The subject of health care reform has been a big issue in Washington and the news media for the past year. Citizens jumped into the fray, for the most part uninvited, when it became apparent that our elected representatives were botching the process. Town hall meetings, rallies and protest marches sent a message to legislators that they were out of step, if not out of touch with mainstream Americans. Recent election results from Massachusetts indicates the will of the people is something politicians shouldn't ignore.

Democrats cannot write bills behind closed doors and try to jam legislation through based on their current power in Washington. By the same token, Republican have got to stop hiding in the weeds and taking shots at everything the opposing party does. Rather, it's time to go back to the peoples' business. This means agreeing that the health care system needs to undergo significant change over an extended period of time but in a common-sense, fiscally-responsible, bi-partisan manner. Otherwise, the finger pointing and bickering in Washington will spell the end of the careers for many politicians.

It's not rocket science. Health insurance costs continue to climb. Too many Americans are without coverage. Waste, fraud and abuse abounds within the system. The problems can't be addressed or fixed all at once. So, let's agree that health care is going to be studied immediately and adjusted over time with the goal being coverage we can afford and quality of care second to none. We can figure out how to make this work, but do the politicians, the insurance companies and the medical organizations must come together, forget their own agendas and start considering what's best for the citizens of this country?

As part of the pre-boomer generation (those born between 1930 and 1945), I remember how people from all walks of life came together and fought our enemies in World War II. Folks forgot about labels. We weren't Democrats or Republicans we were Americans pulling together in a common cause. If addressed honestly, health care can be something that unites rather than divides us.

Remember, health care accounts for about a sixth of our economy. This is a real concern when combined with a deficit beyond belief, out-of-control government spending and a double-digit unemployment rate that just won't go day. On top of this, there are more spending plans waiting to be introduced in Congress. The only thing to do is to stop Washington from doing what it's been doing or we're going to keep getting what we've been getting. Translated, this means no new spending. Prioritize the country's need. And re-evaluate where our money is going now and where it needs to go in the future.

At the same time, businesses around the country need to join in the fight to keep America afloat and bring it back to the land of opportunity. This requires the best minds we have focusing on what they know best to get the job done. By applying this same kind of discipline to health care reform, we will undoubtedly end up with something that meets the needs of each individual American. And, that's good for all of us.

By: Don Potter
Don Potter, a Philadelphia native, was born in 1936 and is a 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Now living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement, frequently writes on marketing issues, and has a blog dedicated to pre-boomers (those born between 1930 and 1945).

Read more articles for and about pre-boomers with thoughts, comments and opinions designed to spark thinking, foster discussion, and stimulate debate by logging on to http://www.pre-boomermusings.com

Like millions of other Americans, I watched the President deliver his speeches on healthcare before Congress and America, shouting and all. As neither a Democrat nor Republican, I am unfettered by the need to promote some party line or talking points. But I do have an opinion.

So here are my impressions:

1. The President does not either accept or understand how markets work. I have seen this in pretty much all of his utterances on business and markets in general. I am not sure if he is a socialist at his core or just doesn't accept free market principles, but regardless he doesn't get it.

2. The President freely uses stories without foundation to support his arguments. No, I am not calling out "You lie!" However, I am calling him a pretty typical politician. For example, he cited in his now infamous speech, a couple of examples of insurance companies dropping coverage on sick people. He just conveniently left out the part about how both of his examples lied on their insurance applications about their health histories and how one of them got covered for a major treatment anyway! Oh, and he left out the part about how health insurance is not like car insurance in that it is illegal for any health insurer to drop anyone for any reason other than they lied when they filled out the application. If you tell the truth on your application, get accepted, and then get sick later, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. If you lie, you do. Which is only right and logical, no?

3. President Obama keeps talking about saving half of the cost of the new health reform with savings in Medicare by reducing "waste". Okay, trivia question, has there ever been a successful government run program where waste has been eliminated? No, not one. Since government programs are run by bureaucracies as opposed to private companies, profit and loss are not concerns to be considered. Why would anyone expect waste to be eliminated without consequence? This is why seniors hear "savings" and think "rationing". They are correct as the ONLY way for a bureaucracy to save real money is to ration benefits, period.

Look, the thing is that we need to discern the difference between a problem and a crisis. Health care and its cost are a problem, sure; it is not a crisis. We can do a couple of common sense things like malpractice reform and opening up insurance to interstate competition (like practically every other kind of insurance) and leave it at that for now. After all, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we are in the middle of a deep recession and this is no time to monkey around with a sixth of the whole economy, especially in a rush.

Which leads me to my last question: Since it is a given that most, if not all of the politicians voting on this thing have not actually read the bills (there are several and each is over 1000 pages), why the rush giving everyone a chance to study? Could it be that the more you know, the less you may like it?

By: Herb Kay
Herb Kay, self-made millionaire, best-selling author, nationally recognized finance and business expert, and creator of Herb Kay's S.O.S. System (http://www.HerbKaySOS.com), offers his insight into the world of everything from business to personal finance with a style all his own. It's the Herb Kay Way! For more information on Herb Kay and his products and services, please click http://www.herbkaysos.com/HerbKayPress.php

I am very concerned about the new drugs the drug companies are producing to treat various diseases and conditions. One especially has impacted my life and my wife's to the extent that we had the most disastrous ten months of our lives. I am presently 72 and my wife is 68 and we were very active and spent as much time as we could watching our five grandchildren. If that does not keep you in pretty good shape then nothing else will.

My wife has a condition known as gastroparesis which is the abnormal emptying of the stomach into the digestive tract. The stomach empties very slowly and causes discomfort to the person. It can be very disconcerting. We went to a gastroentrologist and he prescribed a drug called metroclopromide. The name metoclopromide is the generic term for Reglan, made by various manufacturers. She took this drug at every meal from April up to December. It seemed to work well for the first few months.

By June she started having the most severe feelings of nervousness and insomnia. Jerking movements of the legs and feet and the inability to sit still. Jaw clenching and mouth twisting and chewing motions. The symptoms seem to mimic parkinsonism to a degree with facial grimacing and lassitude, and mainly described by a disorder called tardive dyskinesia with hand tremors and involuntary movements of the trunk and extremities and the mouth and face. The person develops the inability to sit still and deep depression develops and suicidal feelings can develop.

I can remember feeling as if I were going to lose her to a possible physical and or mental breakdown. We were frantic going from one doctor to another for help in finding out what was happening and why? The doctors tried many different medications and none made a big enough difference to help in any real way. We went to see a psychiatrist and an internist and a parkinson specialist and several other specialists trying to find the cause of all these symptoms.

By the time things became really bad, she lost her appetite altogether and ate very little and stopped taking the metoclopramide in December. Things started to improve slightly and we started to look on the web for things we could try. At the time we did not connect the medication to the problems. We eventually found that the drug had been investigated because of the great many people that were reporting adverse symptoms and reactions and that the FDA had issued a black box warning to be placed on metoclopramide . When we did look up the drug we found that their were many lawsuits going forward and even class action suits. The other problem was that doctors were not advised about strictly limiting the use of the drug for periods of not more than six weeks. This warning came in late February of 09.

After several months the symptoms she had, started to ease up but very slowly. The return of feeling and the loss of the abnormal movements took a period of several months. Thank God they gradually disappeared after the awful time we spent dealing with them and trying to stop them by using every means we knew of. It was a very stressful time in our lives. We had literally gone through hell.

I have looked up the effects of this medication and in a large number of cases the symptoms are irreversible. Their are so many problems associated with this medication that I am very surprised that the FDA has allowed its use. It was not until February that they mandated a black box warning for the drug. And that only after the emergence of the cases effecting all those people and the seriousness of the symptoms.

Our case is one of many that have been effected by the use of this drug. I can only imagine how many other drugs their are that have not been completely tested and their contraindications and side effects thoroughly tested. It seems as if the drug companies are trying to get these drugs to the market so fast, they lose sight of the very real possibilities of danger to the patient.

I am sure that their are many people who would be willing to take any medications if they could only relieve the symptoms that they have. People will try anything to treat what they are going through and especially to stop pain at any cost. That does not mean that dangerous drugs should be made available to a marketplace without the most thorough and complete testing possible.

Their are places where drug trials are made involving people who will accept any risk to relieve their symptoms or diminish their pain or for any number of problems they have. This does not give the drug companies the right to put drugs into the marketplace without rigorous testing as to length of use, dosages, and every conceivable problem that could arise.

No drug is without some risk but it is their duty to make that risk as small as is humanly possible for each and every drug they place into the marketplace. The FDA should be more than just a rubber stamp for the information the drug companies supply from their own investigations and tests. Independent testing must be stressed for every new drug submitted from drug companies to the FDA and be backed up by universities equipped to do the testing.

Their would be a great many problems to be worked out to set up a program like that but it must not be run by the government. They have an abysmal record in running any program for the benefit of the people without getting all the special interests involved. It seems that today in Washington, it is the largest pig trough for all the special interests to line up and get their cut out of every program set up. Senators and congresspeople also line up for their contributors to get special treatment and make money.

The problem remains for us to receive the best and safest and most tested drugs for human consumption to treat specific problems that humans can devise. Drugs with side effects that can be more dangerous than the conditions they are to treat must be eliminated and not put on the market just so drug companies can recoup the money they spent on research if the drug does not pan out as safe.

The FDA had been set up to test and approve or disapprove drugs based on information provided but we must insist that they provide rigorous testing on their own and not accept drug trial information as gospel from drug companies.It is a very complicated system we have now but it must be made more open and able to be checked and rechecked. Doctors can only use drugs safely if they are given complete and honest and up to date information about the drugs they prescribe for their patients with all the side effects honestly given them from the FDA and not supplied by drug companies alone. Drug companies send their representatives around to doctors offices to ply them with trips, free vacations, dinners, and many other types of gifts to influence the way they prescribe and use their products over others. This graft has to stop. Drug companies must not be allowed to give any inducements to doctors or hospitals for them to use one drug over another for any reason other than it is a superior product.

Drug companies could hold seminars and invite all doctors and give them all dinner while explaining the new drugs and their uses and their testing and safety. Their is nothing wrong with that approach as it gives the doctor what they need to know and the drug company the audience to prove their drugs efficacy. If we as a nation of consumers do not take the time to look into what is going on around us and try and take steps to do what we can to improve things for ourselves and our children then we will deserve what we get. The drugs we use for ourselves and our children make it our responsibility to assure their safety. Ask the doctors if the drugs they are prescribing are free from side effects harmful to us. Do not be afraid to speak up! If you do not , then who will.

It is up to you America to make the time for problems that effect us all and make changes in the laws and rules and regulations that allow unfair practices to continue. Remember! " All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing " Wake up people!

By: Paul Pajaken
I am a 72 year old former marine. Discharged honorably in 1958. Owned and operated a long distance moving company leased to Allied Van Lines for 16 years. Married in 1964 and raised 3 children. Worked for an importing and exporting liquor co. I now have 5 grandchildren and I love them dearly. I started writing because of what I see happening to my country and to protect it. Disabled from auto accident and 9 spinal surgeries.

Much has been written on this site and others, about the fallacy of a successfully run government healthcare delivery system in the United States.

Whether it is labeled single-payer, socialized medicine, national healthcare, etc., it is all the same and it will never work in America. In virtually every nation where the government runs the healthcare system, costs have risen well beyond expectations; long waits for treatment are commonplace; care is rationed and some treatments are denied; and taxes have increased to pay for the unexpected cost increases. There are no truly successful nationalized healthcare systems, when quality of care is compared to the gold standard: The U.S. healthcare system. By most measures however, the U.S. lags behind many other industrialized nations.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 24th in the world in life expectancy. This statistic alone should be cause for alarm, but upon further examination, we learn that the reasons have little to do with our healthcare system and more to do with the way we drive, what we eat, our violent behavior, our tobacco use, and our substance abuse.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare, per capita, than virtually every other industrialized country. But again, if we examine why, we find that this has much more to do with factors other than the actual cost of healthcare, like legal awards and fees, defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, the high cost of advanced technology, and certainly not least; the high cost that we all incur for the government mandates placed on health insurance companies.

We pay more for prescription drugs than any other country. However, the cost of drugs still remains only about 10% of our total cost of healthcare. Upon further examination, we can thank our own government for this. More on this later.

There is no arguing against significant reform of our healthcare system, but the prescription for the cure cannot be written by our current government. The Democrats in control of the U.S. government have only one fix; more government. They know no other way, it is in their DNA. But even putting aside politics, there is no way for a single payer system to work in America. Here is why...

Our Legal System: The American Bar Association would have us believe that litigation accounts for only 1% of total healthcare costs. This may be true for jury awards, but they are leaving out the biggest drivers of legal costs within the healthcare system. Things like legal fees for the defense, defensive medical practices, and malpractice insurance premiums are not factored in to the ABA figure.

Countries that rank above us in healthcare, according to the W.H.O., all limit plaintiff awards and have nowhere near the medical litigation we have in the U.S. In fact, if we were to just copy the medical-legal reforms of France, we could bring down healthcare costs in a significant way. Healthcare reform without true tort reform is only a haphazard attempt.

Immigration Law Enforcement: Virtually none of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. have healthcare insurance, since one needs a valid Social Security number in order to obtain coverage. Knowing that emergency rooms cannot turn away patients, the illegals have turned so many emergency rooms across the country into their primary care providers and pay nothing. These costs must be paid, so they are shifted to paying customers, driving the cost of an emergency room visit up for everyone except of course, for those who do not pay.

Illegal immigrants get sick, they get pregnant, they get into auto accidents and work-related accidents, they are involved in violent crimes, etc. If one multiplies the likelihood of these events by the millions of illegal immigrants, the result is enormously costly to us all.

Until we take strong measures to secure our borders and rid the country of those here illegally, we will continue to incur these costs.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse: Drug abuse in the U.S. is higher, per capita, than in any other industrialized country. The insidious drug abuse crisis in this country is a major driver of healthcare costs. Emergency room visits, mental health treatment, counseling and rehabilitation, and criminal activity all place upward pressure on the cost of healthcare.

Alcohol abuse is also responsible for a large percentage of serious auto accidents, which puts tremendous pressure on the system.

Government Mandates on Insurance Coverage: When advocacy groups successfully lobby congress or state governments and pressure them to force insurance companies to cover certain illnesses, it affects us all in the form of higher premiums. Many of us pay for coverage we don't want or need, but they are forced upon us by our own government. One example is mental illness coverage. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, an advocacy group and lobbyist, successfully coerced government to consider mental illness on par (parody) with physical illness, resulting in the mandate that every health insurance policy must cover mental illness. However, the group didn't stop there; the scope of coverage was broadened over time to include such things as alcohol counseling, addiction counseling, and medication for shy people (now referred to as Social Anxiety Disorder). Severe mental illness can be catastrophic to the families of the mentally ill. Treating these patients can be very costly and coverage should be available in catastrophic insurance policies. But to mandate that every health insurance policy must cover the mildly depressed or shy or those who have difficulty paying attention drives premiums up for everyone.

The result of this is the expectation that every personality quirk must be treated by a doctor with expensive medicines. This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the system. Drugs designed to treat even mild mental illness are some of the costliest and most widely prescribed medicines.

A married couple in their fifties should not be forced to pay for maternity coverage; they should be allowed to negotiate it out of their policy in exchange for a lower premium. Shouldn't we be able to choose which coverage we want based on our individual needs? Unfortunately, government usually forces onto the majority, what is demanded by the minority.

In a single payer system, could the government roll back some of these mandated coverages without a revolt? Or would it simply continue to treat these illnesses and pay for it with mammoth tax increases? Probably the latter.

The Great Melting Pot: As preposterous as it sounds to the educated among us, the diversity that makes America unique will also make it nearly impossible to implement a nationalized healthcare system. Let me explain.

The United States is the least homogeneous country in the industrialized world. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we fail to see ourselves as Americans first, we have no inherent vested interest in the country. America is perhaps the only country in the world that insists on hyphenated labels for everyone. We cannot simply be Americans of African descent, or of Asian descent. No, we must be African-American, or Asian-American. Are there African-Austrians or Asian-Canadians? I don't know, but I have not heard of any. My point is the great sense of nationalism and American pride that used to exist in America has been under assault for much of the last forty years. During this time, the tide has turned; instead of the U.S. Government playing the role of the great unifier to unite many groups into one great nation of Americans, it seeks to divide us along racial lines. The political Left has successfully segregated our society into a bunch of victim groups with their politically correct social engineering. In one of the greatest speeches of our time, John F. Kennedy implored us to ask not what our country can do for us- ask what we can do for our country. Over time, JFK's own party has completely turned his appeal to Americans around 180 degrees.

This has rapidly created an entitlement mentality among a large percentage of our population. Nowhere is this entitlement mentality more evident than in the realm of healthcare.

We have already seen the havoc wreaked on our healthcare system when care is provided by the government. Studies of the Medicaid system have shown the average Medicaid patient accesses the healthcare system about ten times more than those on private plans or self-pays. In addition to free healthcare, we provide a cab ride to and from the provider's location.

The Cost of New Medicines: There is no disputing the fact that Americans pay more for their prescription drugs than any other nation. To change this, we must first examine the causes. A certain amount of greed does exist on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, but this greed is what has given us some of the most innovative advances in medicine. It is a fact that most of the life-saving and life-changing molecular compounds have been developed with the hope of a profitable return on the investment, and without the superior economic landscape of the United States since World War II, finding and creating these compounds would be less likely to be a profitable endeavor. We can thank greed for our current quality of life and the dramatic decrease in infant mortality.

The very government that seeks to find a cure for the rising cost of prescription drugs is mostly to blame for these costs. In most other countries, one can go to the local pharmacy and purchase many of our prescription medicines without a prescription. Like any other government agency, the FDA does not like to give up control. When it reluctantly does however, we see a dramatic drop in drug prices. A case in point is the drug, Prilosec. Prilosec was at one time, a $5 billion a year cash cow for its manufacturer, AstraZeneca. Has anything changed in the ingredients or strength of Prilosec since it became an over-the-counter medicine? No; other than the fact that people can afford it now, and a doctor visit is not required to obtain it, it is the same drug that required a prescription before its patent expired. There are several classes of medicines the FDA knows are relatively safe, but chooses to keep them classified as prescription drugs.

The approval process for prescription drugs is a costly and arduous one for pharmaceutical companies. It requires three phases of testing, and once a compound is submitted for approval, the patent protection clock begins. Although pharmaceutical companies make their best educated guess as to which discoveries to submit for approval, the FDA approves about one out of nine submittals, on average. $300-$900 million later, a drug may make it to market. This is the preponderant reason that a pill which costs ten cents to manufacture is priced at five dollars. The fact that many in Congress do not understand this should be troubling to all of us.

In a single payer system, will the government simply set the prices of prescription medicine? If so, we can forget about any more innovative advances in drug treatments. Of course one could argue that the pharmaceutical industry appears to support the public option, currently being debated. The reason is simple; a short-term revenue attitude is pervasive among the industry leaders, who are beholden to stockholders. If forty to sixty million new potential patients are being written new prescriptions, simple math shows a huge potential windfall for the industry. The same reason caused the industry to climb on board the Medicare Modernization Act, signed by President Bush; a whole new market opened up.

Race Baiting: There exists today, an entire industry of race baiting for financial and political gain. After watching Barak Obama's inauguration speech, I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that we now have overcome a giant racial hurdle by having as our president a black role model, who is a devout and educated family man. I refused to believe Rush Limbaugh's assertion that racial tension would increase, not decrease as a result of Obama's presidency. After all, how could we be a country of racists when 52% of the electorate voted for a black man for president? But this is why Mr. Limbaugh is smarter than I; he looked past the obvious and foresaw what the Liberal White Americans would resort to when their guy is backed into a corner. Now, the race card is dealt to any American who publically opposes the current administration's policies. Dissent was patriotic under Bush, but it is racist under Obama.

Now imagine a healthcare system that does not provide immediate and superior care to minorities. Never mind that we would all have to put up with slow and inferior care in a government healthcare system, there would be cries of institutional racism from the race pimps who depend on racism for their living. Just like a whole new market would open up for pharmaceutical companies, the new market for the race industry would be enormous.

Crime: violent crime accounts for a large percentage of costly, emergency trauma treatment in urban areas. Will we be required to pay for this treatment in a government-run system? Of course we will. With our current rate of violent crime, this could easily break the bank.

Liberal Sacred Cows: Congress has already begun taxing certain behaviors that may place a financial burden on the healthcare system, like tobacco, and will not stop there. We are sure to see tax increases on sugary soft drinks, food with high fat content, alcohol, etc. Will we see a tax on homosexuality? HIV is a significant burden on the system, especially in certain areas of the country. What is a major cause of HIV in America? Unprotected gay male sex. What about abortion? Will all Americans be forced to pick up the tab for a procedure most are morally against? We all know the answers to these questions.

Often times, a new product is test marketed on a small scale prior to a national rollout. Government-paid healthcare has been test marketed already, and it has failed everywhere it has been tried in the United States. Medicare is always on the verge of insolvency, until taxes are raised to pay for shortfalls. Medicaid is on life support in nearly every state in the nation; only tax increases keep it afloat. Our Veteran's Administration healthcare system is a perfect example of a U.S. Government run system which fails its members on almost every level. In Tennessee, Tenncare, a program which sought to expand state coverage to an additional 500,000 people using managed care organizations, eventually the program ran out of money, was ripe with fraud and abuse, and was completely revamped on a much smaller scale. In Massachusetts, the shortfall is so great that the state may have to end its state healthcare system or raise taxes in an already heavily taxed state.

The sales pitch usually begins with slick politicians promoting a "pay-as-you-go" or "revenue neutral" plan. Remember, to liberal Democrats, every program is revenue-neutral when they are using Monopoly money to pay for it. There will never be cuts in any budget other than defense. If costs rise, which they will, tax increases and care rationing will rule they day.

The Democrats know a single-payer system will not work but clearly, implementing a successful program is not their goal. It is evident that total government control is the endgame for the Liberals in Congress and President Obama. Government already controls about half of all healthcare expenditures with the efficiency of...well, insert any government agency name here.

A single payer healthcare system in the U.S. would be a disaster by any measure and must be vigorously opposed . The current plan being promoted by Democrats is another step toward an incremental takeover of the healthcare industry

By: Adam Nardone
http://www.theplanetbuzz.com
Adam Nardone, Senior Editor, Director of Research -Tax Policy. Mr. Nardone is a policy analyst, specializing in tax and economic studies. He holds a B.A. from University of Nebraska, and a M.A. from American University.

• The Correlation of Fiscal Policy and the Business Cycle
• The Cost of High Cronyism
• Recklessness Cloaked in Righteousness
• Obama Vs. America

Politically, Adam Nardone is closest to Libertarian. He extols the wonders and advances of Free Market Capitalism and subscribes to laissez-faire doctrine. Other interests include Politics and Pop Culture. An avid College Football and Baseball fan, Mr. Nardone has written articles for various sports websites and pens a weekly sports blog for The Planet Buzz, as well.Mr. Nardone resides in the Arizona with his wife and children.

The debate over national healthcare is being discussed throughout the country in town hall meetings from coast to coast this month of August, as congress is in summer recess. It made me think of a personal comparison I have between our healthcare system and what we can find in Canada.

Sometime in mid-October of 2008, I managed to injure my left shoulder in an accident while doing some work at home. I was moving some boxes that I had stored in my garage and I stumbled over something. In the process I managed to catch my fall by stretching my left hand out to the wall. My hand grasped the wall, but the momentum kept my body moving forward. The result was very painful as I forced my arm and shoulder back into an unnatural position.

Now, I'm not the type person that runs to the doctor whenever I get a headache or upset stomach. I did some self-administered first-aid immediately and returned to work on Monday. Luckily, for me it had happened early on Saturday morning, so I had the week-end to take it easy. I thought, that if I just took it easy I would heal in time, you know - body heal thyself. Needless to say, that didn't happen. I called for a doctor's appointment.

When I was examined by my doctor, he decided to send me to a specialist. He thought it might be a torn rotator cuff. After having an MRI scan a few days later, I returned to the specialist and he advised me I could have surgery or do some physical therapy that might help. I decided that therapy was the route to take. I had therapy 2-3 times a week for several weeks then was left on my own to continue the therapy exercises I had been taught. To this day I haven't had any surgery.

Unknown to me at the time and not for about a month after my injury had occurred , I learned that a Canadian , I'll call him Bill, working for the same company as myself, had suffered the same injury about the same time as mine. When I asked about him and what he was doing about it, his supervisor told me that he was on the waiting list for an MRI test. He told me that it wasn't scheduled until mid-January 2009. To make a long story short, the essence of this story is: by the time Bill had his MRI test, I had seen my regular doctor, been to a specialist (an orthopedic), had an MRI test, back to the specialist and started on and was about half way or more through my physical therapy sessions at the doctor's office.

Recently, I ran into a coworker of Bill's and asked him about Bill. He told me that Bill finally returned to work about the end of this June or first part of July. Also, that he had hated every minute of the time off. I had expressed to my doctor that I didn't want any restrictions placed on me and continued working after the injury. I don't believe that was a choice for Bill.

Now, one could say, but his healthcare was provided by the government and therefore free, mine wasn't free. Oh really? It's true, I had to pay a copay each time I went to see a doctor and each time I had a physical therapy session. However, the copay was reasonable and affordable and worth the cost to me. Is his healthcare really free? Wonder what he pays in income taxes compared to me. All the waiting time he had to experience, was amazing to me.

Some questions that could be considered when discussing national healthcare might be the following:

If something is working why change it?

If something has some things that need to be reformed, then why not address those places for reform instead of establishing a whole new national healthcare system run by the government?

If there is so many millions of people without healthcare, why not establish some form of national healthcare for them and leave the majority of people who are satisfied with their healthcare alone?

If government takes over with national healthcare, one might ask, when has government ever ran anything that has ever worked?

Has government monopoly on anything ever proved to be cost efficient?

Can the healthcare insurance industry compete against government?

If a national healthcare system, Obamacare, is so great, then why has congress, Democrats, voted that they do not have to participate in a national healthcare system?

Do you want another federal bureau run by another czar or czarina, unanswerable to "we the people", making healthcare decisions about you and your family?

Or

Do you want to have the power with your chosen doctor/doctors concerning decisions about your health and not have some government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor?

Do you want to have a loved one turned down by a government bureaucracy for treatment, because they are too old for that treatment, because the government figures it's not cost efficient?

What about the possibility of rationing with national healthcare?

What about the issue of research and development? Would there be any incentives for research and development by the medical profession or by pharmaceutical companies if the federal government was running national healthcare?

Do you trust the government to take care of your healthcare needs?

Can we really afford a trillion dollars or more in government spending on national healthcare?

Do we really want government to take care of us from cradle to grave? Or do we want government to leave us alone and let us take care of ourselves?

These are some questions that might be pondered on and some that might be asked at town hall meetings that are taking place this month throughout the country.

I'm no expert on this issue of national healthcare. I don't have all the answers to the questions. I do listen and read as much as I can to the debate. I believe in limited government and personal responsibility. I don't believe that government should be the answer to all the problems we as Americans face. I don't want my government to turn into the nanny state. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, however I define that to be. I want government to protect these things for me, not define what they are for me.

Perhaps national healthcare is not about national healthcare. Instead, maybe, it's more about more government power, what do you think? I think, the more powerful government becomes the more liberty and freedom "we the people" lose, do you agree? If you agree with that, then would you agree that once lost, it would be almost impossible to regain that liberty and freedom? Perhaps establishing national healthcare is another step by the Obama Administration in changing this country into The U.S.S.A. - The United Socialist States of America - "...change we can believe in..." Right!?

By: Thomas Noffsinger
I invite you to view my blog at: http://www.politicalthoughts-libertytom.blogspot.com
Tom Noffsinger aka Liberty Tom.

The White House has released another of its health care reform clarification emails--- there will be more. It seems strange to me that the focus is on insurance coverage rather than on the spiraling costs of the health care itself.

Frankly, the drafters of the insurance reforms have little, if any, understanding of insurance, risk assessment, or underwriting--- and nary a clue about running a business. But why should they care? This is Robin Hood politics, not business. Why do we continue to re-elect them is a far better question.

Incidentally, I am not a health insurance salesman or healthcare professional--- just a payer of far too much in small-group insurance premiums in spite of a crazy-high deductible!

Insurance is neither a cost of obtaining healthcare services nor an expense associated with those services. Insurance is an agreement in which a private company agrees to pay part of someone else's medical expenses in exchange for premiums it collects in advance from all of its insureds.

If President Obama owned the New World Order Health Insurance Company, he would not be willing to insure an applicant with brain cancer nor would he be willing to pay an unlimited lifetime benefit to all insureds--- not without a premium that reflects the risks to his personal bank account.

Theoretically, insurance companies collect enough in premiums to operate profitably while paying all the claims they have agreed to pay under contracts with the individuals and groups that they insure. If we add more risk, the insurance company has no choice but to increase premiums.

The persons who own the insurance companies (you and me, pal) expect them to operate profitably. The companies employ thousands of actuaries, healthcare industry expense analysts, claims adjusters, fraud inspectors, service personnel, underwriters, risk assessors, etc. to assure that this happens.

Insurance companies protect us by standing ready to pay "covered" expenses over and above whatever deductions, exclusions, and limitations are agreed upon in advance. There is a viable legal contract between the parties--- financial disasters are avoided if we get really sick.

Within the terms of their agreements, insurance companies determine who is insurable, and at what premium. Their job is to pay covered medical expenses--- and they have a vested interest in keeping medical expenses as low as possible. But do they really?

Just as the financial crisis was partially caused by business conflicts of interest so too are there conflicting interests in the insurance-healthcare-drug-medical supply industries. These conflicts reduce the natural desire to control the costs of all healthcare services.

We can control the industry to eliminate the conflicts of interest. We can (and should) police the boardrooms of insurance companies to eliminate "abuse of shareholders" through excessive salary packages.

Perhaps we should require health care insurers to be "mutual" companies, or maybe "network" doctors should not be allowed to bill patients for amounts above what the insurance actually pays. Maybe the annual deductible could be dealt with differently without increasing premiums.

We can tax for-profit hospitals higher to encourage more non-profit care facilities; we can keep doctors, insurance and drug companies from owning hospitals; we can cap jury awards for medical malpractice or error, and we can give tax relief to medical practitioners who provide free health services to the indigent and uninsurable.

But the government's efforts to redefine insurance are counter-productive. As cold as it may sound, if we make insurance companies cover pre-existing brain tumors, the expense is coming out of your pocket in the form of higher insurance premiums or higher taxes--- and it's likely that the healthiest among us will be the ones paying the increased taxes.

The White House list of reforms, every one of them, would increase insurance company costs and our premiums while doing nothing to reduce the price of the medical services we receive. They only sound good to those who do not understand insurance.

Insurance is designed to pay the bills--- reforms need to make the bills smaller for everyone. Does this plan cut any costs, or just increase insurance premiums for those who will still be able to pay them?

Group health (and even dental) insurance is a benefit used by many employers to attract and retain employees. I've heard rumors that the reform plan will tax employers who don't provide insurance and tax those employees who receive the benefits. True or not, neither approach helps the economy or reduces health care expenses--- both raise taxes for everyone.

Insurance can only be made more affordable by reducing the costs of the healthcare that is provided. Let's focus on streamlined record keeping, controlling ambulance chasers, jury awards, drug company advertising, an army of lobbyists, and industry conflicts of interest.

We should also make all government employees, from the top down, dance to the same tune as the rest of us--- that'll do away with the tax on benefits. Then, next chance you get, do away with an incumbent.

By: Steve Selengut
Sanco Services
Author: "The Brainwashing of the American Investor: The Book that Wall Street Does Not Want YOU to Read" and "A Millionaire's Secret Investment Strategy".