Republicans who supported end-of-life counseling go silent as topic gets controversial

How is that so difficult to understand?

People also need to understand if you have insurance that you're happy with, most of this doesn't apply to you. You'll go on doing what you're doing as well as reap some of the benefits of the reform. So please quit trying to kill health care reform for the rest of us who are in dire need of affordable health care for our families.

It never ceases to amaze me that this health care reform, which is still being written by members of both parties, is being attacked by right wing radicals merely because we have a Democrat for a President. 80% of Americans including doctors and even to some degree insurance companies, want health care reform. The AMA and AARP are behind the funding for a lot of ads right now trying to dispel the lies started by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, who both have excellent health care by the way.

Thanks for showing us the article. It's another example showing how the Republican Party does NOT have the interests of the people in mind. Seems the scare tactics get more traction with the right-winger activists.

I'm ready for the humor. How can this change of partisan rhetoric be defended?

What is funny, as in weird, is the fact that the most prominent right wing voices, creating discord and confusion, are people with messy lives. I am glad that Limbaugh and Palin are so openly dishonest and hateful , because the majority of Americans won't buy into it. Who are to fear are those unseen mega-money powers who are propping up all those Limbaughs and Palins, only to discard them when they are no longer useful.

What We the People have to do is stay on course, the American course charted by the creators of this nation. It is that simple. It may sound like a shopworn platitude, but it is not. It is fact. At this point, most of us do not know what is fact or fiction about Obama's health care reform. It is possible that president Obama is making the same mistake than other reformers did throughout history. They wanted to impose (the reforms) unto the people instead of doing it by and through the people. Perhaps Barack Obama is not as well versed in history as were Thomas Jefferson and those who participated in the Philadelphia Congress. Mr. President, "haste makes waste!" ( And that is shopworn, but nonetheless it is born of wisdom.)

It may create quite a personal dilemma for Isabell Lawson to finally speak out about this cruel system of disposability. This revelation of compassion for public servants appears hypocritical here in contrast to the reflexive treatment by her of sworn police officers and their legal authority.

I have no personal dilemma. But you sir (Turnipseed) have the dilemma of your psychotic repudiation of every single sentence I authored on this blog. I had mentioned to a common acquaintance (of ours) that I should lay off responding to you, lest I feed that psychosis of yours. But it was for naught. People on this blog do not think that I am nuts, but look back and see the number of posts that are flabbergasted by your psyche and weird prose.

"People on this blog do not think that I am nuts,"

I'm not one of the regulars on here so I'll refrain from offering my opinion, but it sure seems to me that you are leaving yourself wide open with that one..........

Isabell you have refined projection and denial to a level I had previously believed unobtainable, please excuse me for not complimenting you more often for all the same reasons.

"...it sure seems to me that you are leaving yourself wide open with that one.......... "

I am no more open than all the bloggers who are not part of the beehive's cadre of rightwing closed minds, but prolific in sophistry, demagoguery and sarcasm reserved for those who do not think that that Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the likes are to be awarded national honors for attempting to defame and malign the duly elected government. And what on earth are "regulars"? The beehive is a newspaper opinion blog and not a card-caring organization. And if those right-wing elements are attempting to start another, way off the topic, ugly beehive war of words, it will have to be without my contribution and I am sure, all the other intelligent bloggers', Republicans and Democrats alike. Now off to more worthwhile ventures ventures!!!!!!

Typical, deflecting the issue, again.

It's just telling that ideology somehow trumps reason when it becomes a political hot button. Can I say "flip floppers"?

Brian, I'm guessing you don't see the bigger problem. Many Americans have a good health care plan through their employers. I used to. It's affordable when your employer pays a portion and gets a deal from the insurance company. So those people can keep theirs if they like. They aren't the problem.

Somewhere between 45 million and 50 million people don't have health care for various reasons. Not available through their employer, too expensive through their employer, not very good coverage for the money through their employer, unemployed, denied for a pre-existing condition, too expensive without going through an employer, etc. This is one of the problems that needs fixing because these people use the emergency room as a doctor's office, use hand-out medical programs paid for by taxpayers, don't go to the doctor at all until whatever problem becomes a really big one and now much more expensive than preventable medicine would have been, and so on.

You clearly don't really care much about these people, but they're draining the system that you pay for....and then you complain. Wouldn't it be better if we reformed health care so that everyone had a way of paying what they can afford for their own coverage? I put up my ideas in the other thread.

Now, how is it that I'M the one who's "selfish and willingly ignorant?"

Not with one word had I intimated that individuals to the left of the political spectrum don't ever lead messy lives (by standards of our cultural mores.) But it is a fact that right wing followers do a lot of finger-pointing, invoke God and the Bible while offending those values that our culture deems decent and moral. But, Brian Murray, if you wish to continue putting words into my mouth or with forethought twist meaning of comments, be my guest. I have decided that I shall no longer debate those bloggers who post for not much better reason than venting choler and/or name-calling. I shall find intellectual "stimulus" in the many legitimate observations and ideas expressed on this blog. And having been around a while at several locals , I have seen the results of the real 5th Column, and not the Hollywood version with its inevitable "Jawohl Herr Capitan!" My REAlITY is not necessarily TRUTH as in PHILOSOPHY; (e.g. Aristotle or Socrates) but it is defensible by the standards of the mores and morality this culture has set for itself. And may you find whatever it is that some of you are seeking.

In the future some of us may very well get to keep somethings we earned, while others get something they do not contractually deserve under another sketchy social design of appeasement. By all estimates these programs will create huge costs which the current taxpaying generation will not be able to cover.

So when the new school year begins, and you see children carrying loaded packs on their backs, let it be a reminder of who will really be shouldering the debt that Obama has convinced many of you agree to pass onto them.

It is sad when parents loose a child to accident or disease; but here is no human conduct less immoral than to bury your child in debt, at the same time, requiring them to endorse American style freedom to achieve compulsory test scores in grade school.

Scot,
You left a couple of reasons out of your list of why people don't have health coverage: 1) they're illegal aliens; 2) they choose not to purchase coverage even though they can afford it.

As for preventive care saving money:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/358/7/661.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Brian, having spoken with you on the phone, I know you are not naive or stupid. I can only think that you are closing your eyes on this one. The transfer of wealth that you are worried about has been happening all along, it just hasn’t been “blatant”. When people without insurance receive medical care and cannot pay for it, hospitals and other health providers compensate for the loss by shifting the cost to paying consumers, who typically have employer-subsidized insurance. Employer-subsidized insurance is paid for through higher prices for their product. It is also cheaper to obtain by the employers so folks who buy individual insurance pay higher premiums to the insurer to subsidize the cost of employer-subsidized insurance. Doctors who take insurance as a form of payment are held to contracted prices, as a result, to make up for the loss of income from insured patients, they charge higher prices to self insured folks. So, the redistribution of wealth is already happening. The redistribution of wealth that the right equates as socialism is already alive and well under the current system.

People without health insurance frequently delay care, and are more likely to be sicker when they seek care and their care becomes more expensive and the cost of that care is passed to those who can pay or who are insured. If you buy insurance as an individual you are not guaranteed the right to health insurance. Private insurers can refuse to sell you insurance because of your health status, or exclude a pre-existing condition from coverage, or charge you a higher premium based on your age, gender (women have babies, their care costs more), or pre-existing medical condition. If you do not have healthcare insurance or unlimited funds, you have little or no say in the care that you receive or a choice in the provider of that care. Therefore with these limitations, the availability of quality healthcare is weighted to the advantage of the rich, predominantly male or employees working for large companies.

The system would not be this way if we just let those who can’t pay do without. Let them die in the streets. Ever since Jesus told that parable of the good Samaritan, people have shied away from that so we have been left with this quandary. Both democrat and republican leaders have worked to subsidize healthcare with tax payer money since at least the 1940s. When a democrat does it they call it socialism. When a republican does it (Bush expanded Medicare and Medicaid dramatically during his administration) they call it helping the poor. Socialism seeks to level the economic playing field which contradicts capitalism. Trying to find a way for all citizens in this country to have access to medical care is not socialism.

The healthcare system we currently have is not sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. Employers can no longer afford healthcare in this economy and many are dropping out. Without these types of insurance to subsidize the cost of indigent care, private insurance will be priced out of the reach of the common man. Healthcare reform is needed or we will be back to the days when only the wealthy can afford a doctor. To want all folks to have the access to quality medical care is not socialism, it is humanism.

Now I don’t think Obama’s plan has been worked and re-worked sufficiently. We need people to find the problems and work through them. I don’t like the thought of government run healthcare but that doesn’t have to be the answer. We need to find the answer. What worries me is that the grandstanding of dems and reps with claims of death squads and the like, and senators that back away from an issue when it gets controversial, does absolutely nothing to bring us closer to an answer. I appreciate that Obama is sticking his neck out on this one. Our nation should spend less time taking swings at his neck and more time looking at what is on the table and reworking it.

You do realize that if we do let folks die in the streets you will still be subsidizing the poor because your tax dollars will be used to pay the guy with the cart walking through the neighborhoods shouting “Bring out your dead!”

That bogeyman with the cart scenario will occur subsequent to comprimised national security caused by an internally supported external threat before unreformed healthcare ever makes that degree of impact. If I'm wrong then tell him to get some dry ice and head for UCLA, I heard another news story recently that they had a thriving (I know... Kaiser) organ donor program..go bruins! That cart diversion should save millions for taxpayers.

On a similar note, it was recently reported that Carla Ponte, a former prosecutor at the Hague now an Ambassador from Switzerland to Argentina, had remarked on a dark case emerging from Kosovo, a brand new state run by former KLA terrorists, brought to you by Clinton, Holbrooke, Clark and Albright. An EU investigation as a result of her new book about war crimes leads to the possibility that perhaps up to seven hundred young Serbian adults were rounded up and transported to Albania where it is alleged that they were executed and their organs sold on the black market. Think about that for awhile, then try to feel comfortable with democrat party support of government healthcare reform.

"The debate on whether the United States should adopt the metric system has been going on for nearly 200 years. Today the United States is the only country in the world not totally committed to adopting the system. The metric system is a simpler form of measurement in that it includes only seven base units for different types of measurement:" MSN (search)

I doubt that a health reform is going to be much quicker; considering the paranoid opposition by the very vocal extremist Right Wing. But read today's letters to the editor. The Right Wing is already facing the dilemma of overkill.

Kim you are one of the few Opinion writers here I will actually see on the Recent Comments section and click on to see what you think. Normally I just go by opinion topic. Since there seems to be a lot of name calling I figured I would do my best to counter it some. I like the points you make. The same goes for Scot.

Ok call me dumb but why cant we simply expand Medi-Care to cover everyone? I am aware that the program is going broke but any government run health care will not be for profit anyway. Right?
In my head the reason we have either the newest Co-Op thing or government run healthcare would be to have an alternative that would rein in costs across the board.

It seems that this nebulous fear of government running our healthcare comes out of many criticism I read. Where was this same fear with the Patriot act? Why didn't we as good Americans stand up then and say "No I will not be herded like sheep because of fear!"

Government has there fingers in many pies, but it seems the question is can we trust them? To that answer I always look at the motivation. Government needs my taxes. In order to provide them with that I must be alive as long as possible. So yeah I am not to worried about that because I pay...oh wait I only pay sales taxes...gosh I hope sales taxes are enough to trust them...

hehe =)

I guess the choice comes down to can I trust insurance companies with a for profit mentality or something with a non profit agenda? I will choose non profit mentality.

Here is something to chew on. History always makes things clearer for me.

Employer based coverage began in World War II. As the U.S. became involved in the war, with the goal of ensuring that production of weapons and supplies for our soldiers would not be disrupted by labor disputes or cause economic problems such as increased inflation and war profiteering. The National War Labor Board decided that it is was in our country's best interests to freeze wages and establish price controls, at least for the duration of the war. Unfortunately, the wage freeze made it much more difficult for employers to attract employees from a workforce that diminished as more and more workers were sent overseas for battle. The Board, realizing that it had created a monster, ruled that the wage freeze and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits like pensions and health insurance coverage. This gave employers the means to attract and retain employees. Back in those days, health insurance was a relatively cheap benefit, and the fact that it was (and still is) tax deductible was an added bonus for the employer. Thus, employers began offering employee health coverage as part of their fringe benefits as a matter of course.

In 1945, with the success of employer based healthcare, Truman hoped to establish universal coverage in the U.S. but backed off when opponents argued against the dangers of “socialized medicine”. The focus changed to insuring Social Security beneficiaries. Twenty years later Medicare and Medicaid (insurance for indigent folks) was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson as part of his “Great Society”. Since then both republicans and democrats have expanded this coverage resulting in the debacle of a health care system we have today.

Seems to me this whole mess resulted from a “knee jerk” reaction to another issue without thought to the long term. That is why health care is in the position it is now. Act now…think later. Don’t you think it is time we stepped back and finally thought the whole system out? The process Obama started should continue BUT it should not be rushed or we will be creating a future debacle.

But I am concerned that the president's health plan is not going to be healthy for seniors of adequate but limited , fixed income; (which is most of us seniors.) To reduce to insufficient medical treatment and medication for one group in order give insufficient medical treatment to an additional group is not health reform in my book. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul to the detriment of Peter and Paul.

I still believe that we should be willing to pay a little more in taxes and make special temporary provision for those who are now without health care through no fault of their own. Let efficient and fair health care reform happen like the aging of good wine. Government could work well with private enterprise, if that government has the backbone to stop the insurance industry from looking look at us as cash cows instead of human beings. Reform in the laws guiding the obligations of the insurance companies would be far more useful than inventing an entirely new and equally inadequate system. I think!

my personal reverie continued....

Are you. Brian Murray, suggesting, in all seriousness, that the term "Death Panel" was in the health reform draft, and was only dropped because Sarah Palin alerted the nation. The same Sarah Palin who as governor of Alaska is reported to have ordered wolf pups to be shot in the head one by one, or be gassed. Who allowed the hunting of animals, including the endangered polar bear, from aircraft, in spite that the voter had demanded to stop that practice. The same Sarah Palin who sued the Federal Government for putting the polar bear on the endangered list in the first place. It seems that the sweetheart of the Extreme Right seems to stir up a lot of hormones which are not an engine for intelligent thinking.

I am starting to shy away from the term health reform because of the ill will it conjures up. But we all know that it is indefensible that the richest nation on earth has people die or become disabled because of lack of money for a doctor. Or have we reached the cultural calamity of former civilizations that had gone cruel and selfish? Have we reached the point about not giving a damn about our fellow man? It is for you to answer. And calling me names is not going to ensure medical care for millions of Americans. We all have to reach inside for what is best in us. Let us help the government which belongs to We the People, let us try to be part of the solution.

Brian, You need to find the term "Death Panel" somewhere in one of the proposed bills, or drop the issue. If it was there, and proposed by Republicans, bite the bullet. Since there was no "Death Panels" language, but end of life counseling as an existing process was finally getting official funding... and it WAS an issue with Republican support, you need to find something else to worry about. Palin obviously listens to those all day "entertainers" who can spew this stuff and not be questioned. Those of us that get our news on the drive to work, or home, don't get all the editorializing/opinion that afflicts those whose "work" revolves around daily talk radio. I think Kim hit the nail on the head about Healthcare supported by Democrats being considered Socialist, but the same thing supported by Republicans is taking care of the poor and sick. The filter we hear things through needs to be changed.

Of course a national healthcare system would be socialist. So is income tax, so is unemployment protection, so is the entire social security innovation, so is public education, and so many other humane programs that are improving the lives of modern Americans. Let's stop interchanging socialistic with Soviet communistic, with the Comintern. If anyone were to suggest an education reform that required a better education in US and World history, it sure would get my support.

John, thanks for the compliment. That's a nice thing to hear. It's hard to have a real discussion sometimes when there are those who spew the same ol' partisan diatribe. I can't help but think if McCain or Bush was trying to reform health care in this same manner, they'd be all for it.

At any rate, I can't see them expanding Medi-care because the government couldn't afford it. And as for a "government run health care system," I'm with Kim. They don't want to run health care. They want to provide health care for everyone. I put forth my ides in the other thread and they need tweaking, but I don't see it as a for-profit organization, nor do I see it as something that should be run by politicians on the take. That's why government screws things up, there are too many politicians who want to get re-elected, or want to cater to the lobbies or whoever has the deepest pockets, etc. And that's both sides.

I think a public option, however it works, should be run by a third party non-profit organization. Like the California Lottery for example. Making a profit is not it's goal, it's not run by government, and it pays it's own way. It can be done. Why isn't it in front of the committee?

"...here are too many politicians who want to get re-elected"...would someone mind identifying any politicians who are not interested in being re-elected. Excuse the partisan diatribe but this is typical of liberals, especially during election campains. Instead of allowing normal folks to make up their minds methodically by viewing the world as a venue of competeing interests, they work hard to convince us that each and every group of politicians have among them an innocent doer of good deeds.

Bart, the master of picking one line out and spinning it to be some "typical of liberals" thing. If it's too hard for you to keep it in context I'll explain. Yes, all (if not most all) politicians want to be re-elected. This usually causes them to sway with whatever it takes to make that happen which is the point of my whole statement in it's entirety. You might also notice after that I said: "And that's both sides." If you're in doubt, that indicates both parties. Did you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the topic? Any ideas maybe?

I don't know Scot, It is so hard to remember all that you hammer out, forgive me for not retyping at least half. I have been pretty busy here watching it all slip past me. I just didn't want to risk becoming so dizzy remembering that I fell in the dark cold waters of the River Karma.

Remember the protesters who climb up in trees and stand in the intersections and spread banners on skyscrapers and pour blood on missle silos and block military supply convoys. These are people who don't have a rational thought all day long. They are about to take over your healthcare just like they took over the democrat party. Wait till the first animal lab is shut down because it is deemed "inhumane,"...single payer, HMO, all will become mute issues.

If that river is so dark, how come one can recognize, even read things floating in it?

No! And while you are hallucinating you might see me float by. But I am too busy to continue with it.

(My 5.5th sense has been telling me for some time that we may be dealing with a euroclassic case of MPD, alot of assault and departure going here lately.)

Bart don't play the victim card, have some self respect.

It's not a "case of MPD" it's a case of MGD.

Curiosity regarding recent comments containing the River Karma led me to some generalized snooping. River enthusiasts claim river karma is the belief that you do not want to tempt the river gods as ill fortune will quickly follow. Whitewater paddlers are uniformly careful about what they say on trips because they don’t want to fall victim to bad “river karma.” Sure that wasn’t what I was looking for, I continued to see if there was a “River Karma” that I didn’t know about. I did find a river that was considered the holiest of all rivers; the Ganges. Hindus believe that to escape the cycle of reincarnation, you must have your corpse cremated and the ashes set adrift on the Ganges. That way, your soul goes directly to heaven. They also believe that the river cleans your sins away on a day-to-day basis, which is why all along its banks you will find people taking holy dips, washing clothes, brushing their teeth, doing the dishes, even drinking. For much of its route, it is polluted, especially after passing the runoff pipes of the larger cities -- 345 million gallons of raw sewage a day flow directly into the river and factories add another 70 million gallons of industrial waste. Still, because the Ganges is holy to Hindus, a goddess of divine origin, who purifies all who immerse themselves in her, many Indians consider the river pure. Pictures of the river were disgusting. Then I thought how uniquely human it is that we have a river considered the holy of the holiest and yet we still pollute it without a second thought. Hindus say that shows how holy the river is, because even with all it’s “difficulties” it is still pure. Now I’m thinking human rationalization and excuses are at work here but I’ll leave them to it. Interesting but not yet right, I looked up the various definitions of Karma. In Hinduism and Buddhism, it means “the effects of a person's actions that determine his destiny in his next incarnation.” The basic theory is that the universe runs according to certain laws, all described by one word 'Dharma' (Sanskrit) or 'Dhamma' (Pali). The basic theory is: 'cause and affect'. The laws (Dharma) decide what affect is beget from a given cause. Karma is the 'cause' part of this theory. In other words, your actions - mental, vocal and physical are your Karma (plural). Nailed it. Well Bart, you know I hate to say it because I have more fun being a thorn in your foot; however, if my research is correct, your recent posts regarding the silly sight of you sitting by the River Karma are spot on. Healthcare is in the sorry state it is currently, is the result of bad Karma; programs put into place during and after WWII without the thought of the effects. It has turned into a monster. The speedy, ill thought out issues presently coming to us from healthcare reform will result in bad Karma. Healthcare reform is sorely needed, it is overdue but I sense bad Karma in how the politicians are going about it. That said since, “the effects of a person's actions determine his destiny in his next incarnation (or those of his children)”, “we the People” can not sit idly by and let it happen. Bart has been talking about cause and effect. I don’t know if I deciphered Bart's meaning but the journey to figure it out resulted in “good Karma” for me. That said, I’m still not drinking out of the Ganges River or Bart’s Karma River either. Humans have polluted them both physically and figuratively…. Maybe Bart isn’t such a nut after all. NAH!

P.S.
Karma is also:
a fictional superheroine from Marvel Comics
a 1969 jazz recording
a 1986 Bollywood film
an R&B song and the title of a metal rock album
Karma River is a villa in Australia
Etc. etc.
Leave it to humans to take something holy and find a way to make a buck off it.

I have no mystical river to offer, nor am I inviting any blogger over for beer. I am going to bore you with another wrinkle with the right to bear arms. It is also in the constitution of Switzerland, considered as one of the most peaceful corners on earth.

But let's face it, in spite of its mega-hugeness, The USA is one of the most insular cultures among the modern nations. Europeans are cosmopolitan. The diversity in language and ethnic make-up demands it.

But now to the essence of my personal opinion offering. Few of the beehive bloggers (I am sure ) are familiar with Bruno Bettelheim. 1938...received PHD in Psychology from the University of Vienna. He began his work with autistic children. Being a Jew, he was arrested by the Nazis and send to the concentration camps Dachau and Buchenwald where he, like the other prisoners , was beaten and tortured. After a year he was released and he fled to the United States and began his career as child psychlogist, became professor of psychology at the University of Chicago and then became director of the Orthogenic School for autistic children. He became world renowned in his field, writing more than a dozen books and received The National Book Award.

And now to his essay "The Ignored Lesson Of Anne Frank" . I shall not dwell upon those mistakes concerning the Frank family's survival, but move right on to his views about an armed citizenry. He believed if the Jews had been of an armed citizenry the persecution would have been less intense. Bettelheim cited examples of Hungarian and Polish Jews who were armed, and survived. Like Bettelheim, I strongly believe that the only way to forestall totalitarian takeover is to have an armed populus that would shoot back at the usurpers. But neither Bettelheim nor I are supporters of needless gun toting, which I am calling the Shootout at OK Corral Syndrome. I never knew Bruno Bettelheim, but I knew the rest of the family who lived in the same neighborhood than my family did.

So, please spare the world the cockeyed idea that only Americans have a right to bear arms. As it has been pointed out by another blogger, many tote the gun to intimidate and not to protect liberty and justice at public gathering for the President's health care reform agenda and the opposition thereto repectively.

My daughter is an exellent shot who wins prizes, my brother was a crackshot, my husband (former US Military Police is a crack shot) and I do not know one end of a gun from another, but I earned my wings as a member of the Student Resistance movement, and having been apprehended by the GESTAPO while still in my teens.

Isabell, I don't know of anyone who said that only Americans have a right to bear arms but I could have missed it. You have demonstrated quite well with your blog here that the right to bear arms is indeed so much more important that looking chic; which was one of my points. I agree there is no need for "needless gun toting" and there was no need to carry them at a protest, which lead me to my supposition that to do so they must have been trying to make a statement. I then supposed that since the right to bear arms is in essence to take back control when a government becomes totalitarian, that perhaps the statement the protesters were making by carrying guns, was that the people want to take back control from a government that these people feel has too much control. Not a far fetched supposition considering the complaints that the public has been making against government run healthcare. It was this supposition that gone blown up into a big mess. As for your comment that you were apprehended by the Gestapo while still in your teens... From past conversations with you I knew that to be true which is why I strongly reacted when, you of all people, were calling it chic. That is the problem with blogging. There is not enough space nor can tone get transmitted which results in many misunderstandings.

Joe,

Very similar to what I'm advocating. You said:

The Trust is a non-profit organization and it does not have any connection to government, other than to comply with laws related to Taft-Hartley.

That's what I'm after. I guess the difference is that your trust is still backed by a private insurance company, where my suggestion would be backed by the government, however not run by the government...if they could leave it alone. Also, with mine, your payments would be based on what you earn. Of course then you have to wonder if that would be enough money to sustain it for millions of people. In either case, if funds run low, rates have to be raised.

Because we were able to purchase health insurance for a large group we got very competitive rates and were able to offer a variety of plans.

I might be in Disneyland but I'd like to see them eliminate different health plans. Shouldn't everyone get full coverage at a fair rate if it's at all possible?

A foot note on all of this is that there is no concrete reform bill right now. It's still being worked out so I find it curious why so many people are dead set against it.

Lady! don't you get it. There is the right to bear arms for the intended reasons and there is gun toting for showing off. And if you wish to continue to misconstrue, be my guest, and I shall have no more to say to you on this subject. I see that there are quite a few red blooded Americans who agree that gun toting for show has nothing to do with liberty, the 2nd AMENDMENTor THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Sounds good Joe, but it doesn't sound terribly different from what a large company can offer to it's employees right now though, or am I missing something? Did the Trust act in effect as a very large company? Insurance companies compete to be the insurer for large companies like Kraft Foods, WalMart or Microsoft, etc., and can offer pretty good deals that way. When I worked for Cox Media we had a very nice plan which was affordable.

What kind of plan did people making $8 - $11 per hour get in the Trust?

What I meant by "backed by the insurance companies" is that the insurance company pays for the health care and emergencies. Probably a bad choice of words because I also used the term "backed by government" on my plan. What I was implying there was the government would step in financially if needed. I should have said backed up by government if need be.