maallen

Tue, Dec 15, 2009 : 7:24 p.m.

What's wrong with this picture? Medicare is being cut by $460 Billion dollars over a ten year period. That is an amount equal to $46 billion dollars per year to help finance the new health insurance legislation. So we are going to rob one government health insurance program to pay for ANOTHER government health insurance program. Does that make sense? The existing legislation has $460 billion dollars worth of cuts in medicare payments. Tese are payments that doctors, nurses, healthcare providers, and hospitals rely on! The payments at it's current funding are ALREADY lower than what the private health insurance carriers pay! Are the healthcare providers going to keep helping our seniors if the government keeps cutting the funding? Now, why is it that the government is cutting Medicare? Because the cost is spiraling out of control! So, if the government is so willing to cut medicare, a government run health insurance program, then what is to stop them from cutting the future funding of the proposed health insurance provided by the government? We are funding this new health insurance legislation not only with a $460 billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare, but we are also going to fund it with higher payroll taxes, higher taxes on health insurance policies, higher taxes on drug makers, and higher taxes on medical device makers. Now what do you think is going to happen when we tax all these companies? They are going to in turn pass the taxes onto us consumers. So, for those of you who take prescriptions you will now start paying more for your drugs. For those that need medical devices, you will now start paying more for those devices. For those of you who have a what the government calls a rich health insurance plan (how dare you!) you will now be paying more for that policy! And Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes on us! Oh, and you know what else the legislation includes: Elimination of the tax deduction for the Medicare prescription coverage. One person (government employee) will dictate what will be included in the health insurance plans. $400 million provision to help teenagers make the transition into adulthood. The "exchanges" will initially be financed by UNLIMITED dollars (meaning there is no control on spending!) which funding is provided by the Secretary of DHHS. But eventually it must be sel sustaining (but how long is eventually?) A government run program for Long Term Insurance is in the bill. To fund this government program it will be payroll deducted out of every working adult. It is voluntary, but you MUST opt out of the program. You will be AUTOMATICALLY enrolled into the program. If you don't want to be then you MUST opt out. For now, it's voluntary, but how long will that last? Remember social security? Our money? Can't you see where this Long Term Care insurance is going to go? These are just a few things that are in the Health Insurance reform bill. Which actually does nothing to reform health insurance!

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 5:24 p.m.

I agree with universal coverage, but only if the profit making is gotten away with. The plan in Congress fattens up the insurance companies, because much of the current Congress is owned by them. The old Clinton plan did the same thing, gave way too much power and money to profit-making insurance companies. As to other countries, the US is unique in the very very high numbers of poor people we support all over, rural, urban, suburban. Plus we spend massive amounts for the cost of crime and gunshot wounds in the US. No other industrialized country that I can think of has to pay so much for the morbidity involved in this. We also have an extraordinary teenage pregnancy rate, which contributes to the high infant mortality/morbidity rate, along with the massive amount of poverty supported by welfare in the US. BUT of course the government won't address this head-on, due to the risk of alienating voters.

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 5:14 p.m.

Most Medicaid patients are funneled through profit-making insurance plans. They make LOTS of money for the owners of the plans. They are extremely limited as to care, such as medications they can receive (very basic ones such as Zithromax are often not allowed without massive amounts of paperwork.) There are 2 different standards for prescribing, Medicaid patients and private insurers. However, there would be even more money freed up for patient care in general if the insurance companies were not allowed to skim billions of dollars off the top for their CEOs, stockholders, etc. This is true for Medicaid and private insurers. BUT now it is the poor Medicaid patients that have to get the cheaper antibiotics and asthma meds, etc etc, because their insurance companies are the stingiest. Now part of that is that it is the government providing the funding, and part is the profit making insurance companies that handle the Medicaid patients. I am never limited in prescribing for private patients, but they pay their insurers more. Trust me, you do NOT want to be Medicaid patients unless there is NO other choice.

Atticus F.

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 3:24 p.m.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I think we should be looking at the rest of the industrialized world, and how they provide health care to their citizens. Most industrialized countries live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, and have a much lower cost of health care, while at the same time providing for everybody. Here's a list of countries that provide health care to all citizens: Greece England Japan France Germany Sweden Italy Norway Switzerland Ireland Spain ECT... Here's a list of countries that does not cover health care for all citizen: USA Guatamala Honduras Mexico India ECT..

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:49 p.m.

@moose: "Wow, the woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks." What does this mean? I didn't grasp the substance of your comments. BTW, FWIW, in my post above acre=care, per typo. I think the comments here above were OK, just a bit naive, as to how health care financing works. Some A2 residents rightly so are bleeding heart liberals, but that is a bit endearing. It is a sheltered university town.

larry

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:42 p.m.

annarbor28 -- Thanks for your post. I hope people realize what government involvement (messing) really means. You obviously have been experiencing this first hand. It's good to hear from somebody with real experience of a government-run system.

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:41 p.m.

So, A2.com, why don't you do some reporting on this subject and find out who is telling the truth? Canadian and European health care Climate change Effect of smoking ban on bars These are just a few. We are right back where we started when the A2 News would print lies on the front page and never help people to sort it out. The lie is NEVER equal to the truth and yet that is what is occuring here at A2.com. Can't we, and you, do much better?

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:18 p.m.

what seems to be missing from all of the above is the -fact- the all the -isms have existed since the beginning of time. that one or another -ism has gained the respectability of a label is almost irrelevant. i can't type worth a shmidet, but darwinism, communism, socialism and capitalism all exist and have always existed. communism always works in a -very small group- while capitalism ONLY works in large groups. if/when the gummint (of any social group) decides to interpose itself on the greater masses, it fails, absolutely and totally. health care, welfare, 'specific welfare' -vs- 'general welfare' is the contest. and that contest is ONLY won by the general welfare, not specific welfare. spreading the wealth/care around is a losing model no matter who tries to implement it..... collect & conserve what you can. the reverse is idiotic, imnsho. edited for your enjoyment; apologies for the earlier.

Moose

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:08 p.m.

Wow, the woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks.

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:58 a.m.

By the way, Clinton, Obama and most Dems are totally owned by trial lawyers, so tort reform will never get to first base. Y'all are just going to have to get used to a lower standard of acre, while the rich get richer on health care. I personally think there could be a thoughtful public option, but this will only be possible if you take profit making out of health care, at the level of the health insurance companies and the trial lawyers. Then it will be a more honest system.

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:55 a.m.

Going to more government bureaucracy is not the answer. Limit the profit making option for health insurance companies who make BILLIONS each year from your health care premiums. The CEOs of health insurance companies get up to $50 million a year in pay and bonuses. Obama and Congress will not take them on, due to their hefty campaign contributions and lobbying. Also consider tort reform, as to why attorneys take 30-40% of payments, thereby inflating costs. Also make the plaintiff and his/her attorney pay the provider for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Atticus F.

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.

If the cost of health care continues to rise at it's current rate, 80% of all US citizens will not be able to afford health insurance. This means That if things don't change, There is a good chance your employer will have to discontinue YOUR health insurance.

annarbor28

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 10:02 a.m.

If it did reduce the deficit, which the CBO goes back and forth on, this will be by reducing benefits and quality. The best example of the government's craziness is their recommendation to not encourage women to do self-exams. Coupled with no routine mammos until age 50, this seals the fate for affected women in their 30s and 40s to die of breast cancer, as they will not know about it until it is very advanced, such as metastatic lesions. The government will adopt these types of standards, since it ignores individuals and benefits the monetary functions of health care delivery. There will also be a whole new government bureaucracy, similar to TSA, that will oversee your health care benefits, and you will have to deal with this same level of government to get your basic health care, such as medications and tests. I deal with these idiots everyday. It is going to be a boondoggle for the government and the health insurance lobby.

Nick

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.

Fact: CBO says the currently proposed health care bill will reduce the deficit Fact: Ford did not purchase Volvo to "improve quality", in fact, it reduced quality standards. Thus reducing the value of the brand (which is all Volvo is: a brand). Because Volvo is simply a brand, there are many substitutes available in European markets. But your point makes no sense - why would it have more value in Europe than it does here? If it has intrinsic value, it would not be limited to any continent.

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 5:18 a.m.

what seems to be mssing from all of the above is the -fact- the all teh -isms have exiisted since the beginnng of tmie. that one or another -ism has gaeined the respectabitlyty of a lable is amost irreeleveant. i cna;t typw worth a shcmidet, but darwinism, communism, socialism and capotailsm all exist and have alwasys existed. communism always works in a -veryt samll group- while capitalism ONLY works in large groups. if/when the gummint (of any social group) deicedes to interpose itslef on the greater masses, it fails, absoltely and totally. health care, welafare, 'specific welafera' -vs- 'general welfare' is teh contest. and taht conctest is ONLY won by the general welfare, not specific wefare. spreading the wealth/care around is a losing model no matter whjo tries to imlement it..... collect & conserve what yo can. the reverse is idiotic, inmnsho.

annarbor28

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:53 p.m.

As a Medicaid provider, I am totally controlled by the government, as to what medications I can prescribe, treatments I can provide, and at their mercy as to what vaccines I can give to children as to when someone in their huge lazy bureaucracy decides to ship it. They give incentives and disincentives randomly, based on a bureaucrat's whim, or mood that day, and when they decide to develop and administer "mandates." This leads to enormous amounts of paperwork and delays in treament. Prescribing medications is onerous because you have to give what they will approve, not what is good for the patient. They want to start what is a capitated system for everyone, even though this has been tried and rejected over and over by patients and providers, because it discourages care and encourages trying to not do anything for the patient, due to their stingy capitation rates. The health care plan now in Congress only generates more profits for the insurance companies, which instead should all be nonprofit with capped administrative fees. You will be very unhappy once you are all under a giant Medicaid rationing program administered by the profit-making health insurance companies. These lobbyists own Congress and they are the ones to profit. Your care will sink into the cesspool that Medicaid is in. Good luck getting Singulair if you have asthma! It's a huge hassle for Medicaid patients, and most asthmatics with Medicaid just live without it, wheeze, and can't exercise well. Stock up on it now. You all will not believe how bad your care will get when the government interferes.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:09 p.m.

The Grinch - I thought you had "surrendered the field" a few posts ago. And btw, the "lints in your toes" post had not been deleted. Get your facts straight -- again. PS: My question to the Canadians is: why are you here? Go back to where things are great, leave us alone.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:57 p.m.

My last was deleted--probably for the lint in the toes crack--so let me just say I surrender the field. One cannot have an informed and sane discussion with someone who thinks community organizing and socialism are the same thing. I give up.

Terrin

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:50 p.m.

As a Canadian citizen who currently lives in the US, I find your article insulting. First, I have never waited more then a half hour for care in Canada. Second, my mother, a Canadian citizen, just had surgery on her hips. She waited for two weeks. Third, you can find a example in any country where somebody had to wait for something, including here in the United States. In the United States, however, people often have to wait for treatment because they simply can't afford to see a doctor. As a Canadian, I have insurance to cover me just in case something happens to me and I am forced in to the american health system. I have torn rotor cup currently. That would set me back forty thousand dollars in the US if I were one of the millions who do not have insurance. Back home it is free. I could have it done within a month. Fourth, your example doesn't provide any reason why the person waited so long for the surgery. For instance, perhaps the person's doctor was being cautious about something and wanted the person to wait. In my view, heath care in a civilized society should be a god given right. You can't truly be free if you have to worry about your health and how to pay for care. America is one of the few countries were people have to file Bankruptcy because of health care. Sad.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:45 p.m.

The Grinch - "Ford can't get rid of Volvo because it paid too much for it and it wants to recoup its investment, but no one will purchase Volvo for anything that approaches the ridiculously high price it paid for the company" This is what you had posted. I refuted this with the facts -- Ford is NOT trying to sell Volvo at the "ridiculously high price it paid for the company". It paid $10B, and now cannot sell it for even $2B. And you tell me I repeat what you claim is your answer? And of course, you still have not answered WHY there are no buyers for Volvo. Your logic boggles the mind. Mincemeat? You must be kidding. Goodbye, The Grinch. I still think you picked a really good name for yourself. Have a Merry Christmas.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:34 p.m.

Larry, Community organizing is not socialism except on Fox News (aka Faux Noise). As for Ford and Volvo, this is at least the third time that you have told me I was wrong about something and then told me the "right answer" was what I had said. Do you not read? Do you find facts confusing? Making mincemeat of you has been fun, but it's time for a more intellectually stimulating activity like picking the lint out of my toes. So I surrender the field to you.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:18 p.m.

The Grinch -- Get your facts straight. Ford paid over $10 Billion for Volvo about 8 years ago, sunk a lot of money to improve it's quality, and now cannot resell it for $2 Billion. Volvo had almost never shown a profit, and has just been a money sink for Ford. Yes, this is capitalism at work. The socialist response would be to continue to prop up this failing enterprise (as Obama did for GM & Chrysler). Unfortunately, the Swedish government is running out of money. Why did they invest in a socialist country? Good question, they seem to realize their mistake, but at considerable cost. And we DID drastically reduce our solid-rocket programs, which is why the majority of the current space station launches are being done utilizing Russian and European rockets. I don't know what your definition of Socialism is. If you think that Obama is not a socialist, with past links to ACORN, and to community organizing, then I wonder who you think is?

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:04 p.m.

1bit, I have not seen even ONE proposal to reduce the deficit and the National Debt. Interest payments alone on the debt will be about $370 Billion next year, which is about the same as our total defense budget. All we hear about is how to expand health care while trying to not increase further spending. And the health care system is really not even in "crisis" mode. And you're absolutely right about the entitlement programs. The politicians are unwilling to address these until they reach a crisis...It all might end up being too late. One has to only look at Japan as an example -- they are about to fall off the precipice with a national debt over 200% of their GDP, and no real answers...

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:03 p.m.

Larry, There you go again with the S-bomb. You really have to stop it as it shows that you have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Ford can't get rid of Volvo because it paid too much for it and it wants to recoup its investment, but no one will purchase Volvo for anything that approaches the ridiculously high price it paid for the company. Good old fashioned American capitalism at work. It's that simple. But that is a funny example you cite: do you mean that Ford invested in socialist Sweden? And you are wrong about concentrating on the shuttle. NASA has had a heavy lift rocket for the last two decades, the Titan II and the Titan III. The last Titan III flew in 2005 because it was not as reliable as the Arienne--almost all commercial satelite launches have moved to Europe (well, actually, to French Guinea). We test flew the first stage of a rocket--a rocket that in its entirety won't be ready for flight until 2015 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396682main_Ares_I-X-pk.pdf). Until then, the Arienne is it. You dismiss high-speed rail and say nothing about green energy, but these are the wave of the future. Private industry is doing nothing in the former and what it is doing in the latter is due almost solely to government incentives and spending. Facts really aren't your friend, are they? So maybe you need to use the S-bomb again, lacking any facts but full of opinions.

Mick52

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:02 p.m.

There are no successful national health care plans in the world that are not having fiscal issues other than perhaps some small oil rich nations. And none have health care as expensive as in the US due to many many issues, the majority are not brought up in the media. Anyone who thinks we will save money by adding people to the ranks of the insured needs to replace the battery in their calculator and push the correct buttons. Think about it, if you add people you are going to have to spend more. And if we add illegal aliens I imagine that will attract many more. There is a problem but this feds are going about it in a mindless manner. The biggest issue today is unemployment, not health care.Both Medicaid and Medicare have many problems. Why would anyone think the Feds could come up with anything better?

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:32 p.m.

The Grinch - Then why does Ford want to get rid of Volvo? Why do they have such a problem selling Volvo? They have been trying to sell it for the past two years at a much discounted price of $2 Billion. Even the Swedish government is not interested in purchasing Volvo. And all you can list is the Arienne rocket? And better roads and rails? You call this innovation? We had stopped building rockets in the 80's to focus on the Shuttle, and recently test flew a much bigger rocket for a planned mission to Mars. It's decades-old technology. Roads, rails and cars -- you call this innovation?

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:24 p.m.

The Grinch-- unfortunately, your fearless leader in Washington is a KNOWN socialist. I would love to see proposals to reduce the exploding budget deficit and National Debt. And remember, TAX is a four-letter word.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:22 p.m.

What has Europe produced lately? The Arriene rocket is widely regarded as the most reliable heavy lift rocket in the world. Airbus has taken a huge bite out of Boeing's business, and it was the first to bring fly-by-wire technology to passenger jets. High-speed rail girdles the continent. It's roads are far better built. It's automobiles, with few exceptions, are better built and more technologically advanced than their American counterparts (cars built, by the way, by workers with union contracts and national health care). It has moved to green energy at an accelerating pace. These are but a few examples. We are living a myth if we think the United States has a corner on innovation, and continuing to think that way will guarantee that we will become a second-class economic power. And Larry, you really have to stop using the S-bomb (socialism). It demeans you.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:11 p.m.

As I read all of the posts written by those who appear to oppose any form of national health care, a common thread becomes apparent: these people think that the United States is incapable of doing something that the rest of the western industrialized world has done, which is to provide health care for all of its citizens. So let me get this right: the nation that put men on the moon, that won the Cold War, that fed and armed the Allied nations during WW2, that rebuilt Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan--that same nation is incapable of doing something France has done for its citizens? OK, that's fine. That's a defensible position. I just happen to think you are wrong. I guess I think more of my nation than you do. I guess that makes me more patriotic? And PLEASE, let's drop the "move to North Korea" and "You're a socialist" stuff. Such name-calling both diminishes the debate and reveals a large degree of intellectual ineptitude.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:08 p.m.

1bit: OK, I agree with you there, But everything I've seen so far says there will be increased spending. I've seen NOTHING yet about how they plan to decrease the exploding National Debt. I simply DO NOT trust the people in charge to fix the National Debt. The plan so far seems to be to propose all this new spending and then pretend that all future spending will then be frozen or even reduced from this new "baseline". Common sense would tell me that we are on a SCARY path to an economic meltdown that will end up worse than the Great Depression. Yes, perhaps we need to find a way to provide broader health care. But right now the priority clearly is to get the economy back on track, and then figure out a way to CUT SPENDING and reduce the deficit. We've already dug ourselves into a deep enough hole, and we simply need to focus on how to reduce it. Let me know when you hear what the plan is to reduce the deficit. We all know what's coming next -- the next new TAX. I heard some of these politicians already calling for a national sales tax. We're on the path to socialism, and people are going have less and less incentive to start businesses and take risks, which has been the greatness of this nation. Which other country do you see starting the Internet, or Google, or flying cars, or private space travel. It all happens here first. Because we allow people the incentive to take risks and innovate. Show me what Europe has produced lately...

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:49 p.m.

I have to laugh when someone talks about any of the health care plans before Congress adding to the national debt when every bill that has been scored by the CBO has been found to reduce deficits, not increase them.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:35 p.m.

ibit: So we are going to control rising health care costs by proposing $1.8 Trillion of MORE spending? With money we don't have? And while we already have an exploding deficit? The Grinch: You really think you are 1/12? When you didn't even know something as basic as our exploding national debt. And of course, you STILL haven't answered my question, which I have repeated twice now, about why there has been this dramatic growth in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.? Instead, you resort to what you accuse me of -- name calling!! PS: I still think you picked an appropriate name for yourself.

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:30 p.m.

The Grinch, Great post. This whole thing boils down to the haves vs. the have nots. Them that's got's shall get, them that's not's....... Well, who cares? We, the taxpayers and citizens of this nation pay for the health care of every single gov't and public employee and every single recipient of employer funded health insurance. They either get their insurance paid by our taxes or by the cost of goods sold for everything we purchase. Only if they are employed by a sane, rational and civilized employer. They are indeed fortunate. Think about it. We only refuse to pay for the lesser and unfortunate among us. What great and noble people we are!? Christian and civilized!? Maybe? Maybe NOT!

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 7:10 p.m.

The Grinch, I think you picked a very appropriate name -- people like you will steal our grandkids (and our) Christmas. For someone who did not even know that our national debt was 85% of GDP, you speak an awful lot about a lot of things. It's a waste of time discussing things with grinches, anyway. What do you think caused the tremendous growth and lowering of poverty levels in India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, etc? Perhaps you should move to North Korea or Cuba if you like socialism so much. Or even Canada, it's closer. Then maybe you can leave the rest of us alone.

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 6:57 p.m.

The Grinch, Great post. This whole thing boils down to the haves vs. the have nots. Them that's got's shall get, them that's not's....... Well, who cares? We, the taxpayers and citizens of this nation pay for the health care of every single gov't and public employee and every single recipient of employer funded health insurance. They either get their insurance paid by our taxes or by the cost of goods sold for everything we purchase. Only if they are employed by a sane, rational and civilized employer. They are indeed fortunate. Think about it. We only refuse to pay for the lesser and unfortunate among us. What great and noble people we are!? Christian and civilized!? Maybe? Maybe NOT!

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 4:35 p.m.

Larry, The 120% debt-to-GNP ratio happened in 1944 during WW2. War SPENDING caused it. And that war SPENDING brought the unemployment rate to 1.2%, also in 1944. There could be no better example of the value of Keynsian economics. And my point was that one does not need to spend that money on war in order to have that impact--one could and should spend it on roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools. It's just that we, as a nation, are willing to spend those sums of money on killing our fellow man rather that on helping him out. A very odd "civilization" indeed. The budget deficit shrank under Bush II? Yes, at the end of his 8 years, but only after he ran the biggest deficits in the nation's history. And he inherited a budget surplus from Clinton. Those damn tax-and-spend Democrats. All they do is fix the economy after the Republicans break it. President Reagan indeed asked for a balanced budget amendment, knowing he would never get one, at the very same time that EVERY budget HE submitted to Congress proposed deficit spending of roughly $200 billion. If he wanted a balanced budget, he needed to submit one to Congress. If Congress then deficit spent, he clearly could blame Congress. But his budgets never came close to being balanced because, to submit a balanced budget, he needed to propose cuts in programs that would have made him extremely unpopular. His plee for a balanced budget amendment, then, was cover for people like you who listened to 10-second blurbs (balanced budget amendment)but who seldom bothered looking up the facts. Thus Bush did EXACTLY what Reagan did: cut taxes on the rich, raised spending, and thereby ran up huge deficits. And as Reagan's director of the OMB, David Stockman, made clear, there was method in this madness. Its purpose it was to virtually bankrupt the government and thereby make it impossible to continue to fund social programs (it's in Stockman's memoirs). And VP Cheney said as much as the 2001 tax cuts were being debated. So, whatever you think Reagan was, it appears to have little basis in fact. Bush II was Reagan's political, fiscal, and anti-intellectual progeny.

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 4:02 p.m.

The simple reason the civilized countries of the world can afford health care for their citizens is because they have controlled their Perpetual War Profiteers and aren't all around the world helping their multi-national corporations to exploit the world. If anything is harming our budget deficit it is our out of control militarism!

aareader

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 3:53 p.m.

Mr. Grinch, Keep at it. You know the history and are helping to set the record straight. And to "in4mation" maybe we should bring back the private option in SS for you. I am sure you would do fine until the next bubble break in the stock market, the real estate market, etc. The managers that run pension funds could help with derivatives, hedge funds and short selling. Or you could buy CDs at 1.91% for 10K plus deposit. Oh yes, these are "for profit" services so you will pay a fee to participate.

Nick

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 2:02 p.m.

Shirley McGuin is a repeated anecdote right-wingers use for their propaganda purposes. Her example is facetious at best, in that it is an elective surgery, and she would most likely have had to wait in the US under medicare, as well. Would it have been three years? Maybe. maybe not. But it would have been a wait nonetheless. And for those who are against a systemic change... don't use one-dimensional anecdotes. It's an ineffective method of debating.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 1:56 p.m.

Voice of Reason: Please learn your history. The EU exists today solely due to the Marshall Plan's requirement that Western European nations' economic recovery plans, for which MP money would be used, provide for an integrated economy rather than nationalist ones. That was done, not out of concern for competition, but to end the economic nationalism that had caused so many recent European conflicts. Had that concept of an integrated economy not worked, Western European nations would have ended that experiment once the Marshall Plan had ended. But it worked, and they did not end it. Instead, they created the Common Market, and that organization eventually morphed into what is today the EU. As for "decerasing prosperity for all": I've lived in Germany for three years and it is a far more civil society than is ours, one in which there is an understanding that with a civilized society comes a social contract between its citizens. It is also a society that, though it might not have too many ultra rich, it does not have the intense structural poverty of our society, either. That is not to say there is no poverty in Germany or in Europe in general. It is to say that there is nothing there (at least not that I saw, and stats bear this out) that looks like Flint, or Detroit, or the rural South, or Indian reservations in the west. Judging by your earlier posts, you appear to object to social welfare programs that (according to you) encourage laziness. You cite the fact that, even in a strong economy, W. Eur. has a 7% - 9% unemployment rate. Are there lazy people out there? Absolutely! But the question here is not whether or not we should be willing to subsidize their laziness. It is whether or not we, as a society, are going to play Scrooge to those trapped in poverty, to those who have lost their jobs, to those who need help just to survive. So, some basic stats: In 2008 the national unemployment rate ranged between 5% and 8% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000) The national poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty08/pov08hi.html) The poverty threshold for a family of 4 was roughly $22,000 per year (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/) So, even if one accepts the ludicrous idea that all of the unemployed were unemployed due to laziness, between 5% and 8% of the nation were working poor. So, out of anger at the lazy, are we to do nothing for those who are working and getting nowhere? And I won't go into the math of how little money $21,000 is for a family of four. Suffice it to say that a family of four that makes $22,000 is poor, just not statistically in poverty. So I guess it all depends upon what kind of society one wants to be a part of, what we see as are our obligations to our fellow citizens who might not be as fortunate as are we. Finally, someone else noted that charitable organizations are far more efficient at providing aid to the poor than is the government. This may or may not be the case, but it is also beside the point. Long before the modern welfare state, charitable organizations, whatever their level of efficiency, did not have the capability to meet the demands placed upon them in the best of times. In the worst or times (e.g., the Great Depression), they were completely overwhelmed. So the question is not "Which is most efficient?". It is "Which is best able to meet the demands placed upon it in modern society, especially when there is an economic catastrophe?".

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.

Mr. The Grinch, Just some facts before YOU put on some fresh undies (if you even own any): 1,000 Billion = 1 Trillion (not Tillion) When President Reagan cut taxes, he also requested the then Democratic House to pass a balanced-budget amendment, and line-item veto, which he never did. The Democrats, like they did then, wanted to keep spending, Keynesian economics DOES NOT WORK. Glad you finally checked the facts instead of spreading misinformation. And Bush junior was NOT following the Republican doctrine, and instead increased spending (which was also stupid). But at least the budget deficit continued to shrink under his charge, NOT expand as Obama and his cronies are proposing. And the only thing that pulled us out of the 120% national debt in the 1940's (caused by Roosevelt's spending spree) was WWII. You think we need another one? We sure are headed that way.

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 1:14 p.m.

The Grinch, The European Union formed because individual European nations were becoming unable to compete economically on a unilateral basis. I am not saying that socialized medicine cannot become a "success" (by your definition) in the United States, but is it worth a corresponding decrease in prosperity for all? At the very least, we should wait until China becomes the center of innovation in the medical field. Then, we will be able to reap the benefits of their system similar to how Europe and Canada have done with ours.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:57 p.m.

Voice of Reason, Somehow Canada and the entire European Union have had national health care systems that have neither bankrupted their nations, nor ruined their economies, while providing quality health care to all of their nations' citizens. So, are you actually saying that we in the United States are incapable of doing something that the French can do? I hope you're not a politician, because that's a platform not likely to get many votes.;-)

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:50 p.m.

Mr. Briegel, In theory, social welfare systems give people struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder the ability to improve their personal situation. In actual practice, this is not the case. There is a strong correlation between the German social welfare net and the fact that even in boom years, the unemployment rate hovers anywhere from 9-12%. When provided all the necessities by government, there is little incentive to improve in an environment that does not reward a person for doing so. On a side note, I got a laugh out of your reference to "The Bush Crime Family" again.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:44 p.m.

Larry, First, it is Tillion, not Billion. Second, you are correct--I had my numbers wrong--should not do these things from memory. So here are the correct numbers (to be found at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html): Our budget debt this year is approximately $12 Trillion (but actually going down as the TARP is paid off, and even less if one does not count the TARP funds that have been appropriated but not spent) on an $14.5 Trillion GDP. So the debt to GDP ratio is, at worst, about 82%. In 1944, the debt to GDP ratio was 120% and it remained above 80% into the 1950s. Those famous fiscal conservatives Reagan and BushI took the ration from roughly 30% to nearly 70%. Bush II took it from 60% to nearly 80%. And, yes, Obama has added to that debt--this is basic Keynsian economics. In fact, the vast majority of economists fault Obama for spending too little, that the degree to which the stiumlus has failed is due to it being far too small. So, you caught me on my facts--good catch--but the point remains the same. Today's Debt to GDP ration is not unprecented nor even unusual.

Canuck

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:43 p.m.

As someone who has lived in Canada many years, I must say that the facts are a little skewed in this opinion piece. First of all, healthcare in Canada is primarily under the jurisdiction of the provinces - not the federal government. Provinces administer healthcare through health regions, encompassing a limited geographic area. Because of this, there may be differences in healthcare from province to province, or even region to region. To make all-encompassing statements about healthcare in Canada would be like making broad statements about education in the U.S. - is the education system exactly the same in every state and region? The news reports I have read regarding healthcare in Canada usually relate to a health region in Ontario. Although I lived in Western Canada, I know for a fact that healthcare horror stories coming out of Ontario are an anomaly. I never had to wait long to get in to see a physician and I never had to wait long to get into the hospital for surgery or an emergency. I also personally know of no one anywhere in Canada who was ever denied service, had to wait unreasonably long for needed healthcare or who had any kind of a serious issue related to the neglect of the healthcare system. Primary healthcare is NOT rationed in Canada and there are NO quotas. If anything, the people I knew had a tendency to use the healthcare system more often than was really necessary - or they would have in the U.S. - because it was FREE and easily accessible. That being said, I believe that it may well be true that some non-emergency, elective medical procedures may take longer to have done in Canada than in the U.S. I dont know if the current healthcare changes being debated in Congress are the right ones for the nation. I also do not think that Canada has all of the answers pertaining to healthcare. However, having used both healthcare systems, if I had to choose between the two (without a third option), I would opt for the healthcare I received in Canada. I believe that it is, at the very least, a kinder system for the poor, aged and chronically ill and a much simpler system to use for all.

KarenH

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:39 p.m.

Obamacare, rationing, socialized medicine, quotas, scaring seniors... I'm surprised the writer didn't mention death-panels. Why are conservatives so afraid of health reform? Every Canadian I know understands how much better their single-payer (not socialized) system is than our broken and inhumane for-profit one is.

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:20 p.m.

That says all you need to know about unreasonablevoice. He believes people want to be at the bottom, poor, uneducated, unemployed, foreclosed and bankrupted. Conservatives believe people are incentivized to choose these fates and are therefore not worthy of assistance! Larry, where was your concern when Ronnie Reagan and the Bush Crime Family added 12 trillion to that National Debt? Just asking There is an excellent letter from UPSman that gives more firsthand info about Canada's health system than any other. This is in the letter on single payer ins. Moose, you are absolutely right about Christians. If Jesus came back tomorrow they would still crucify him. Jesus would have made a better President than any Republican! Imagine, caring about the lesser among us. How unamerican! And I am an Atheist! Merry Christmas

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:59 a.m.

Moose, When was the last time you "catered to the poor"? Churches and private foundations are far more efficient at getting donations to the poor. The government eats up $1.50 for every dollar that it "donates". More government is not the answer. By keeping government out of things, we allow the private sector to thrive, which produces more wealth for all. You only have to look at the recent growth in India, Brazil and China, and even Indonesia, to see this. Millions (if not Billions) of people have been lifted out of poverty, because they reduced government and encouraged free enterprise.

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:44 a.m.

Moose, That is actually the exact opposite of what these people are saying. The opposition to H.R. 3200 does not define success as "All my needs have been met by Government". Instead, they believe in saying "I had the ability to work hard and improve my situation, but I do not begrudge anyone who isn't willing to do the same." However, they believe it is unwise to offer incentives for people to stay at the bottom of the economic ladder.

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:37 a.m.

The Grinch, Please do your math. Our GDP is $16,000 Billion, our National Debt is $14,000 Billion. That amounts to 85 % (yes, EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT) of GDP (and not 30% as you had stated in your post). It's just incredible that some people cannot do the simple arithmetic!! Wake up, Mr. Grinch.

Moose

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:34 a.m.

For the morally challenged, these might help http://bible.cc/proverbs/28-6.htm http://bible.cc/proverbs/19-1.htm

Moose

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:30 a.m.

There are far too many people here who think only of themselves and their wallets rather than the nation as whole. I'm reminded of the old dictum, "I got mine, everyone else can take a hike".

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:24 a.m.

Moose, I have a lot of respect for Jesus, but he would have been a terrible President.

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:20 a.m.

The Grinch, Increasing the national debt and devaluing currency is acceptable for a short-term increase in exports. Because the United States has a trade deficit with just about every nation, it should indeed be beneficial in the short-term. However, it is also a fact that the United States is a service oriented economy. The tax increases in H.R. 3200 provide an even stronger disincentive to produce goods in the United States. Therefore, we are left trying to fuel our economy by export levels that are not feasible. Any projection saying H.R. 3200 will lower the deficit is dependent on large tax increases primarily on wealthy Americans. The problem with this assumption is that wealthy Americans have increased mobility. Instead of seeing the wealthy move to Florida to avoid taxes, we will begin seeing them move to Costa Rica. Any way you look at it, H.R. 3200 will have a crippling effect on the American economy in the long-term. As I stated previously, the United States needs to stop governing using the poor as pawns in a political game. Since the inception of American democracy, it has been known the system would collapse upon people realizing they can vote themselves more benefits than they contribute. Please do not allow personal emotions to cloud rational thought/judgment.

arbormike

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:15 a.m.

I have good friends in Canada and travel there often, I am no expert, but just reading the intro to your letter, I can tell you are misinformed. Canadians are allowed to seek private medical resources in their own country. If this woman wanted to get her $20,000 knee replacement in Canada in a week, she could have. She didn't have to come here to the US. Get your facts straight. It's clear you are a right wing zealot, but find some balance.

Moose

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:04 a.m.

Didn't Jesus "cater" to the poor? Written by voice of reason (???) "Please everyone, don't allow yourselves to be led by people who cater strictly to the interests of poor people. It will eventually be the downfall of American democracy." Unbelievable, outrageous comment. You might as well say that the USA is for Rich People and not poor people, people who lost jobs and health care through no fault of their own and often because of unfettered capitalism like profit hungry insurance companies. What happened to E Pluribus Unum? What happened to UNITED States of America? Give us your tired, poor, hungry, yearning to breathe free? United We Stand, Divided We Fall? Whatever happened to looking out for each other, helping those less fortunate and since we live in the USA, where we are all, ALL OF US, are together whether we want it or not, in this experiment called democracy? Whatever happened to "do to others what you would like to be done to you"? Compassion? Empathy? Helping others less fortunate?

aareader

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:51 a.m.

TruBlue, ibit, the grinch, David Briegel, toomuchtodo, in my opinion have it correct. Any health program that is run by a "for profit insurance" company will always look at their bottom line costs first and providing quality hearth care for people second. The first rule of any for profit business is "to make a profit". A government run program with the proper safeguards would coat less to administer than any "for profit" health insurance company. Plus the government program would cover ALL of our citizens. To all of those that think a government option would be so bad I hope that you have or will opt out of the other "bad" social programs the government currently runs. Programs like Medicare, Social Security come to mind. If you can do that more power to you. The rest of us will need them.

glacialerratic

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:50 a.m.

Ah, Canada. So close, yet so misunderstood. The most recent (2008) Canadian federal survey of health care indicators showed that the median wait-time to see a specialist physician is just over a month, and 90% of individuals are seen within 3 months. Need a CAT scan? Median wait time is 2 weeks, and 57% needing any kind of diagnostic testing waited less than a month. Non-emergency surgery, perhaps? Median wait time is one month, and 82% of the cases are sewn up within three months. Critical cases are handled immediately. Yes, waiting in an emergency room can be a drag, and in Canada almost a quarter of folks arriving at the ER had a wait of four hours or more, and the coffee's just as bad as here. But more than 80% of Canadians have a regular family doctor, so fewer Canadians are reliant on the ER for primary care. Infant mortality? Got us beat--6.9 deaths per 1000 live births in the US vs. 5.4 in Canada. Furthermore, only 3.8% of Canadians spent more than 5% of after-tax income on prescription drugs--and nearly 88% spent less than 2%. And over 85% of Canadians are very or somewhat satisfied with their health system--there's always room for improvement. As a national health system, Canada (unlike the US) is actually able to measure the cost and effectiveness of the delivery of health care with great accuracy and in great detail and issue annual reports to the public. Take a look: Healthy Canadians A Federal Report on Comparable Health Indicators. http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf Yes, Canadians criticize aspects of their health system and are concerned about costs and regional and social disparities. But it's a truly remarkable success.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:44 a.m.

Some points for those of you who have all of a sudden discovered that the nation has a problem with budget deficits: 1) Where were you between 2001 and 2009? If you weren't complaining then, your complaints now carry no weight. 2) Each of the proposals for health care reform that have been scored by the CBO have the expectation of reducing the deficit. So, if deficits are your concern, you should be in favor of health care reform. 3) Our national debt is about 30% of our GDP. While this is higher than usual, it is not unprecedented. During WW2 it reached 50%, and our economy came out of WW2 as strong as it had ever been, and that prosperity continued almost unabated for 30 years. Yes, we need to be concerned about our deficit and debt problems, but to equate the federal budget with "balancing the checkbook" and "living within our means" is a gross simplification and displays massive ignorance of macro-economics. Long before John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Hamilton understood the value of the national government carrying a perpetual debt.

TripleVSix

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:41 a.m.

Good letter, Mr. Wiggins. "Mr. Wiggins, although I appreciate your concern, silly epithets of "Obamacare" are meaningless distractions" -- So, 1bit, I'm assuming you are also going to lobby your liberal friends in the media and on Capitol Hill to stop using the vulgar term, "Teabaggers," too? Let us know when you've accomplished that.

clara

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:38 a.m.

yes @The Grinch see my entry from the ultra leftist/progressive MSNBC

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:32 a.m.

Clara: The Washington Times is an ultra conservative newspaper owned by the Rev Sun Myung Moon. It has fired many in its newsroom and editorial staff for not toeing the line and its twising of fact makes Faux Noise look positively truthful. So, if your best evidence is anything from the Washington Times, better keep looking.

clara

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:20 a.m.

Ideas: reform should first do no harm protect medicare and not cut it in the name of health care reform prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors prohibit efforts to ration health care based on age prevent government from interfering with end-of-life care discussions ensure seniors can keep their current coverage protect veterans by preserving tricare and other benefit programs for military families extending tax savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own Implement comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly, unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors financial help to caregivers who provide in-home care for a loved one keep health care coverage regardless of a change in or loss of a job opt-out, rather than opt-in rules for employers allowing dependents to remain on their parents health policies up to the age of 25 make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition give small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas

larry

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:10 a.m.

Several points: 1) Why the big focus on health care at this point? The US health care system is not in crisis. Our economy is, and the National Debt is OUT OF CONTROL. This years' debt alone is $1,800 Billion. Instead of focussing on reducing the deficit, the luminaries in Washington are proposing $1,400 Billion in MORE spending of MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE. Money DOES NOT GROW ON TREES. Somebody has to pay the bills eventually. Otherwise we will be bowing to China ALL the time. 2) The current health-reform proposals do not consider common-sense proposals for cost reduction such as Torte reform. They also do not include being allowed to purchase insurance across state lines. More government is not the answer. Their only solution is to raise taxes to pay for all their spending. You only have to look at Michigan as an example. Taxes and Millages are the answer to everything. Try paying off $15,000 BILLION (and counting). Thank you, Gerald, for your letter.

toomuchtodo

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:04 a.m.

Assuming the author is correct, I would contend that a person who currently does not have any insurance in the US would surely prefer a wait of 3 years rather than not have access to the knee replacement surgery at all. Three years vs. NEVER... seems like a good deal to me!

InsideTheHall

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:02 a.m.

I concur 100% having lived in Canada. The government had their hand in everything including medical services. The system is a mess in Canada. Any medical procedure will require a wait....sometimes up to months. I lived it firsthand. The Grinch said: So who do we expect will make the most rational, patient-centered decision: an insurance company that wants to spend as little as possible so that its ever-growing profits can be sent to shareholders, or the government that has no profit motive? Seriously Grinch, the government may have no profit motive but where is the incentive to provide quality care. With an insurance company you still have choices. My employer recently bagged our insurance carrier because they failed their metrics. What do we do when the government fails (H1N1 vaccines etc.)??????????

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:56 a.m.

What excellent responses to an obviously flawed letter. Don't trouble Mr Wiggins with facts. "Fundamental Immorality". Americans pay twice as much for less! The only person between you and your doctor is the insurance company denier who, along with his CEO, are rewarded handsomely for denying the premium payer his health care! Nobody dies in Canada from lack of health care. That is an American "outcome". The Canadians live longer than Americans and have a better infant mortality rate. They pay less for drugs because they believe in a free market and Billy Tauzin is American! Many Americans go to Canada and Mexico to buy drugs for less. Mr Wiggins, if you are listening I hope you have learned that most Americans want America to do better!

clara

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:51 a.m.

Under "No lifetime or annual limits." the Senate health care bill would let insurance companies place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer. Per MSNBC 12-11-09

voiceofreason

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:46 a.m.

PersonX, Obamacare is an entirely appropriate name for this particular piece of legislation. Like it or not, H.R. 3200 will be Obama's "Iraq War". It was his top priority coming into office, and he is willing to "bend the truth" publicly in order to get it passed. Personally, my solution would be to institute as many cost cutting measures into the current system and take a "Wait and See" approach. This would give us a better idea of how much there actually is to spend, without blindly giving free healthcare to everyone and bankrupting the treasury in perpetuity. I personally oppose any healthcare bill that raises the overall cost of care, because fixing the system does not require a massive capital expenditure. The only portion of this bill that would drastically raise the cost of care is the "public option", which I am strongly opposed to. Please everyone, don't allow yourselves to be led by people who cater strictly to the interests of poor people. It will eventually be the downfall of American democracy.

clara

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:43 a.m.

"administration economists on Friday predicted the overhaul would accelerate rising costs of health insurance and medical services, and that its proposed Medicare cuts could reduce care for senior citizens. A report by analysts at the Health and Human Services Department said the bill would increase the nation's annual spending on health care beyond the current $2.5 trillion at a slightly faster rate than if Congress did nothing. It concluded that new taxes on drugs, medical devices and health insurance plans would trigger higher insurance premiums for consumers. The report also said the Democrats' plan to pay for about half of the $1 trillion bill with Medicare cuts "may be unrealistic" and could undermine the Medicare program, warning the bill could force out of business one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care providers. " The Washington Times

theodynus

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:26 a.m.

Canada doesn't HAVE a socialized health care system. That the author doesn't appear to know the difference between single-payer and socialized health care should be a warning sign that he's getting most of his information from morons. If you want to rely on anecdotes, you don't need to look far to find people who have had even worse experiences in this country.

Dave from Ann Arbor

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9:23 a.m.

Do you think health care is not rationed in the US? In the US, health care is rationed in the most egregious manner possible: those that can afford health insurance have it, those who cannot afford health insurance have none!

PersonX

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:55 a.m.

This whole posting makes little sense, full of red herrings. Red herring a) No one is proposing a Canadian-style system for the US. Of course, anecdotes aside, 90% of Canadians like their system, but that is irrelevant. Red herring b) there is no such things as Obamacare; there are a number of bills being debated by the legislative branch, that is the elected representatives of the country. Red herring c) the cuts to Medicare that are being debated concern additional payments to insurance companies, not basic care, which is why AARP is in favor... Why not debate the facts and the proposed legislation, without the scare tactics and epithets. The cost of health care in this country is not only a disaster as far as many average citizens are concerned, but is also a major drain on the economy, preventing growth and job creation. We need solutions, not talking points.

The Grinch

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:53 a.m.

Health care in this nation is rationed now, but by profit-oriented insurance companies rather than by the government. So who do we expect will make the most rational, patient-centered decision: an insurance company that wants to spend as little as possible so that its ever-growing profits can be sent to shareholders, or the government that has no profit motive? Not to mention the fundamental immorality of businesses profitting from the denial of health care needed by their clients. Yeah, it's a great health care system we have.

TruBlue

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 8:30 a.m.

Thanks for the opinion but I am wondering what your counterproposal to "Obamacare" is? Keep everything the same as is? I wouldn't support keeping everything the same as the current system is broken. Many Americans are without health care (many even work full time). These same people clog the hospitals to get health care. I am open to suggestions to anything except keeping the status quo.