Sun editorial:

Unhealthy rhetoric

Special interests, opponents of health care plans avoid the real issue in the debate

Friday, June 26, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

As proposals to overhaul the nation’s health care system emerge in Congress, a variety of opponents have started raising the specter of terrible things to come if lawmakers make any substantial changes.

Republicans have grumbled about “socialized medicine” and the “rationing” of health care. Special interest groups have fretted about government “bureaucrats” making decisions about which treatments people will receive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has declared that a proposal in the Senate is “harmful to businesses of all sizes, to the economy, and to the American workers.”

Such dire pronouncements are part of the health care industry’s attempt to scuttle plans to improve the nation’s health care system. Why? The current system feeds the industry’s bottom line quite well. The over-the-top rhetoric is designed to scare Americans, and it has a history of working: The attacks helped stop President Bill Clinton’s attempt to overhaul health care. Never mind that the “facts” Republicans and the industry are presenting are, at best, disingenuous. For example:

• Health care in America is already rationed. Insurance companies dictate what treatments and medicines people will receive. The quality of people’s health coverage, or the amount of money they are willing to spend, typically determines the access they have to health care.

• The nation already has Medicare and Medicaid, major government-sponsored health care programs that contract with private medical providers. The programs provide coverage for patients who would otherwise have difficulty finding insurance.

• Businesses, the economy and workers are already suffering from the exorbitant cost of health care. The nation spends $2.2 trillion a year on health care, or more than $7,400 per person.

Americans understand this. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 86 percent of Americans said the cost of health care is a serious concern, and 85 percent said the country needs to make fundamental changes or completely rebuild the health care system.

Congress should set aside the phony arguments and focus on what the people want: Change.

Discussion: 34 comments so far…

By Future

6/26/09 at 5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The nation already has Medicare and Medicaid, major government-sponsored health care programs. The programs provide coverage for patients who would otherwise have difficulty finding insurance."

And Medicare and Medicaid programs have a $36 trillion unfunded liability. These programs also cost shift $1500 a year to private plans.

Congress want to introduce an even bigger unfunded public healthcare program that our kids and grandkids will have to pay for.

So far Harry Reid and the Congress will not let us see the details of the plans that they plan to force on us.
By Houstonjac

6/26/09 at 5:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

This editorial is asinine--"change"? What "change"?The Obama administration's push to usher through a national healthcare plan will rob the elderly and the middle class, and destroy the chance for the working millions to secure the social and medical benefits of older age for which they have worked hard and paid for during their entire lives. A $1.6 trillion cost over 10 years is the low side estimate for the crippling cost of this failed attempt to bring omnibus healthcare to the nation. It is estimated that even when completed this proposed plan will leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured--a gigantic failure that will weigh on the backs of Americans for generations to come.

Congress must slow down now and determine the various sensible options for arriving at an improved health plan for the nation. Taxes of all types will fall on the middle class to pay for the healthcare plan being concocted by the most intrusive and spendthrift administration in this nation's history.

During a repressive economic downturn, this administration's knee jerk policies and future increased rationing of existing healthcare plans such as Medicare, and suffocating tax increases, will bury the elderly and the middle class under mountains of misery and increased taxes. This is wrong and must be stopped!
By neiman1

6/26/09 at 7 a.m.

Suggest removal

Insurance companies do not ration care. They do argue about what they will pay for, but the care you receive from a doctor is totally between you and the doctor. With the government plans in Canada you have NO ability to even pay for what you want unless you leave the country, most coming to the U.S. for care their government denies them.

There are NO private physicians in Britain. It is illegal to practice medicine unless you work for the National Health Service.

The U.S. government now has a health care system. The Veteran's Health Care system is totally run by the federal government. It is a disaster from infecting people with HIV, wrong radiation treatments, and rat infestations at its flagship at Walter Reed Medical Center. We can all have as good of care once they get their hands on our health care.
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

The three comments here so far are from people who have no clue about the health care debate. This is typical of the right wing who have a knee-jerk reaction to anything Democrats propose. I have blogged heavily over the past three months about the health reform issue and through a lot of reading and study, have found a lot of surprises. No surprise is the present system is broken, but amazing is how badly broken.

One of the best health care systems in the world now is the Veterans Administration system, which is completely "socialized medicine." It has kept cost stable and achieved remarkable PATIENT approval rates. My father hates "socialized medicine" but can't praise the VA enough.

3 out of 4 Americans want an option to choose and are willing to pay higher taxes to get it. The people who are commenting here are a very small and uninformed minority. Sadly, I hope they never face a serious health crisis. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

www.politicalpragmatist.com
By Houstonjac

6/26/09 at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

CactusJack--you need to learn some respect for other people's views on this health care fiasco being proposed by these maniac idiots in the Obama administration, and in Congress.
I really don't care how much you have blogged on this matter. You are a kool aid drinking liberal with your head up your a** when it comes to this matter.
By GordonShumway

6/26/09 at 8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Houstonjac says: "you need to learn some respect for other people's views on this health care fiasco being proposed by these maniac idiots in the Obama administration, and in Congress."
Where's the respect for the maniac idiots?
Don't get sick jac or you'll find out how much your insurance company respects you after they toss you off their plan.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Real issues like the fact that states prevent health insurance competition? The fact that states like Nevada have mandated 52 different coverages, pricing low income people out.

Do you mean real issues like how health insurance beneifts are not taxable income but your wage is a taxable income?

You know we can really reduce the problem of lack of health insurance coverage by 1) eliminating mandates, 2) allowing competition between states in health insurance, 3) eliminating income taxes or giving tax credits so people can purchase health insurance or health savings accounts.

The Las Vegas Sun has not mentioned a single one of these ideas which have been around for about 2 decades now.

So who is ignoring the real issue?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Or what about the fact that health insurance coverage does not significantly impact life expectancy? Want a longer life? Exercise, eat healthy, and pray you were blessed with wonderful genetics -- if not, support a free market that allows private enterprise to continue developing the life saving medicines.

Or what about the fact that Obama plans to create "affordable health insurance" by spending another $1 to $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years"isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Read more about serious questions to Obama's reforms here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cactus Jack, what planet are you living on? Do you even have access to the news? The VA is abysmal!!! They are getting in trouble all the time. Military health care is terrible.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cactus says,

"3 out of 4 Americans want an option to choose and are willing to pay higher taxes to get it."

1) Choose what?
2) Choice between government and private sector isn't actually a choice - government can muscle away the competition via threat or force - for example subsidizing the service with taxes which doesn't mean we save ANY money at all.
3) Want choice? Get government out - government prevents us from buying health insurance from whatever company in whatever state
4) Want choice? Stop treating health insurance bought by your employer as a nontaxable benefit - that means don't tax individual purchases on health care and, or give the same benefit to the purchase of health savings accounts...or my favorite, eliminate taxes on income all together.

Finally, if 25% of the population doesn't want to pay for something that isn't a public good we shouldn't be paying for it. That is robbery by any definition.

"Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy."

Nonsense, you have been misinformed because Democrats have been repeating lies... http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/02/2...

From Cato: "If what President Obama said were true, there would be approximately 1.05 million health care related bankruptcies in this country every year. However, in 2007 (the last full year for which there is data available, there were a total of only 815,000 non-business bankruptcies nationwide. Moreover, according to a study by Dr. Ning Zhu at UC-Davis, only 5 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. That suggests that in 2007 there were about 41,000 health care related bankruptcies. Too many, to be sure, but a far cry for 1.05 million."
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Cactus Jack, what planet are you living on? Do you even have access to the news? The VA is abysmal!!! They are getting in trouble all the time. Military health care is terrible."

Again, another who puts rhetoric before facts.

<blockquote>For six consecutive years, the system has had the highest consumer satisfaction ratings of any health care system. 83% of its patients expressed satisfaction with the care they received, compared to 73% for Medicare and Medicaid patients. "A full 69% reported being seen within 20 minutes of their scheduled appointment, while 93% reported being able to see a specialist within 30 days of the desired appointment."</blockquote>

<blockquote> Between 1995 and 2006, the Medical Consumer Price Index rose 39.4%, Medicare costs increased 40.9%, and the "Toyota of Health Care Systems" cost per patient rose 0.8%.
</blockquote>

http://politicalpragmatist.com/?p=313

The Cato Institute--being totally in the bag for the Conservative Movement which is funded by corporations including and esp the Medical Industrial Complex--hates the VA because if the American people ever get the message, they will demand reforms to such an extent that we at least get Medicare coverage for all.

I assume you and all the other name-callers have health care coverage, maybe even FEDERAL health care coverage like Congressmen and Senators do. 46 MILLION AMERICANS do NOT. Where is your plan to cover them???

8 out of 10 Americans do not believe the lies. So, are you lying, or clueless?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

and for any smarty pants, the 2005 Harvard study on medical bill bankruptcy used 2001 data when they claimed medical bankruptcies are the leading cause of bankruptcy. Whatever their methodology (their results are strikingly opposite of other studies) they still admit that 75% of the bankrupt individuals had health insurance...

coverage isn't the problem -- the restrictive, over regulated, third party payer system is.
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Quote:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...

"In 1994, Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer began serving as the VA's undersecretary for health and was credited with "the greatest transformation of VA health care since the system was created in 1946." Kizer fired many incompetent doctors, decentralized decision-making, offered executive contracts with performance compensation, expanded services for chronic conditions and introduced a modern computer system. Following these reforms, veterans' hospitals were said to offer "the best care anywhere." After five years, Kizer left the VA."

He left and then the Bush administration took over, the guys who didn't believe in government, right? And since then, the VA has fallen, but not as much as the rest of the health care system.

Thanks for pushing me to research the Cato Institute's position. It will make a nice blog post next week.

Incredible how consistently conservatives are willfully obstinate about reality. Nothing can change their minds, not even facts.
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

With your name, your credibility is 10% with the people of Nevada. But you're calling names is 100% consistent with conservative arguments.
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

One more time, Mr. Gibbons...

Where is your plan for health care reform that will cover the 46 million of us who do not have health care and how much will it cost?

<crickets>
By GordonShumway

6/26/09 at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

46 million uninsured: Gibbons? Gibbons? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
By uddeboda

6/26/09 at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

neiman 1

""There are NO private physicians in Britain. It is illegal to practice medicine unless you work for the National Health Service.""

In reality all NHS GPs are 'Private'. They are not 'employed' by the health board (or NHS). This is because they are self-employed independent contractors who provide their services to the government under the terms and conditions of the NHS

As such many GPs in the UK "work" privately, without any connection with the NHS, doinghome visits to their special clients, and getting well paid for it as well.
By BobbyG

6/26/09 at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

See

http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-he...

"Some reform advocates have long argued that we can indeed [1] extend health care coverage to all citizens, with [2] significantly increased quality of care, while at the same time [3] significantly reducing the national (and individual) cost. A trifecta "Win-Win-Win." Others find the very notion preposterous on its face. In the summer of 2009, this policy battle is now joined in full fury..."

I have examined the issues in considerable detail.
By Houstonjac

6/26/09 at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon: No respect for the idiots here.
By the way, I have never yet been without solid insurance in over 60 years. That's why I am concerned that these ranting lunatics in DC are going to destroy all the truly good elements of the existing system, including Medicare. You are like the proverbial mouse being lead down the death path by the pide piper. You need to use your own mind instead of relying on the Obama
health care nutcases that are out to sink the ship.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cactusjack,

1) You know nothing about Cato, they are libertarian, not conservative.
2) Knowing nothing about Cato you will not know that they consistently have criticized Bush http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...

Bush was a big government spender - he doubled spending on health care, transportation and tripled spending on education. Wow, some limited government Republican indeed.

Next - 46 million Americans are without health insurance

1) How many of them choose not to buy health insurance?
2) Government mandates on health insurance increase costs
3) Government restrictions on health insurance competition increase costs
4) Government restrictions reduce portability as people move from state to state and change jobs
5) Health insurance benefits are a taxable advantage for medium to large businesses but individuals get no such tax advantage.
6) Not having health insurance DOES NOT mean you have no access to healthcare. By law doctors are required to treat people regardless of health insurance status.
7) Nevertheless, having health insurance does NOT increase life expectancy.

You've ignored all these facts. You want to replace an overregulated, non competitive third party payer system with an overregulated, non competitive third party payer system. Somehow, by miracle government will snap its hands and make all the problems go away, even though, very clearly we see government at the root cause of the problem.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cactus

Here is the plan, repeated for the THIRD TIME.

1) Eliminate government mandates on health insurance.
2) Open the insurance market to competition. Currently State law does not allow individuals or companies to purchase health insurance in other states.

Currently, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, individual insurance in California is $479 cheaper a year! We Nevadans cannot get access to that cheaper health insurance because of state law.

3) Eliminate taxes on income. Period. No more income tax no more tax disadvantage for having to purchase your own health insurance (oh and you have more income too).
4) If you are too wimpy to do that, create tax credits for the purchase of health insurance and individual health savings accounts.
5) Push for more health savings accounts, or partial accounts (getting rid of the income tax would eliminate the need for this). Part of the problem is the third party payer system. People have no incentive to ensure they get the best service at the best price when someone else is paying. Doctors have no incentive to keep prices low since, again, someone else is paying.

That is it; it is as simple as that. Government law and regulation and the tax code has created the mess we are in.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

The rest of the Cato Institute story cited by Cactus that he is not telling you...

"After five years, Kizer left the VA.

Meanwhile, pressure to cut corners seemed to have intensified. In 2003, a newspaper report suggested that "problems continue: doctors not doing their jobs; unsupervised residents rotating in and out of the VA, leaving veterans' medical care postponed; and death rates for open-heart surgery centers that would be unacceptable at any other hospital."

Four years later, there were disturbing stories about "a vast outpouring of accounts filled with emotion and anger about the mistreatment of wounded outpatients" at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Although Walter Reed isn't a VA facility, it became clear that many similar problems occurred at VA facilities.

In February, the VA began notifying about 10,700 veterans in Florida, Georgia and Tennessee that they might have been exposed to HIV or hepatitis because of unsterilized colonscopy equipment.

If this is the kind of care the government provides those who have risked their lives for our country, are the rest of us likely to fare any better if we end up in some kind of national health care plan?

A patient's best protection is the freedom to opt for another health care plan if one's current health care plan is cutting corners or becoming too expensive. Yet Obama's big government-run health care plan would almost certainly drive alternatives out of the marketplace and become a monopoly. This would leave patients at the mercy of Washington officials who have treated veterans badly and might treat the rest of us even worse."
By GordonShumway

6/26/09 at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

continued: 46 million uninsured: Gibbons? Gibbons? Houstonjac? Houstonjac? Bueller?Anyone? Anyone?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Correction

7) Nevertheless, having health insurance does NOT increase life expectancy.

should read...

7) Nevertheless, rate of insured individuals does not significantly impact life expectancy.

Research at the Harvard University Initiative for Global Health find that diet and exercise (most important - not smoking and not drinking lots of alcohol) and genetics are by far the most important. Access to health care however, did not play a major role. Thus if you are wanting to increase life expectancy for the nation, providing health insurance is going to be one of the more expensive and least effective ways to achieve that goal.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon

What about 46 million uninsured people?

Is it because they decided they would rather spend their money on something else? If so, we can't do anything about that - or do you want to use a gun and force people to buy things they don't want?

Is it that health care is too expensive? If so, why not eliminate mandates, increase competition by eliminating state restrictions, and encourage more health insurance purchase by creating tax credits for individuals?

I've kinda said this 4 times now. Are you paying attention?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

http://reason.tv/video/show/560.html

Watch this Gordon...just 7 minutes of your day...
By GordonShumway

6/26/09 at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gibbons: How's things in your fantasy world? You don't address people with pre existing conditions who aren't allowed to buy health insurance, people who have lost their jobs and, of course their health insurance along with it, people who just can't afford $800 - $900 a month for insurance even before facing high co-pays and deductibles. Where is your head? All these people should cram emergency rooms where a visit creates a $4,600 burden (average) on the system rather than a GP for $200! Do some math and some reading about the uninsured. They're not all low life as you imply with your "rather spend their money on something else" comment. Food and shelter gets to be a priority before a lot of things. Why can't greedy elitists comprehend that.
By CactusJack

6/26/09 at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

I just blogged a story today about a young lady who had an accident. Medical bills over $50,000. Her insurance paid $600. She HAD insurance.

Average cost of a health insurance for a family is $4000 per year.

A good friend is over 50, female, and has high blood pressure. The ONLY health insurance she can get is $18,000 a year.

This is reality. The only way the Medical Industrial Complex can make money is by screwing us. That's why they pay bribes, er, make huge campaign contributions to politicians in both parties.

Get a clue. You have no health plan at all, just unrealistic dreams that no one is paying any attention to at all.

And if you don't like being called a conservative, then you shouldn't have sided with them forty years ago, Mr. Goldwater.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cactus and Gordon,

All you two can rely on is anecdotal evidence -- tragic stories that pull on our heart strings to be sure, but this is not evidence of what we need to do, let alone what is best for society (or even the individual).

This is an emotional issue, and many can become irrational, but stop, think deep and think hard.

1) Health insurance can be bought by an individual or paid for by an employer.
2) An employer does NOT care how he pays you only that what he pays you is reflected in your work productivity (meaning he's not going to pay you more than you can produce). So he doesn't care if he pays you in $50,000 cash or $40,000 in cash, $5,000 in retirement benefits and $5,000 in health insurance.
3) By treating health insurance as a non taxable benefit the government has A) given preference to health insurance over other forms of care provision (charities, local neighborhood groups, churches, health savings accounts). This same benefit is NOT given to individuals who do not have health insurance provided for them by their employer"that means they must pay taxes on the SAME income someone else makes but does not pay taxes because that income is converted into health insurance.
4) By allowing tax credits or eliminating the income tax individuals can afford health insurance with the same benefit provided to employers. That is, if that individual wants to buy health insurance.
5) Portability problems come into existence because GOVERNMENT prohibits competition between insurance companies in different states. You simply cannot keep your insurance policy from one state to the next BECAUSE of this GOVERNMENT rule.
6) That means each time you change policies there become "preexisting conditions" for the new policy. If you were allowed to keep your old policy from your former state this problem wouldn't exist.
7) Well intentioned people, not unlike yourself, have tried to solve this problem by mandating that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions when a person signs to a new policies. In some cases insurance companies are mandated to charge the same rate for different people, regardless of the risk. The end result is that insurance companies must raise rates for people who are low -- risk in order to cover the cost of high risk individuals. This means low-risk people start deciding to NOT buy health insurance. Additionally, low-income people start dropping from health insurance as well because it grows more and more unaffordable. This is an example of good intentions with bad results.

Reducing mandates, removing barriers to health insurance competition and creating tax credits for health insurance and health savings account purchases will reduce the cost of health insurance. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply an ideologue bent on creating socialized medicine simply because they like state control, not because they are interested in actually helping anyone.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

6/26/09 at 3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon and Cactus.

Lets pretend that people with preexisting conditions CANNOT get health insurance at all (this isn't true). Lets also assume your worst case scenario and say they can't get health care (again not true).

Your solution is to drastically increase taxes and regulation to socialize health insurance for everyone, rather than using existing programs to help those in need (ie those very people you use to make your point as if this was the average American).

This is simply nonsense. You want to manage EVERYONE rather than managing the exceptions. This is a horribly expensive and inefficient solution.

You want to create socialized medicine for ALL on the ground that 45 million Americans do not have health insurance - never mind that about 20 million of them could get coverage if they wanted and another 11 million could get coverage if the government did its job and made its existing services known.
By GordonShumway

6/26/09 at 8:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gibbons: "Lets pretend that people with preexisting conditions CANNOT get health insurance at all" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DREAM WORLD!
Do you have a TV or get a newspaper?
By SgtRock

6/26/09 at 9:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Most people are happy with the health insurance and care that they get.

Obama and the Democrats are going to take that away.

The Democrats are going to regret it.
By ksand99

6/26/09 at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

No one's taking away anyone's health insurance. Sorry, that's just your run-of-the-mill scare tactics coming from the insurance lobbyists.

The Democratic plan gives choice. You like your current plan? Keep it? You like the government option? Choose it.

The pawns of the insurance lobbyists, like jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr, don't want you to see what's coming down the road.

See, in other debates, we're constantly being told about how great the private market has performed. True believers spin tales about how the private market provides higher quality for lower costs... how competition drives efficiency.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case with the private health care industry. Their lobbyists and pawns can't explain how a private industry suffers exponential growth in costs and overhead. They can't explain how a public system is more efficient than the private market.

"The HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, announced today that health care would be consuming 20% of our GDP by 2017. They made the same announcement last year about this time: slightly different numbers, same conclusion."

"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, (BEA), health care in 2006 cost us $1.9 trillion or about $6,359 per capita. Health care has held a growing lead as our largest single expenditure since 1990 when it surpassed housing. It represents 20.6% of our personal expenditures, 38% more than housing and 87% more (almost double) what we spend on food! In 2006 it represented 14.4% of our GDP and according to the CMS, is projected to double to $4 trillion, 20% of our GDP in 2016, just 8 short years, outpacing inflation by a factor of about 2 as it has since the 1960's."

The Democrats are offering an additional choice for consumers, and a new force for competition in the market.

JfNance32, err, I'm sorry, "SgtRock" tells us that most people are happy with the health insurance they get. Funny, cause 1 in 3 Americans are already on a public health care plan. (http://bit.ly/4k2Z1X) And, more than 70% of Americans want a public option. (http://bit.ly/jwW8O) That's known in political circles as a mandate.

The health care lobby have purchased, outright, the entire republican party. They don't want to address the unsustainable path the nation is on, so they're trying to scare people.
By SgtRock

6/27/09 at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

"No one's taking away anyone's health insurance."

ksand99 is right. They are just going to exchange from the one that you are happy with now with the one where Obama's goons in DC decide what tests and procedures that you will get.

If you die or lose a limb or go into a coma because they did not approve of a test or procedure that your doctor wanted to give to you but could not then tough luck.

It is Obama Care Health Plan or perhaps they should call it Obama Don't Care Health Plan.

On top that, they are going to tax the living hell out of you to pay for all the bureaucrats and government waste to pay for the new "cheaper" health care.

I am eager for exchange my health insurance and health care for the Obama Don't Care Health Plan and I am ready to give up precious cash to get it.

Pay more get less...the Obama way.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question