Comments about ‘Fear of government hinders health-care reform’

Leavitt did nothing in that position in the Bush administration. So, it is not surprising that he is counseling that nothing be done about health care insurance reform.

Agreed! It's long past time to end the government's insane, price-increasing monopoly granted to the medical doctors and their pharma pals have over our lives. Libertarianism now!!!

You're dang right that fear of government "hinders" health care reform! Government is the reason it's in such a mess now! More government will only make it worse. Fear of government is the basis of the U.S. Constitution, for heaven's sake! The Constitution was put into place to put chains on the temptation toward more government power. Government regulation has chosen winners and losers in the health industry and made the winners incredibly rich and powerful. The ability of other businesses to compete is almost nil because of those regulations.

Majorie it's interesting that you provided the solution for health care reform in your article, perhaps without even realizing it.

Competition.

"... The demonstration project revealed huge savings could be achieved through this process ..."

Health care costs are high because of government's interference in the process.

Your own words prove this.

"... industry representatives start pressuring members of Congress to pull the plug on the pilot project, which they did."

And yet, you want to turn the process over to a government that was a major cause for the steep rise in health care costs?

Bad idea.

There are better ways to lower health care costs for all. But turning it over to the government isn't the solution ... it's the problem.

OK. Let's totally lift all regulations for health care. The free market will go crazy and our costs for health care will plunge downward to the point that most Americans will be able to afford health care if (and only if) they care to buy it. While we are at it let's get government out of prescription meds. The market will decide which medicines are helpful and safe. Let's quit wasting money on tests and trials. We'll know sooner rather than later which products are safe. Drug companies will let us know with increased advertising. If we deregulate everyting we'll soon solve all our problems and the deficit will be gone . . .just like that!!!

Mikey Leavitt is an expert at smiling and doing nothing. His tiny little experiment ran into trouble with five fat Republican Congressmen from Texas, and instead of standing up to them, he caved. Those Repubs were big beneficiaries of medical-device company donations, e.g. Sen. John Cornyn. Leavitt is not only a wimp, he's a Republican wimp.

Insurance companies, doctors, drug companies, etc. have had DECADES to form a solution. When may we expect some action? In another fifty years? Government isn't the problem ... democrats, republicans, insurance companies, drug companies, etc. ARE THE PROBLEM.

You hire a medical broker to find the best price and the best performance in medicine, he gets paid a fee. Bet the price would come down to less than 50% of current controlled market. Why should I be paying for the birth of babies, or viagra or rehab from drug addiction or social work counselors? I have specific interests and a superior healthy lifestyle. There are many many better solutions than the government intervention in the medical market. The needy have their medical care taken care of. Take the chains off and let free enterprise work.

"Competition"
What has stopped health insurance companies from competing before now? Oh, the Republicans think the solution is to open up competition across state borders. Yet, the trend in our economy is consolidation--which is how we've got too many companies who are "too big to fail." This proposal also ignores the huge additional complexity which will fall on the shoulders of Drs. who are already spending 40+ hrs/wk dealing with various insurance companies and different plans within those insurance companies.

Why are we listeing to Republicans anyway? Aren't they the ones who crafted Medicare Part D--the giveaway to Pharma that wasn't paid for? Now they're whining about the changes proposed for Medicare Advantage--a giveaway to private health insurers who are ripping taxpayers off.

the government needs to prove they can run medicare and social security before they embark on another massive entitlement program - so far they have not done so.

I actually think Marjorie gets it! That's AMAZING for someone in the media to actually get this.

Of course it's about people fearing (or better put... not wanting to be controled by.. or regulated by) the Government.

We don't want to give the Government control of too much of our life because THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH US. We want the freedom to make our own decisions, our own mistakes, it's the only way we can achieve our own success!

And even IF I feel the government is doing a good job today... Things will always change. People who think/act like me will not ALWAYS be in power. Obama will not ALWAYS be in power. Some day the Republicans (and by proxy the religious_right) will be controling this same Healthcare monopoly you are begging for. THEN what are your chances of getting increased abortion rights funded by the Government???

From my life experience, the government can only understand and support about half of the population's concerns at any given time. TODAY it's the Obama people's agenda. But in a few years, who knows?

The same control/power over your life you give the government today... will eventually be in the hands of people you DON'T agree with. THAT, is a certainty.

So you need to ask yourself... When the Obama administration is gone, and even heaven forbid, when a Republican or an independent or gasp, even a fiscal reformer should be in power and having to cut the Gov healthcare plan to save the country from bankruptcy... Will you be just as happy?

In the future... your employer no longer provides any healthcare benefits (That was a bygone idea outlawed by Obama YEARS ago). And FURTHER into the future the Gov decides it can no longer afford to provide these benefits... So... what do you do now?

Personally I don't want to turn this part of my life over to the government permanently. Today I may like what they are doing. But current performance is no guarantee of future performance. You never know WHO will control the government in the future or what their agenda or focus will be.

They may not agree with you (politically, socially, morally, etc) your values, your family concerns, your family needs, etc, at all.

I was taken aback by Michael Moore’s observation in “Sicko” that industrialized countries fear upsetting their citizens; but most Americans fear their government. After all, this is the Land of the Free, not Iran.
In the example Secretary Leavitt cited, the process was not arbitrarily invented and imposed by some external regime. It evolved from and for local citizens’ expectations for the safety of their lives and property. We have the power and access to the means for changing what doesn’t work. Fear and suspicion of government intervention, like most fears, is exacerbated by the average American’s civic ignorance and laziness. This is overlooked by media and politicians who stress the ‘you can’t beat city hall’ sentiment. WE are the Government.
Our food supply, our economy, our safety, etc. were compromised due to this sentiment. We’ve been at the mercy of politicians who used claims to ‘get the government off our back’ to mask their ineptness at managing public entities. We have to protect our privacy, safety and independence by holding them and civil servants to high standards. They, in turn, need to find better ways to communicate with us.

How about competition in ideas?

Not only for health care, where there is at present a virtual "take it or leave it" attitude in the government, despite talks of bi-partisan input, but also for posts o the subject - on this thread for example.

Yet again I can't get my view expressed in the online print.

I kept all the rules DesNews (my favorite paper out of a bad bunch). My! My! What did I say wrong this time?

How does giving the government a monopoly to provide healthcare increase competition?

I know that isn't what THIS bill does. But we all know that Obama (and MANY Democrat leaders and Union Bosses) have said that they want a single payer system in the United States (that's a monopoly).

They've backtracked on this in the public eye recently, but there are plenty of recorded speaches from the past and some even today, where Democrat leaders and Union leaders have expressed that they won't be satisfied until we have a single payer system, and they see this bill as just the first step.

Most Doctors and Leftist leaders/organizers realize that this plan will eventually colapse the free-market healthcare system... and we will have no other choice but to rely on the Government to provide it.

They know we will be BEGGING the government to take over healthcare when private insurace rates skyrocket to accomodate the new laws. The system will colapse and the government will be the last man standing. That's the strategy. How does that increase competition?

It’s GOOD to have a “fear” of government — or at least a basic skepticism. It’s part of our duty that the founders implied when they said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” That vigilance applies to threats from foreign enemies, of course. But — less obvious — it also applies to internal threats from those who would expand the power and reach of government, which always results in higher taxes and loss of freedom.

It should be noted that Michael Leavitt is a lobbyist being paid by the insurance companies, drug industry and for profit hospitals to oppose health care insurance reform. His most prominent lobbying role has been as a proponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now, after that 'success,' he is shifting his energies to preventing any meaningful reform of this country's health care mess.

I urge readers to refresh their memories of who Leavitt is and what he has done by at least reading his Wikipedia entry.

Of course we should maintain a sense of skepticism in order to arrive at the best solution. I read/hear a lot of skepticism about govt. What about corporations? Corporations goal is to make a profit--satisfy their board members. Most often these goals are short-term. Health insurance companies since at least 1994 knew health care reform was a possibility. Have they changed anything to head-off govt. intervention? No. They have continued to operate in a way to increase their stock price and CEO salaries at the expense of those they insure--the sick and dying--who pay for services.
You bet we need a public option. It is the only thing which will help hold down costs. Costs will continue to rise without it. Health insurance companies are going to gain as well--with more new customers once insurance is mandated. Right now the Federal Govt. already covers the most costly segment of the population in regards to healthcare--the elderly.

And of course Wikipedia is the great and absolutely unimpeachable source of information.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Yah, Who gets information from wikipedia when everybody knows the Daily Kos is the only source of unbiased truth out there!