I live in an upper middle class suburb of Chicago. Though the majority of residents are conservatives, government is enormous. Even the government here is struggling. They just announced the layoff of teachers. The town council voted for a 2 cent per gallon tax on gas. We now pay a total of 50 cents for tax on each gallon. The state is proposing a 2/3 increase on individuals income tax and a 1/3 increase on corporate tax. We have the income, so they will continue to raise the taxes.

I was mailed a traffic ticket last week which will cost me $125. My crime – a mounted camera caught me failing to make a complete stop at a red light. I was making a legal right turn on red, but that doesn’t matter. I viewed the video online and it’s true, I am guilty of rolling over the white line as I made the turn. The camera is not there for safety, it is there to get cash for the local government.

The federal government is certainly doing it’s share of getting more of our money. I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but congress just passed a healthcare bill that includes a few taxes. Here is a list:

• For individuals with “Cadillac insurance plans” ( I don’t even know what that means), there is a 40% tax over a certain amount.
• For small businesses with 50+ employees, they will be required by law to provide health insurance for their employees. They will face heavy fines and penalties if they don’t obey. This is a big reason the bill calls for an additional 16,000 IRS agents.
• For businesses in the healthcare industry – pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, insurance, and tanning salons (yep, you heard right); they will face higher taxes and fees. I’m sure they will cheerfully pay those and not pass any costs on to us.
• For those lucky enough to make over $200k per year, you will have a higher medicare tax taken from your payroll check.
• Capital gains, investment, and interest income will have added tax to pay for healthcare.
• It will be harder to get the medical deduction. Until now you could take a medical deduction if over 7.5% of your income went for healthcare expenses. This bill raises that percentage 10%.
• If you don’t have insurance now, by law you will have to buy it or be fined. This will not be a problem if you have income. Actually, it is not really a problem if you don’t have income. Those with income can be taxed and it will be payed for you.

As long as we can keep paying, there will be no healthcare crisis. If this bill does not pay for itself as the democrats promise, no problem, they can tax more of our income.

The New York Times reported that 2010 will be the first year that Social Security benefit payouts will exceed the receipts from taxes. You could take all the money from the three wealthiest American families – the Buffet’s (Warren not Jimmy), the Gates, and the Walton’s and not begin to provide enough resources for the coming Social Security bailout.

Don’t worry, there is still money to tax so there is no crisis. Whew!

I give democrats credit for doing all they can to take care of the disadvantaged. Their method of paying for these programs is the problem. First, they somehow believe that big government spending will help the economy and somehow save money. Their second step is the age old socialist tactic of income redistribution (taxation). Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This brings us to the republicans.

Traditionally, democrats spend and republicans pay. Republicans are like the parent at the kitchen table looking over the bills. A good parent will do more than just complain to the family about what they are spending. A mature parent will come up with ways to generate more money. The problem in Washington is that the republicans are now the irresponsible siblings of the democrats and whine because they don’t get their way.

I cringe at these conservative arguments that claim Obama is a socialist, a Muslim, the Anti-Christ, and is not born in America. Is this the best the right can come up with? It doesn’t matter, WE still have to pay for this healthcare bill. Have republicans forgotten about capitalism? Do they even know the story of the industrial age, telecommunications, railroads, gold rush and mining, energy, and technological advances through American entrepreneurs? It wasn’t Social Security that made this country great, it was the freedom to dream and work toward a better life.

I have listened to republicans whine over the last year because the democrats would not listen to their healthcare ideas. I’m glad they didn’t listen! The republican ideas were as bad as the democrats. The free market is the only hope that we will ever see basic needs met for every American. The free market is the only hope that we will again see a vibrant economy. The free market is the best solution for joblessness. This should be the message of republicans.

At one point, Obama heard the cries of the republicans and invited them to a one day healthcare summit. Instead of begging for his crumbs, they should have held their own “grow the damn economy” summit every day until small business in America was confident to invest, hire, and take risks again. By the way republicans, we are still waiting.

The democrats have made profit into a dirty word. The republicans need to make Americans feel sexy again for makin’ money! We are not looking for a program or a handout, just protect us from the heavy hand of government and the stifling power of big business.

Healthcare costs are too high. Too many people do not have insurance. Insurance companies make too much profit. Too many people are dying because they do not have access to healthcare. The problem has gone on too long and something has to be done. This is the simple argument for reform.

If all these problems could be solved with this healthcare bill and the CBO report is accurate, then I too would be giddy. But I have serious doubts. And I am sick of their continued use of the term “reform”.

Over the years I have witnessed Washington tackle many reforms. We’ve enjoyed tax reforms, education reform, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and many others. The promise of reform is always the same – cost savings with a simpler system. In my view, every time a reform is passed it costs more money and the system becomes more complex.

During all this talk I have yet to hear the term “bureaucracy”. The first thing that happens when the government gets involved with anything is create bureaucracy. I’ve heard of 12,000 additional IRS agents that will be needed to enforce the tax laws in this bill. There will be many new government agencies, departments, offices, staff, processes, rules, procedures, etc. The 535 congressmen and President Obama will not have nearly enough family and friends to fill all the positions.

The 2500 pages of this bill is now a blur to me. The promises are impossible  to believe anymore. Take this one example. You have heard that the bill will save $500 billion by stopping Medicare fraud. Really? If it is so easy to stop the fraud, why didn’t they do it 20 years ago or even last year? I expect about as much success here as the “war on drugs”. I bet there is nothing in this new bill that protects us from the new fraud that crooks will invent to steal money from this plan.

I am ashamed at the behavior of some of my conservative brethren. Their insensitivity to the uninsured sick is beyond imagination. But don’t miss the conservative point. The issue is not just about money, we question the assumption that this bill is going to save lives. Health insurance is no guarantee of quality health care.

I am not giddy about this heathcare mess.

I have no problem with my current insurance provider or the healthcare I receive. What is going to change for me with this new healthcare bill? Will my premiums be cheaper or more expensive? Will medical services be easier to get or harder?

When I have a complaint or a question about healthcare, will I now be adding a government number to my speed dial? Will the government provide customer service and other points of contact.

There is no tort reform in this bill. This means that the medical lawsuits will continue unhindered. Will these huge payouts to people and their lawyers now come from taxes?

After the bill passes, what will happen when someone shows up to a doctor or hospital without insurance? Today they are usually treated. Will they be fined? Will they be denied care until contacting the government? Will it be the responsibility of the healthcare provider to report them to the government or get them signed up?

It appears that abortions will now be covered with tax dollars. This has been against the law until now. What other questionable services (sex change operations, botox injections, etc)will taxpayers by on the hook for?

Republicans are saying they will try to get the bill repealed. This will be their issue in the 2010 elections. I am willing to give it a chance, but what happens if it fails to reduce costs, fails to insure those without insurance, or makes healthcare worse?

The insurance companies have been blasted by Obama and all the liberals. During all this this yapping the stock prices of these terrible companies have risen. How is that possible? How has this become a sweet deal for the insurance companies?

I hear that 30 million people will be insured who currently don’t have access. How quickly will they have coverage and how will pouring this number of people into the system not create a huge demand on medical providers?

The government will mandate that insurance companies insure people with “pre-existing conditions”. They are accused of denying people coverage because of these conditions, since they can’t make a profit. The premiums will have to be huge, so will the government just pay them with tax dollars?

There is very little, if any, competition among the segments of healthcare. Will this bill encourage competition or move the whole system closer to a socialist situation? The total medical costs last year was $2.5 trillion. Why not just go socialist and confiscate all medical facilities, make all healthcare professionals government employees, eliminate the insurance industry, and pay for everything? Would this not help employers and the economy?

There are so many more questions, but I will stop here. I am afraid. I believe in a free, capitalistic society. This country became the greatest, most powerful, and richest due to the free spirit of it’s people. I think there are better ways to meet the needs of the uninsured, but it will now be squarely in the hands of politicians. Are you ready?

I am grateful for the healthcare I have received throughout my life. In 1957 I was born in a small rural hospital in East Tennessee with a club foot. At 10 years old, doctors performed surgery to straighten my legs. I would later become an athlete and routinely outperform others in physical activities. I want to start a boxing league for guys over 50 right now.

My kids experienced numerous health problems landing them in hospitals. We had multiple knee surgeries and one burst appendix. Even with insurance, my family has qualified for the medical deduction on income taxes multiple times. I have no complaints about the nurses, doctors, or hospitals. I have never appreciated the complicated billing process or the mounds of paperwork required. Like everyone, I hate how much medical care costs.

My greatest fear is that this healthcare plan will limit services, increase costs, and overall reduce the quality of care. Obama promises just the opposite. I hope he is right. My problem is that once the government is in charge there is no accountability. The progressives say that over 40,000 people die each year because they do not have access to healthcare. Once this bill is passed, that stat will be hidden. If the bill passes, will anyone question 10 years from now how many died due to lack of care?  Even if 80,000 were to die the government would claim success. They would say that 160,000 would have died without the bill.

Ditto on the costs. I believe each of us will pay more for healthcare regardless of this bill. The government again will boast of their genius for reducing costs. They will say that costs would have skyrocketed without their intervention.

The big number is the uninsured. Obama says this bill will insure 30 million people who do not currently have insurance. Does the government have the names of those people and will they follow up in 10 years to see how many are in the program? That would be no, but they will proclaim loudly about the millions who received it. When you get government control, you get political spin and no real accountability.

I listened to two doctors, on both sides of the issue, debate about the bill’s effect on various medical procedures until my head was about to explode. Each procedure carries it’s own unique requirements, complications, and risks.  Is Nancy Pelosi really the best person in the country to provide a solution to this mess?

I am getting sicker by the minute.

To save time I looked at the department in my own state – Illinois. It is called the Illinois Department of Insurance. I was shocked to to read the mission statement in the center of the top banner. It said, “The mission of the Department of Insurance is to protect consumers by providing assistance and information, by efficiently regulating the insurance industry’s market behavior and financial solvency, and by fostering a competitive insurance marketplace.”

Do you see why I was shocked to read this? The purpose of this agency is to regulate and foster competition within the insurance industry. Do you know what this whole healthcare bill is about? Whether or not the government should regulate and control health insurance to foster competition. Is that not the exact same thing?

The republicans in congress should object to the president’s plan on the grounds that we already have a department in every state to do what he is suggesting. The democrats should say fine, now let’s move on to the entitlement part to make sure everyone has health insurance.

I wonder if the bill eliminates the state departments? It should, since they have obviously failed at their task. I’m sure the individual departments would say they can’t do their job without more money and staff. Will the democrats agree to cut these state bureaucracies if the bill passes? Democrats would never cut a government office.

I couldn’t find out how many government employees work at the Illinois Department of Insurance. Their website outlines their organization with an Executive Staff, Legal Department, Consumer Market Department with 7 subsidiaries, a Financial-Corporate Regulatory Department with five sections, and support staff. What are they doing?

There are huge healthcare questions that need to be answered. Why do x-rays cost thousands when they should cost hundreds? How do we keep premiums down so most people can afford them? How do we provide insurance to the poor, the people un-insurable with pre-existing conditions, and yes, the people who live irresponsibly? How do we promote research for new and better medical devices, drugs, and procedures? How do we get the right people to the summit table to answer these questions?

Let me be clear – I don’t believe the government can effectively manage the healthcare of 300 million people. It will be slower, more costly, and take the lives of countless Americans. The government should be about the business of regulating and taxing. Government is necessary for establishing insurance industry rules so that citizens are protected. They can redistribute wealth so that the disadvantaged has access to medical care. End of story!

Now, what do we do about these state insurance boards?

I have observed over the years that once a government program has begun it can never be reduced or eliminated. Once people have been hired to manage government deals, they will never be fired. Big buildings will be constructed to house thousands of bureaucrats who will have better pay and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our economy and it is about to be moved into the hands of government. What if it ends up being a bad idea? One thing is for sure, there will be no turning back.

The healthcare plan promises insurance for all, lower medical costs, deficit reduction, jobs, and a stronger economy. If this happens, then additional taxes and fees to pay for the plan will be well worth it. If it doesn’t happen, we will be like the guy falling off the cliff who said about half way down, “it’s okay so far”.

I tune in to progressive talk radio and television. Most of these people are smart and have a huge commitment to the disadvantaged. They want healthcare passed at all costs. They will not consider, however, the possibility that a government program could fail. That it could be a bad idea. That it will make a situation worse. That is, unless it’s a conservative president that is taking us into a war. Only then will an exit strategy be demanded.

If the progressive numbers are correct, there are many more casualties due to Americans inability to get healthcare than the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan combined. What if the healthcare plan costs more lives than it does now? A bill being passed in congress may constitute a miracle these days, but it can’t guarantee a better path to healing for the sick.

I would feel better if Obama would include an exit strategy. Why can’t he propose an honest review in 2020. Ask how many people are still uninsured. What medical services are being denied certain groups (elderly)? Has there been a rationing of services? Are there longer waits to getting urgent care? What is the condition of end of life programs for the terminally ill? How many people are dying because they can’t get adequate care when they need it? You get the idea.

I am burdened for the people who do not have access to quality healthcare. But I am scared to death about the government taking it over. I still believe the free market would provide better healthcare faster, and lower costs if given the chance. State insurance boards should be eliminated and the insurance industry opened up to competition, for starters. Oops, I forgot, you can’t eliminate government agencies.

The obvious question is, do men really need the added 3 inches? But this is not the question that I intend to answer in this article. I want to deal with the political and economic side of the debate.

Now that Scott Brown is a rock star senator from Massachusetts, he will be a part of this debate. He won Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. Kennedy was well known for his sexual conquests and now he may have the perfect successor. When in college Brown was named Sexiest Man Alive by Cosmo Magazine. He also appeared nearly nude for the mag. What would he say about the 3 inches?

If the promise of the pill is true, I would like to know who paid for the research. Did our tax dollars go to scientists for this discovery? Are their any congressmen that sponsored this research and what are their names?

I have no doubt that there are congressmen who would purchase these pills. In full disclosure, it should be made public. I am impressed with the sexual activity of these old guys in Washington. Too often we hear of interns pleasing their elected bosses, presidents getting bj’s, and even gay sex. Each time I see Robert Byrd sleeping in his congressional seat (92 year old rep from Virginia), I never know if it is because of age or if he is just worn out!

Has anyone investigated the healthcare bill to see if it provides coverage for enlarging sex organs? I heard that certain sex change surgery is available. If that’s true, then it would not be a stretch (pardon the pun) to have treatments covered by insurance that increase or alter sexual performance tools.

This would also be a big help to the uninsured. Many of them do not have jobs and could use a lift during these hard times. I will no longer apologize for the puns.

This subject gives new meaning to the phrase “big government”. And what is big government famous for? “Stimulus” plans! We can now answer the question, “How do you measure a good politician?”

Herbert Hoover promised “a chicken in every pot”. This illustrates how far we have strayed when living with economic trials. In the past politicians focused on pots, now they focus on pants.

We all want affordable healthcare available to every citizen. The current healthcare system stinks and the thought of millions of people uninsured is disgraceful and unacceptable for a nation so blessed. Both the house and senate versions of healthcare reform make me want to cry. I think a philosophical reform should happen first.

The only credential I have to speak to this issue is a long life experiencing the best and worst of the medical world. I read, listen, observe, and think of more effective ways of accomplishing things. Here is my answer to the healthcare mess – eliminate group insurance. Let individuals decide what coverage they want and which companies to buy it from. Insurance would then not be affected by job changes.

It seems the only solution our leaders can think of is in terms of group insurance. There is employer provided, association group plans, Unions, and the dreaded government public option. Group insurance does not have a long history and one has to ask if it is the best idea for today.

The first modern group insurance was formed in 1929. Some teachers in Dallas, TX worked out a plan with Baylor Hospital for medical services. Believe it or not, the depression decade of the 30′s was the start and boom for big insurance companies, including “non-profit” organizations Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Employer provided insurance expanded during WWII when the government froze wages. Companies got around the freeze by providing health benefits. Unions successfully bartered for tax breaks on healthcare and greater insurance benefits in the 50′s and beyond.

The medical world has changed a lot since the depression era. Science has enabled us to live much longer with thousands of new drugs, therapies, and procedures becoming available. The needs and desires of each person are profoundly different. What group plan can meet these demands?

For example, let’s say a company has 10 women 55 years old and 10 women 25. How will this company deal with maternity coverage? It’s very important to the 25 year old and not as valuable to the lady who is 55. If it were an individual plan the person would not be paying for unnecessary coverages and could purchase a tailor made plan. The employers can focus on better employee pay rather than paying for endless negotiations and insurance bureaucracy.

In the depression times African Americans life expectancy was 6 years less than whites. Today it is still 6 years less. How can this be with all the medical advances? Could it be that group insurance favors the majority of people – whites?

Insurance companies would have to compete for each individual or family (the only group that makes sense), just like auto insurance. I imagine that many would specialize in niche markets, like old men who cliff dive and drive race cars. The government’s job would be to regulate the industry and provide backup to the insurance companies in the event of disasters. Require basic insurance for all and if the private charities fail to assist the poor, raise taxes and start paying the premiums.

The current healthcare plans in congress are not about saving lives, but saving careers. It is important for certain politicians to get this thing passed quickly so they can be elected again. Healthcare is too important to be used as a political volleyball. Will you join me in this debate?

Sam Walton was the founder of Wal-Mart. The first store was opened in 1962 and grew by providing American made products at the lowest prices. Today, Wal-Mart employs over 2 million people full-time and of the top 10 richest people on the planet, half are the sons and daughters of Sam Walton. Sam was, like private insurance companies, most concerned about profit. Walton knew the way to riches was to meet the needs of his customers.

I am not happy with the performance of insurance companies. I completely disagree, however, that the federal government can do a better job of meeting the healthcare needs of people than profit seeking companies. Who do you think could provide the best services most effectively and repeatable over a broad spectrum of locations, economies, etc. – Uncle Sam or Sam Walton?

I fear government control of healthcare. Government managed programs and services are marked by inefficiencies, higher costs, waste, and corruption. Obama tells us that Medicare fraud alone costs us $500 million.

The following points should help clarify why I think a profit seeking company can do a better job than government.

• If the federal government runs a program poorly, there are no consequences. A government program can’t go bankrupt.
• Private sector managers routinely cut costs to produce a profit. Government managers have no pressure to reduce costs. In many cases it would be stupid to do it, considering their budgets would then be lowered the next year.
• Without a profit motive there is no incentive to improve services. At Wal-Mart you are welcomed by greeters. When going to a government facility you are greeted with arrows directing you to the correct line. Neither greeters or arrows are a guarantee of great service, but it does speak volumes as to who is trying hardest to please the customer.
• Profit is fueled by innovation, new ideas, and improved ways of doing things. There is no innovation in government bureaucracies, just new layers of paperwork and procedures.
• Federal pay is tied to longevity not performance. In the private sector if you don’t perform you don’t endure.
• Federal employees are never fired, unless they are caught committing a crime. When Jack Welch was the CEO of GE he required each department to cut or move 10% of the least productive employees every year. There was accountability. You will never see this in government.

Most democrats want a single-payer system. That means insurance companies would eventually be eliminated and government would be the only option. I think democrats really believe that government would care about people more than private companies. That may be true, but even abusive parents love their kids. The government systems usually become flawed and impossible to change or eliminate.

I will take my chances with capitalism, with companies who are seeking profit. At least they know that to grow and generate more profit they have to please me. The government is about mandates, laws,and standardization of care. No thanks.

If the big issue is the uninsured, make a law that insurance companies have to insure them and then pay for it. Next issue, please.