closed the coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit at the expense of drug makers. Nonetheless, another proposal to shield seniors in Medicare private insurance plans from benefit cuts remained alive.
The committee voted 13-10 to reject an amendment by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., that required drug makers to rebate $106 billion over 10 years to the government for medications used by low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
Three Democrats, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Tom Carper of Delaware and Baucus, joined Republicans in voting against the proposal. Menendez and Carper warned that the amendment could undermine support for Obama's push to cover the uninsured.
Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

42 Comments so far
Show AllThis crap is beyond belief. There is so much evidence from successful mixes of public and private in other countries that it works. It is not as if the US has to start from scratch. Just pick the country that has the best mix and copy.
But then the health care industry would not be happy. Next thing you will advocate for open competitive bidding on defense contracts!
"But then the health care industry would not be happy." Exactly. People keep forgetting that the MAIN purpose of the American health care system is to make as big a profit as possible, NOT to provide health care to Americans". In any public option the exact opposite would be true, and that's why the insurance companies fear it.
Also I can never figure out why the Democrats are so completely incompetent in framing issues like this. They should know that using the word "Public" right off the bat pushes buttons on the right. It should have been named the "Freedom Option", or "America's Option", or the "Patriot's Option". Those are buzz words the Right loves, and it makes it harder to fight against them, because you come off as either being anti-Freedom, anti-American, or anti-Patriotic.
Think about it.
The "Freedom Option" will free you from working at a job you hate, but stay at for the Health insurance.
The "Freedom Option" will free you to start that small business you always wanted to but couldn't because of lack of Health Insurance.
The "Freedom Option" will free you from the fear of loosing everything you worked hard for all your life should you get very sick through no fault of your own.
Or
The "American Option":
Americans should be free to choose where they work, not shackled to jobs they hate because of Health Insurance.
Americans should be free to become the entrepreneurs that made this country great and not be stifled because of Health Insurance fears.
Americans should be free to enjoy the fruits of their hard work, and not fear it be taken away from them because of a major illness that they had no control over.
I think those are arguments that both the Right and Left can agree on and are hard to argue against. This is pretty basic stuff here. I makes you wonder how much the Dems really want to win on this issue.
Re NC-Tom September 25th, 2009 11:51 am
Good examples of reframing.
Your last comment ("It makes you wonder how much the Dems really want to win on this issue") was therefore a surprise, as I had assumed you knew what "winning" means to the Ds (keeping their corporate donors happy) is not what we would consider a win (Medicare for All).
I had assumed you knew what "winning" means to the Ds (keeping their corporate donors happy)
Yea I am all too aware of that. I should have followed my last sentence by (Sarcasm Implied!)
Thanks for clarifying, NC-Tom. The more I post here, it seems, the more irony-challenged I become.
EXCELLENTLY Stated, NC-Tom. Thank you for giving such a clear explanation.
That America's "health care" is tied to employment is the greatest contradiction against america's Greatest CLAIM:
FREEDOM.
How can one be Free if one is tied to a job and enslaved to wages and imprisoned within limited options for self-development for the sake of keeping "health care?"
How can one be Free if one's life is consumed by WORRY about health "coverage?"
the private insurance system of the USA - Enslavement to Work/Healthcare provision - makes a MOCKERY of the claims about "freedom".
Sioux Rose
NC-TOM: Be careful or Karen Hughes and her right-wing PR firm may come calling for you. Your arguments would work all too well for whatever con-job they hope (or intend) to sell regardless of its merits. You sure know (and have pointed out) the verbal buttons to press!
Great Ideas! the Freedom Option and American Option would be winners for sure.
Words have power, a lot in a name Tom.I am a medicaid recipient who MUST live at poverty level, or die.Live poor or die!Sorta like "Live Free or Die" the N.H. licence plate.I soon will be homeless again as I am losing my squat.If I can find an affordable rent I will be too "rich" for my health care.If I cannot ,I will lose it, because I don't have a street address.A Freedom option for me would be the ability to work my way out of poverty and still have access to my doctors and the medications that keep me alive.If not I will go back to self medication with herbs and nutraceutical supplements and just hope I am not arrested for not ..........or my heart gives out.
be well in peace
"Words have power,"
Johnny,
Your words have more power than mine ever could. While some of us try to argue the need for compassionate universal health care while being somewhat removed from the reality of what it means to be without it, you show us the truly stark reality of the situation many of us cannot even imagine.
I wish I could give you a "Freedom" health care Option. As a citizen of this country it should be your right. You would think a country like ours that screams that Americans should be free would provide it without a second thought. The fact it doesn't shows us how our country really regards freedom for the average person.
As I read what you wrote my eyes are heavy with tears. No one in this country should have to go through what you are going through. Your words should be carved in stone and mounted on the steps of congress, the White House and every health insurance company in this country, so the rotten self serving sons of bitches that run this God damned country have to walk past them everyday until these corporately funded disgusting pigs get off self serving asses and for once in their pitiful frigging meaningless lives do the right thing for decent people like you!
Think about it everybody, the salary of the corporate pig that runs Aetna in 2008 was over $13 million dollars. The poverty level of a single person in this country like Johnny is $10,830. What the hell does that Insurance SOB need that much money for, while a guy like Johnny struggles to survive.
Seriously what does that say about this country! I can't even put into words my complete disgust.
My apologies in advance if my language offended anyone, but I am having a real hard time containing my complete disgust in what is going on in this country.
We never had to start from scratch on anything. That was Obama BS. If you read the T.R. Reid book -- which admittedly I haven't -- but I did listen to the interview with Terry Gross and it was quite a health care primer. We already have the single-payer/private providers in Medicare (Canada), we have the government run health care system in the VA (U.K. NHS model) and we have private insurance. Actually T.R. Reid said the U.S. has all four models (I forget what the fourth model is at the moment) and that's another part of the problem. For-profit is the problem. Insurance companies and Pharma operate in all these countries but they can't rape and pillage the countryside as they do in the U.S. We are the cash cows and that's why they're fighting so viciously. We are the final frontier where they can run wild and lawless.
Call the Senators on the Finance Committee and tell them to support:
Rockefeller Amendment 187: Medicare-like Public Option (costs set at medicare +5%) with ability to negotiate on drug costs
Rockefeller Amendment 195: National marketplace, not state or regional
Wyden 248: free choice - marketplace open to all, not just uninsured and small business
Yes, those amendments, and also tell them we want Medicare for All (Sanders' bill). The "threat" of single-payer is the only thing that might enable significant reform to pass.
Remember, only a very strong public option is of any value. A half-assed PO is much worse than nothing, because it will enshrine private insurance and force everyone to buy it.
Great informative article. I was getting lost in the flurry of amendments and announcements. No surprises there, it seems, Baucus is largely sticking to his original bill which Obama supports. In other words the PO is dead, the mandate is in, the insurers won.
Don't get fooled into voting the same old gang in Congress. Everyone who didn't support single payer from the start should go. Obviously the PO was just a ruse.
It's important to realize that all Democrats who approved or voted for Pelosi or the current makeup of the Senate Finance Committee are responsible for this farce. The democrats who support a PO but approve corrupt leadership are simply playing games and dirty politics.
My thoughts exactly. I knew there was something you and us could agree on. :)
U.S. political theatricals as viewed from anywhere else around the globe cause alternate bouts of uproarious mirth and nauseating disgust -- plus total disbelief that anyone, even Americans, could possibly regard them as having any remotest relationship to actual governance of a democratic republic.
It should be painfully clear to the meanest intelligence that all of the public discussion and debate is utterly pointless and a total waste of time. It has no influence whatever on a decision making process that is completely dominated and controlled by the interests of USA Incorporated. Its relevance is equivalent and strictly limited to those televised U.S. electoral dramas that unfold periodically for pacification and diversion purposes.
But don't worry. The land of make believe will end up with something that will be announced and promoted as a "public option" by the same media that provide the justifications and coverage for all of its armed interventions and mythological benevolence globally. Just don't expect it to have any resemblance to the true universal health care that is provided by every other civilized nation in the world.
This is the way Democracy works, messy at times and the Senate is supposed to do exactly what they are doing....slow things down so that you don't have little dictators.
The old America is the worst mantra is getting a bit long in the tooth don't ya think? (not personally meant)
But....you do have a very good point that what this Congress and this Administration are trying to do has very little in common with governance indeed. That "all of the public discussion and debate is utterly pointless and a total waste of time." was a waste I'd have to disagree. It rejected soundly the very bad plan put forth by these buffoons on Health Care.
"The land of make believe will end up with something that will be announced and promoted as a "public option"
Here again I believe you are exactly right. A Pyrrhic victory at best.
I didn't actually say that America is the worst, Henry, but anyone could certainly draw some such conclusions from any objective comparisons in the field of health care, and several others as well.
As for "the way Democracy works", (is the capitalization significant?) it may be true that real democracy is a messy process, but the positive obverse isn't a valid inference. There's no doubt whatever about the messiness of U.S. political theater, but to regard that as a reflection or consequence of any real popular representation in U.S. governance "of, by and for the people" requires a very long stretch of the imagination.
Something is certainly getting a bit long in the tooth, but perhaps it's the stale and overworked theatrics themselves rather than just the commentary they provoke.
Re RV September 25th, 2009 10:51 am, whose second paragraph is worth repeating in its entirety:
"It should be painfully clear to the meanest intelligence that all of the public discussion and debate is utterly pointless and a total waste of time. It has no influence whatever on a decision making process that is completely dominated and controlled by the interests of USA Incorporated. Its relevance is equivalent and strictly limited to those televised U.S. electoral dramas that unfold periodically for pacification and diversion purposes."
The "public discussion and debate" (really, a lot of shouting past each other) has the purpose of wearing us down, so that anything emerging at the end of the process will be seen as "change." What won't change, of course, is Big Insurance/Big Pharma's dominance over both consumers and providers, a thoroughly bipartisan goal.
It's extremely important to note the avoidance of town hall meetings about Iraq, Afghanistan or the Wall Street bailouts, whose aggregate costs dwarf even the most pessimistic projections about a national health plan.
Put me in the nauseatingly disgusted column!!!!!
If the politicians in this country had an ounce of sense they would be reading and paying attention to T.R. Reid's superb book-The Healing of America:A Global Quest For Better, Cheaper And Fairer Health Care- which points out the utter failure of America's health care system while also looking at other countries, such as France, Germany, the UK, Japan, and Canada, which have successfully implemented a universal health care system in their countries. One wonders if the leaders of this country will ever acknowledge that American exceptionalism is not always the best course to follow and that other countries may have a far better way of helping its citizens than the United States does.
nancy pelosi is taking bribes tonight at the head lobbyist
for united health cares home. david serota had a article
on cd last friday with the mail showing all the details
including the ddc's contact.her job affords her the ability
to rein in bribe money like no other in d. c. they don't
give a f about the citizens of the u.s. its all about
money and power! they will regret this in the next election cycle even though i doubt pelosi's constituents have the brains
to vote her out!
Since abortion is legal in this country, why would anyone object to providing for it in health coverage?
Of course, the entire political system is bribed to support our corporatocracy (plutocracy/oligarchy), a mask for fascism under cover of a constitutional democracy. According to the National Priorities Project, the US wars (illegal under Nuremberg & our Const.) in Iraq & Afghanistan have been funded by our Congress & President (Bush II & Obama) to the tune of $914 billion since 2001. That is over $9.5 billion per MONTH, $8,100 per household. These wars, & the funding for them, are political CHOICES catering to the corporations who profit from war. We people are clearly not in the equation, unless, of course, we were to take to the streets & permanently occupy them. Single payer health care would cost less than our current annual costs for a dinosaur/profit driven system that denies coverage to millions. Virtually all countries legally prohibit provision of health care for a profit. Imagine that our society would choose to stop illegal wars destined to produce blowback (insecurity) to us, and re-direct that money to health care (not insurance, but real security) for all.
Unfortunately, however, that "mask for fascism under cover of a constitutional democracy" seems less obvious to many Americans themselves than the "of course" would imply. In fact, quite a few Americans seem willing to take up arms in order to impose that same "freedom and democracy" deception on other nations. And the "patriotism" of many more appears to consist largely in jingoistic claims to "support the troops" in their global undertakings for that purpose.
Is one to conclude that Americans are really so blind to their own victimhood, or just that misery loves company and they want to ensure, by force if necessary, that the whole world shares it with them?
We are addicted to materialism, & the IDEA of comfortable "American exceptionalism." Addictions require denial, & need for distractions from uncomfortable thoughts/feelings. The social myth of being a democracy committed to justice for all has cont'd to overwhelm the social secret that we are an oligarchy committed to exploitation of the many to benefit a few. The fantasy story is seductive, & once emotionally dependent upon it, people often will do whatever is necessary to preserve the lie since their sense of "well-being" is at stake. Yes, people, and nations, will kill to preserve lies, a sad & tragic phenomena.
True. I guess the rest of the world wouldn't mind the exceptionalist self-deceptions nearly so much if they weren't so often packaged and insistently distributed as a "take it or else" export commodity. Of course, the demands for gratitude are slightly irritating as well, especially when issued while the recipients are still mourning their incinerated kids and relatives.
The US health insurance system is a rip roaring success. It is doing what it has been designed to do - enrich CEOs, investors, and those on Wall Street. There is not much difference between the insurance companies and war. Our wars are fought to enrich weapons manufacturers.
Its all about Capitalism. Is everyone here going soft and whining just because people are dying needlessly? Capitalism 101 - enriching the wealthy is more important than human life. Things will get better when this cult-like worship of Capitalism is replaced with a more humane view.
You're quite right that the capitalist economic system is operating in strict accordance with its singular prescribed fiduciary responsiblility for self-enrichment. Capitalism itself can't be "fixed" because it's not actually broken. It's working exactly as intended.
What is not working as intended is the U.S. political and governance system that, according to the basic principles of any democracy (republican or otherwise), is supposed to provide a public interest regulatory environment within which any economic system (capitalist or otherwise) should operate. So, it's either fix that governance problem, or replace capitalism with some entirely different economic system altogether.
Real democracy is at least a known theoretical objective and, however difficult to achieve in practice, might even be a feasible goal. Theoretical alternatives to capitalist economics, on the other hand, haven't proven themselves very successful or attractive to date.
"Moderate" Democrats for phonies who believe telling the people do as we say not as we do, for they indulge in the very "socialized medicine' for themselves which they jump up and down and scream against for the folks. These people can be more accurately be referred to as hypocrites bought off as political prostitutes for the health insurance industry, and the same is true of their like minded GOP counter parts. It's high time to expose this damn hypocrisy and see about building a fire under their damn rear ends. Other than that, let's root for Texas and some other red fascist states including Alaska to secede and soon.
AD
"Moderate" Democrats for phonies who believe telling the people do as we say not as we do, for they indulge in the very "socialized medicine' for themselves which they jump up and down and scream against it for the folks. These people can be more accurately be referred to as hypocrites bought off as political prostitutes for the health insurance industry, and the same is true of their like minded GOP counter parts. It's high time to expose this damn hypocrisy and see about building a fire under their damn rear ends. Other than that, let's root for Texas and some other red fascist states to secede and soon.
AD
The latest NYTimes/CBS poll (Sept 25) shows that more than twice as many people want a public option run 'like Medicare' than not. 'Medicare for all option' is the most robust public option one can ask for, and 65% of us want it!
Interestingly, those who don't want a 'Medicare option for all' (26%) number about the same as those who think (1) the government will mandate death for our elders, and (2) illegal immigrants will be covered, both utter nonsense, venom spewed by the health care industry during the month Obama took off to play golf at Martha's Vineyard with corporate titans. Would he had worked as hard for us!
Disaster in the Making
No public option, no real cost control, every one required to purchase health insurance with a government premium subsidy - this is simply the private insurance industry’s dream come true. This sell out, this insurance industry welfare plan, will haunt the democratic party for a generation. Although I like the proposed concepts of no refusal of coverage and no cancellation, if you think that insurance companies will simply offer these changes at no increased cost, you are either a dreamer or your mental capacity is limited. Insurance company actuaries already have morbidity tables to price these changes. In addition, Obama’s request to Congress, as he has no plan, for unlimited benefits will also not come free and might face a reinsurance capacity problem unless all employer plans are exempted. If you think big government that doesn’t need to make a profit is a problem, wait until you see how the for profit only, too big to fail, insurance oligopolies address your future medical care under Wall Street’s careful guidance. Universal single payer, which has always been the best option, was rejected by Obama and now he and the Democratic Congress are on track to eliminate a public option, the only element in Obama’s insurance concept which could , if designed correctly, provide some hope of a meaningful reform of our healthcare for profit system.
great comments by RV and others
United we stand Untied we fail. Those two words look a lot alike but define opposites. Public Options and Public Opinions also appear to look like each other but not meaning the same. So we see and hear the words " Public options" but we each have our own opinion as to what that means. We need that term defined to the letter and the depth it impacts all of us. We need to see a model of it working else where in the world. We need to see who it really benefits.
We know more about fishing line tests and strengths to just have fun than we do about taking care of ourselves but we swallow their line hook line and sinker.
Bill Brown Pine City, Minnesota
Single Payer:
"Sure expanding Medicare would mean higher Medicare taxes, but what about the following:
Medicaid, the program that pays for medical care for the poor, and is funded by federal and state taxes, would be eliminated, saving $400 billion a year.
Veterans' care, currently running at $100 billion a year, would be eliminated.
Perhaps two-thirds of the $300 billion a year spent by federal, state, and local governments to reimburse hospitals for so-called "charity care" for treatment of people who have no insurance but don't qualify for Medicaid, would be eliminated.
Individuals and employers would no longer have to pay for private insurance.
Several hundred billion dollars currently spent on paperwork by private insurers would be eliminated.
Car insurance would be cheaper as there would no longer have to be coverage for medical bills.
Federal, state, and local governments would no longer have to pay to insure public employees.
In short, if every person were on Medicare, the overall savings would overwhelm the small increase in the Medicare payroll tax of 5.8%. "
http://blog.buzzflash.com/lindorff/275
"The New York Times Trashes Single-Payer"
RV:
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE OR EVEN CLOSE. IN FACT IT CAN BE ANYTHING CONGRESS WANTS IT TO BE OR NOT.
PEOPLE:
THE PUBLIC OPTION THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SEEMS TO BE FIGHTING SO HARD TO GET FOR US..... IS A TOTAL SHAM.
THEY ARE TRYING TO WEAR US DOWN BY CONFLATING THE WHOLE HEALTH CARE ISSUE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST HEALTH CARE (NOT HEALTH INSURANCE) IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
CONGRESS AND OBAMA ENJOY SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS.
STOP BEGGING THEM FOR PUBLIC OPTION ---
WE WANT SINGLE-PAYER MEDICARE FOR ALL HEALTH CARE.
OBAMA WANTS TO GIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES A MANDATE FORCING ALL PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
"I WOULD RATHER VOTE FOR WHAT I WANT AND NOT GET IT THAN VOTE FOR WHAT I DON'T WANT AND GET IT". -- EUGENE DEBS
So, how does one go about fixing the problem here. The problem has little to do with health care and much to do with a health care industry that has a strangle hold on our government. How do you fix that? Where do you start?
ComputrGeek
I think what should be done is what I suggested yesterday and that is to have every member of Congress read T.R. Reid's most excellent and relevant book-The Healing of America: A Global Quest For Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. This is also a book that I greatly recommend to the readers of Common Dreams. In the book, Reid, a correspondent for the Washington Post, writes about the failed health care system in this country and travels to other countries, such as France, Germany, the UK, Japan, and Canada, in order to determine how these countries have managed to provide universal health care for its citizens. As Reid stresses, none of these countries' ways of providing health care for its citizens is perfect but, as he takes pains to point out, in none of those countries or any other advanced industrialized country will any of its citizens die because they did not have proper health care [only the US, where approximately 20,000 people die each year, can make that claim] and nor will any of them have to file for bankruptcy because they were unable to pay for their medical bills which, as we know, is what happens in the [alleged] best democracy in the world.
I am only a little ways into the book [right now I am on the chapter that deals with Germany's health care system] but I suspect that Reid may recommend that the US attempt to implement the best plans that these countries have to offer while discarding the ones that do not. What would also help is to have an informed citizenry. Unfortunately, when my wife and I went to a pharmacy to receive our flu shots yesterday, this would seem to be an uphill battle as two women at this small town complained that one does not have a choice under a universal health care plan. What made this statement particularly bizarre is that one of the women was complaining to the saleswoman that the price of her prescription pills was too high. The irony is that the countries that Reid is visiting in his book certainly provide not only a wide variety of choices [in Germany, for example, patients can choose any doctor or hospital that he or she wishes] while prescription drugs cost a fraction of what they cost in the good old USA. The suspicion is that these women have been probably brainwashed by Fox "News". What was encouraging is that the pharmacist, after speaking to me, did write down the name of Reid's book. The hope is that he will go ahead and buy the book in order to realize that it way past the point where the US should look to other countries in order to find out how they are able to meet the basic health care requirements of its citizens.
One problem we have is that our system has created an alliance between the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry that allows astronomical prices for medicine in this country. The pharmaceutical industry has been allowed to infiltrate the medical education system as well so new doctors believe that drugs are the first answer to any ailment.
Another excellent book on this topic is "Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine."
Any changes we make "for the better" would have to put an end to the pharmaceutical industries power in the government (including the FDA) and would also need to provide some major reforms on how these companies may operate within the US.
Senators and representatives in the US Congress intend to first and foremost stiff and betray the American working class every step of the way. They're career criminals working on behalf of health insurers and other corrupt American corporations.
President Obaminable's only goal is to repay the financiers who put him in power. Second goal is to keep fooling the Lesser Evilists, Dem Party Apologists and Dem Party Kool-aid Drinkers that are his base so he can reelected. The cycle never ends.