Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

French healthcare

By
From page A5 | September 06, 2013 | 75 Comments

EDITOR:

Mr. Garon just wrote a lengthy letter praising the French government-run healthcare system. My letter will be much shorter.

The French government, as is most of the Eurozone, is in a serious debt crisis. The government healthcare system in France, which Mr. Garon lauds, is projected by the French government to run a deficit of about 5.1 billion Euros in 2013. And even that may be optimistic because it’s based on an economic growth rate of .8 percent, which is twice the European Commission estimate.

You can make anything look good if you are willing to spend money you don’t have and burden your grandchildren with debt, but it’s hardly anything to brag about.

GEORGE ALGER
Placerville

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 75 comments

  • JackSeptember 04, 2013 - 7:19 pm

    George Alger is confused and lets his ideology get in the way of facts! So what's new? The French government's social security budget is, indeed, running a deficit, but this budget includes lots of items beside health care costs: retirement benefits, unemployment benefits, support for large families and a host of other social benefits too long to list here. What Mr. Alger does not grasp is that most Europeans do not view the role of government as one that must incur deficits for the purchase of weapons and related items (as we do here). Europeans generally see budget deficits incurred for the well-being of the citizenry as necessary in times of economic hardship. That will be a novel idea to mr. Alger, i am sure.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 06, 2013 - 6:16 am

    Speaking of DEBT!!! Ours stood at $16,741,845,391,187.20 a few moments ago. Our National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.98 billion per day since September 30, 2012. Mr. Alger, you don't seriously believe your grandchildren won't be burdened with this?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 06, 2013 - 6:47 am

    P.S. Our National Debt has already increased by $4,786,290 since the above figure was posted.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 06, 2013 - 7:21 am

    A point always ignored by those who praise the socialized/nationalized healthcare system in Europe is the fact that without the United States providing so much defense spending for them they wouldn't have a national healthcare system. It is no different that the illegal drug trade being funded by our own welfare program. To call what they have in Europe affordable is a mischaracterization of facts. As per usual, the overwhelming majority of groupthink leftists have no clue as to the origin of what they have been trained to believe. In the case of socialized medicine in Europe the source of their cluelessness comes from a study known as World Health Report 2000. This report has been called among other things, "an intellectual fraud of historic consequence". Here is a little background on the report. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/obamacare_when_socialist_theory_meets_practice.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 06, 2013 - 9:23 am

    Cookie -- Is there any service that you would agree to socialize? I ask because the founders socialized several services and wonder if that makes them socialists in your eyes...?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 06, 2013 - 9:47 am

    Kirk, as a society "we the people" all or most agree that we collectively support certain needs as a society. National defense, public safety, emergency services and a number of other specific items. We currently have 126 separate federally funded financial assistance programs for the underprivileged. There is a slight difference between what a society as a whole chooses to pay for and what they are forced to pay for. Especially when those paying get no benefit and the benefit is used to expand the number of those who do benefit and who now outnumber those paying. Your question gives me some doubt about your thinking process.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 06, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Cookie -- so if we as a society chose to socialize medical care, you woulnd't have a problem with it?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 06, 2013 - 9:59 am

    Kirk, those who work for a paycheck are being overwhelmed by those who vote for a paycheck.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 06, 2013 - 10:00 am

    Kirk, society has not chosen to socialize healthcare.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 06, 2013 - 10:17 am

    Cookie -- I'll rephrase the question: If, in the future, we as a society choose to socialize medical care, would you be ok with that?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.September 06, 2013 - 10:22 am

    Don't we already, to an extent, have socialized medical care - Medicare and VA doctors and hospitals? Let's go to Medicare for all and put those greedy health insurance companies out of business. What are we waiting for?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.September 06, 2013 - 10:23 am

    Guess it's the lobbyist money going to Congress.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 06, 2013 - 10:37 am

    James -- yes, we already have a hybrid healthcare system that is partially socialized. It is a complete mess by any measure. The most efficient systems are not-for-profit single-payer. Like Medicare in form but not in efficiency. I'm just enjoying watching cookie assume the yoga position known as political pretzel. But seriously, why is Medicare so inefficient compared to other single-payer systems?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DavidSeptember 06, 2013 - 10:39 am

    It would be great if we could all agree that there could be something learned from other countries. We may not want their system, but when we start with the premise that ours is the best, and that there is nothing to be learned from others, I fear that we are not doing our best for our society or our children.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 06, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Kirk, where in the Constitution does the federal government find its authority to force FREE American citizens to purchase anything against their will? It is not a question of your healthcare, it is a question of all our freedom. The clowns who shackled this country with obamacare couldn't be less interested in creating a solution to the problems within this countries healthcare industry. The role of the federal government is not to force everyone to buy health insurance. The role of the federal government is to make it possible for anyone who wishes to, to purchase health insurance. Do you really think putting even more government bureaucrats between you and your healthcare is anything other than a giant leap in the wrong direction? The creators who envisioned this catastrophe believed by forcing younger people to buy health insurance they could subsidize and postpone the collapse of the Ponzi scheme of medicare and the entirety of obamacare is nothing more than doubling down on the original Ponzi scheme. Now they are talking about needing to subsidize the insurance of the youth who were supposed to contribute more while using less. As I have said before with all of the "as the secretary shall determine" included in obamacare the first 2,700 pages are just the index. An Orangutan with a box of Alpha Bits cereal could create a more productive and useful piece of legislation.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 06, 2013 - 12:27 pm

    Cookie -- you dodged my question: If, in the future, we as a society choose socialized medical care, would you be ok with that? To answer your questions...1) Article I Section 8. 2) More bureaucrats between me and my healthcare provider -- whether public or private sector -- is the wrong direction. I am no fan of the Affordable Care Act because it keeps the inefficient for-profit system in place. Bottom line for me is healthcare is inherently unsuited to a market system because the demand curve is infinitely elastic. It is very similar to national defense in that respect, and should be socialized for the same reasons.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodSeptember 06, 2013 - 9:24 pm

    Why not have both? Costa Rica has no cost medical care (socialized) as a plan A, and if you want better care you can pay for plan B which is excellent at a reasonable cost.. BEST medical care system in the world according to my parents that lived there off and on.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paul DuerSeptember 06, 2013 - 9:42 pm

    By now Americans, and especially Californians, should realize that the voters don't settle fights, they start them.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 07, 2013 - 6:05 am

    Kirk, your answer to my question of Constitutional authority is a cop-out. The Constitution LIMITS the authority and power of the federal government and you know it. The federal government is NOT granted the authority to force you to purchase healthcare insurance. If it were you could throw out the entire Constitution as meaningless. As to your question on supporting socialized healthcare, HE!! NO. Socialism is based entirely on the lie that government can make us all equal. Something that will never be true, so building anything on a lie is destined to failure just like socialism does, will and has everywhere it has ever been tried. When you speak of socializing healthcare you mean the system of insuring and paying for healthcare. What on planet earth causes you to believe that will solve the issue of the cost of healthcare? Socialism will not stop there so you need to understand what you are supporting. Will you support cost caps on medical care? Will you support pay caps on medical professionals? Will you support minimum production requirements placed on medical professionals? Will you support access to high end treatment based on your viability? Will you support a limit to your medical treatment based on costs? Will you support your private and confidential medical and financial information being accessed by government bureaucrats without your consent? Will support government sponsored entry into your home to establish that you live in and maintain a healthy environment? (kiss your 2nd Amendment rights goodbye) Will you support government mandated diet choices? (see the public schools) Will you support government required immunizations and vaccinations? Will you support the loss of Doctor/Patient confidentiality? Will you support cost savings thru culling out people who don't meet certain criteria? The list is endless and the support of socialized healthcare without asking "WHAT'S NEXT?" is foolish and naïve, especially in full view of those who have placed themselves as rulers over every aspect of our lives.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 07, 2013 - 6:32 am

    The government licenses and regulates the health insurance industry. Yet they grant licenses without requiring insurers you provide insurance to those with pre-exiting conditions and not canceling policies based on diagnose. The government prevents insurers from competing in a open market based on all kinds of nonsensical factors. The government requires insurers to sell certain things that customers don't want in order to do business which only causes cost increases. The government interferes with the medical industry at every level which only increases costs. There are some 1,300 health insurers doing business in this country, according to CA dept of insurance own website only about 3 dozen are licensed to do business in this state. Get government out of the insurance business. What happens when 1,300 companies get to compete for your business? What would happen of you were but in charge of the health insurance you chose to purchase and not the government? Home insurance, car insurance and others are purchased based on what YOU want to have covered so why not health insurance? And then the government blames the health insurance providers for the mess the government causes.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 07, 2013 - 9:29 am

    The History of the Middle Finger Well, now......here's something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to send it on to my more intelligent friends in the hope that they, too, will feel edified. Isn't history more fun when you know something about it? Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore they would be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous English longbow was made of the native English Yew tree , and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, See, we can still pluck yew! Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodentals fricative F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute! It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird." IT IS STILL AN APPROPRIATE SALUTE TO THE FRENCH TODAY! And yew thought yew knew every plucking thing.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PatriceSeptember 07, 2013 - 6:55 pm

    One simple question and this sad sack has to rant! Breathe and take the meds.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 07, 2013 - 7:36 pm

    ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.•´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 07, 2013 - 7:44 pm

    Beautiful! Is that copyrighted, Cookie?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 07, 2013 - 8:22 pm

    After Cookie's musical interlude THIS 37 sec. video seems a good way to end the day. You're all ordered to watch it!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.September 07, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    Evelyn, I guess I'm too old for that video because I couldn't decide what that young woman was doing -- nerve contractions do you thing? And, shouldn't she have been singing "I'm on Fire," if she was going to set herself on fire? Very confusing.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithSeptember 07, 2013 - 8:27 pm

    Cookie, Excellent! In addition to the Frenchie Healthcare formula this also looks like some kind of special code for obama double talk. I've tried to decipher his speeches for a number of years now and this code looks like it fits.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.September 07, 2013 - 8:29 pm

    *** think

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 07, 2013 - 8:32 pm

    Thanks for being a willing audience, James. Goodness only knows what she was trying to do! (Need a Netflix recommendation? If you haven't already watched "The King's Speech", DO and report back.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithSeptember 07, 2013 - 8:34 pm

    Evelyn, too much time on your hands....

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.September 07, 2013 - 8:58 pm

    Evelyn, I've already seen The King's Speech. Good movie. While I was extremely shy as a child, I never had a stutter. So shy that I wouldn't talk. A cop once asked me my name (I was about five) and when I didn't answer, he said, "Cat got your tongue?" So I stuck my tongue out to show that the cat had not gotten it. I was immediately busted and the cop told my mother that I was impertinent. Just another false arrest.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 08, 2013 - 12:24 am

    Ha, ha . . .!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:31 am

    Great video Evelyn, thank you for sharing.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:38 am

    James, the appropriate song for that young lady's yoga would be Johnny Cash--Burning Ring of Fire. "I fell into a burning ring of fire.... I went down, down, down and the flames went higher... And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire The ring of fire"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:54 am

    I got kicked off of huffpo (fencepost) for this little jingle about obama and his leftist theology. I wrote it myself..... The house of cards is falling down.. falling down... falling down... The house of cards is falling down... Dee..Dee.. DeeDee.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 6:31 am

    This was sent to me from a Great Grandmother friend of mine. (I had to put that in there because you would never know she is a Great Grandmother) Many of us have seen some variation of this but it is well worth seeing again and again and again. --- Scary Obitutary In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." The Obituary follows: Born 1776, Died 2012 It doesn't hurt to read this several times. Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election: Number of States won by: Obama: 19-- Romney: 29 Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000-- Romney: 2,427,000. Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million-- Romney: 143 million. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2-- Romney: 2.1. Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 6:48 am

    Cookie: Huffpo sure is sensitive!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 6:51 am

    Cookie -- When we the people agree that certain services should be collectively supported. But if we the people agree that healthcare should be collectively supported, it would be wrong. I'm sure that makes sense to you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 7:08 am

    Rod -- the Costa Rica model makes sense. Everyone pays for the basic plan, everyone gets treated without question, and if you want a higher level of care you pay for an additional plan. Works for me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 7:54 am

    Kirk, thank you for the predictably disappointing answer of collectivism to my query. From those according to their means, to those according to their need.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 8:05 am

    Evelyn, huffpo does not permit their muttonheads to be exposed to reality. We all know about and are disgusted by the pedophiles in the catholic church and the left especially makes use of it. If you go to huffpo and ask a simple question; which environment has the most cases of child molesting, the catholic church or the public schools? They will delete your comment and might even cancel your account. That is how determined they are to prevent anything other than groupthink.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 8:13 am

    Kirk, your 6:51am comment reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill. "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Your thinking is the road to disaster. As far as you're concerned, if a majority support getting free stuff paid for by the minority, then so be it. Just chuck the rule of law, private property rights, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and the entire foundation of this country out the window so we can all feed at the public trough. One question Kirk, what happens when there is no one left to pay for your utopia? Who is going to grow the corn in your utopia and why would they bother?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 8:46 am

    Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently summed up how we end up imposing the repeatedly proven failed ideology of socialism/collectivism onto our national healthcare system. "Alarming degree of public ignorance". http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201376/retired-justice-sandra-day-oconnor.html#.UiyZ8uDn99A

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 9:05 am

    Cookie -- every time you try to tell me what I think you get it completely wrong. Like the founders of this country, I think we should only socialize services where it makes sense. Socializing medical care makes sense because it is inherently unsuited to market solutions; the demand curve has infinite elasticity.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 9:28 am

    During my childhood on the rare occasion when a doctor was needed my parents called our family doctor, he came to the house, attended to us, my parents paid him then and there, and he left. End of story. No health insurance. No middle men. No profit centers feeding off my family. No administrative backup needed to keep track of and fulfill the demands of regulatory bodies. Malpractice insurance unheard of. Those were the last days of AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 9:45 am

    Kirk, who gets to determine which services "makes sense"? Those who receive or those who pay? Or those who obtain power and privilege by making the minority pay and the majority receive? It occurs to me that you don't see the corruptive nature inherent in socialism.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 9:53 am

    Evelyn, in my case the Doctor's wife was also his nurse and his secretary and his office was an addition to his house. It was also a time when people had the fortitude to stand on their own two feet and didn't need to see a doctor for a blister on their pinky toe.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 10:10 am

    cookie -- who gets to determine which services get socialized? That is spelled out in the constitution. Corruption is not specific to socialized services.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 10:23 am

    Like trying to nail jello to a wall.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 11:07 am

    Lyrics to the song, The Trees-- from the band RUSH, Hemispheres album 1978--There is unrest in the forest, There is trouble with the trees, For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas. The trouble with the maples, (And they're quite convinced the're right) They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light. But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made. And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade. There is trouble in the Forest, And the Creatures all have fled, As the Maples scream oppression, And the Oaks just shake their heads. So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights. "These oaks are just too greedy; We will make them give us light." Now there's no more oak oppression, For they passed a noble law, And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 11:21 am

    cookie -- perfect...claiming that maples are responsible for the hatchet, ax, and saw makes as much sense as your arguments against socialized healthcare.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 1:39 pm

    Why is healthcare so expensive in the US? Like Evelyn and Cookie, I remember going to the doctors as a kid and paying $5 to $10. Of course you had to be really sick or hurt to see a doctor. What has happened since then to raise the price well beyond inflation? Well the doctor at that time had one nurse and possibly a part time accountant. Overhead was low as it was mostly a cash business. Insurance did exist but the customers paid and then collected from the insurance companies. Insurance plans were mostly catastrophic coverage or hospitalization plans. Then along come government with their rules, regulations, Medicare and Medicaid (M&M). It has not been the same since. M&M sets the base price for services since the government must get the preferred rate from suppliers. They cannot charge less than the government rates. This is the floor. State governments and even now the Feds with the ACA dictated minimum coverage. Think about what would happen if auto insurance had to pay for oil changes. The mechanic, instead of collecting his fee at the time of service, would now have to bill the insurance company and wait for payment. He naturally is going to increase his price to cover the added overhead expense of the paper work and the interest on the delayed payment. The mechanic also must prove to the insurance company that it has been the requisite 5Kmi since the last oil change. The insurance company, in order to make a profit, then adds its cost of processing the paper plus profit to the price of the insurance. So a $15 oil change ends up costing $35. My wife gets frequent blood tests at Marshall. The billed rate is $73. The insurance negotiated discount is $40. I pay the remainder of $33. You can bet Marshall is not losing money. So the price has been inflated to cover the discount plus all the paper work costs and associated profits. I have no idea how much the insurance company is charging for this service as it all lumped together. But I can assure you they are not losing money. If you want healthcare costs to go down, reform the tort laws and get government out of the business. Sixteen thousand IRS agents have no value added in the doctor’s office. Make health insurance a catastrophic coverage system and set up HSA plans so people can save for the eventuality of needing healthcare. Negotiate and pay for your health services on delivery.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    Terry -- just to be clear, are you really calling for the elimination of Medicare?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    Terry writes, "You can bet Marshall is not losing money." Several months ago I recounted the experience of an acquaintance who, having fallen and injured his arm, took himself off to Marshall Emergency where he spent two hours mostly waiting. His treatment consisted of an X-Ray and the doctor sending him home with a bottle of pain killers. Nothing more. The bill: $7,000.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 3:33 pm

    Terry, welcome to Kirk's world, you list a number of issues that have caused the cost of medicine to increase dramatically over the years, just like I listed a number of things you can bet will happen under socialized healthcare (not one of them did he address) and all Kirk can do is ignore all the stuff you posted and ask some off the wall question that has little to nothing to do with what you are talking about. There is a principle in economics that occurs repeatedly. When the government flooded the mortgage market with easy money the cost of homes skyrocketed. When the government flooded the education system with easy money the cost of education skyrocketed. When the government flooded the medical industry with easy money the cost of healthcare skyrocketed. Everyone on this site can come up with their own example of this phenomenon except for Kirk who can't past the idea that socializing healthcare will somehow make it less expensive, which history proves is not true.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 3:37 pm

    Oh and James who is still waiting for me to bring a hefty bag full of hundreds. Thought I forgot didn't you James?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 3:42 pm

    cookie -- once again you are so off base you're on the wrong field. Terry said to get government out of the business. Medicare is the government. You can't get government out of the business without getting rid of Medicare.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 3:44 pm

    Kirk, decide that for yourself. Start by taking our Medicare payments since 1965 and theoretically put them into an IRA type HSA account. Properly invested this account can grow at a typical rate of about 7%. Every dollar invested at that rate will double in about 11 years. If you started working at 20, by 65 that first $1 will be $19.63. Such is compounding. So by the time you retire, you have a nest egg that is substantial that you can use to purchase private health insurance in your old age. Note that Medicare Part A is strictly a catastrophic coverage plan that does have deductibles. Parts B-D require some form of premium payment. So the real question is, are we getting our monies worth? Follow this link for a discussion of that aspect. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/08/09/is-medicare-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 3:48 pm

    Terry, here is an example of how it works. At UCDavis in sac they have an entire floor that is for medical disability. When a patient is placed on disability instead of the Doctor or a member of their staff taking the five minutes to fill out the paper, put the doctor's name, license number and illness code and have the doctor sign it. The patient has to take it to a separate building, top floor, lots of people holding down chairs, hand it over to them, they then take to the Doctor to have the doctor and one of his staff fill out the paper work, sign, date, return it to the disability staff who then mail it back to the patient. It is pure insanity, very expensive insanity.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 4:06 pm

    Terry -- I'll take that as a "yes" to getting rid of Medicare. I think it is naive to believe the average American can sustain a 7% return rate in our casino markets, but let's pretend they can. So that leaves everyone who has not been saving their Medicare taxes for ~50 years SOL. The next question is: Do you really want the government out of the business of medical care for all active and former members of the military?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 4:22 pm

    Cookie, I am well aware of the costs of medical care. My wife has essentially been disabled for 24 years. She has been in a wheel chair for the last 8 years. She does not qualify for SSDI hence there are no government $s coming into this household. Her medical and support bills consume a substantial portion of my salary. I would desperately like to see a medical care plan from Congress that actually addressed costs. ObamaCare does not do that. Quite the contrary, it is driving up costs. One of the problems with government run programs is all the hidden costs that do not get charged to the program. Will the 16,00 IRS workers appear on the balance sheet under the ACA. What about all the additional bureaucrats in DHHS or the cost of the ads on radio for the state insurance pool or all the workers hired for the phone banks. What value do they add when I take my wife to the doctor?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 4:43 pm

    Terry: The 16,000 IRS agents, sundry additional other bureaucrats and very expensive ObamaCare salespersons not only add ZERO to the care your wife receives but additionally they reduce your overall ability to provide for your family. I have no idea how we'll extract ourselves from the socialized and obscenely corporatized medical mess we're in. Frankly, I don't believe we will. At least, not before it all comes crashing down upon our ears, forcing us to begin anew.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 4:44 pm

    Actually Kirk, my IRA has done better than 7% over the last 22 years; and I am no financial genius. But please do the math. Pick any return rate you think is practical. Also do the math for Social Security. The money is already taken out of your paycheck so there is no excuse for not saving it if these plans are changed in the future. As for Medicare and SS, these plans have been in place for decades and most people have planned their retirement around them. Hence, going cold turkey would be out of the question. The real question is can we leave a better fiscal future for our kids and grandkids if we tapper off these Ponzi schemes? As for the military, that is a work related issue and should be treated as any other work place benefit. If the promise was made on enlistment, then keep the promise. For soldiers injured and/or disabled on the job, by all means, they deserve the best care we can provide.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 4:51 pm

    Evelyn, agreed ACA is raising my costs. Her replacement wheel chair and other equipment are now more expensive due to the new tax. My medical deduction threshold has increased so more of her expenses are taxable. My workplace insurance co-pay has increase this year while out of pocket expenses have also increased. For me, the ACA is a net negative.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 4:52 pm

    This could never happen here? "Poland Confiscates Half Of Private Pension Funds To "Cut" Sovereign Debt Load" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 08, 2013 - 4:57 pm

    It's about time to STOP calling it Affordable Health Care. The very word "affordable" perpetuates the lie. The only ready alternative that comes to mind is the already prevalent ObamaCare, but I'm open to suggestions!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 5:05 pm

    Terry -- given that the taxes taken out of our paychecks goes to current recipients, and we can't quit cold turkey, the savings would be in addition to those taxes. For families struggling to put food on the table, it is unreasonable to believe they will starve today in order to save for the future. So they are also SOL. I, too, have seen the system in action. My wife's family has a cancer gene that has effected most members. Fortunately my wife was missed by the genetic roulette. But for the last ~40 years I have watched her family deal with private insurance companies, and it is disgusting. They had (thanks ACA) difficulty getting insurance due to pre-existing condition. Their job opportunities were limited to those offering insurance, and once they get a job they are locked in. Very anti-free market. The notion that not-for-profit medical care is inherently inefficient does not stand up when we look around the world and see we pay much more for poorer outcomes than those countries where it is in place. Yes, our government is very inefficient. IMO, that is primarily due to the breakdown of our system of representation...our so called representatives are focused on themselves and their money sources than their constituents.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:18 pm

    Kirk, I will repeat a point I made earlier. The government licenses and regulates every healthcare insurer in the country and has while permitting them to deny people with pre-existing conditions and cancelling people due to diagnosis. It isn't something that needed 2,700 pages and massive expansion of costly government bureaucracies to correct. I read something from the Washington post where people are losing their homes over hundred dollar property tax liens. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:21 pm

    Agenda 21 calls for reductions in human population but it doesn't say how it is to be accomplished. I guess obamacare is a good place to start. The cure is worse than the disease.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerrySeptember 08, 2013 - 5:44 pm

    Kirk, what makes you think that those countries “around the world” do not have hidden costs that are not in the equation? Why would those bureaucracies be any more efficient than ours? Virtually all of them are in financial trouble. As for tapering off, yes it is difficult as this is the nature of a Ponzi scheme. Those in early get a free ride. Those at the end get left with nothing. We are fast approaching the nothing only the nothing in this case is a big bill our kids and grandkids get to pay. The longer we wait to end these Ponzi schemes, the more difficult and expensive it will be.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 5:50 pm

    Terry, you are exactly right. They all have massive debt and are only able to stay afloat because the USA subsidizes their national defense. If they paid for their own defense they wouldn't have national healthcare while they sit around unemployed because of the taxes it costs to pay for it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieSeptember 08, 2013 - 6:18 pm

    Terry -- I'm sure there are some hidden costs around the world, but they are cancelled out by our hidden costs. You want to get rid of those extra IRS agents, fix our insane tax code. You want to leave our kids and grandkids a better country, fix our representation. Why is, say, Brazil's government more efficient? Probably because they don't have politicians selling their votes to the highest bidder.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 6:21 pm

    Kirk, obama didn't get elected by the highest bidders. He got elected by offering the most handouts.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 08, 2013 - 6:59 pm

    People actually believed they weren't going to have to pay their mortgage, cause obama was gonna spread the wealth. And the criminal media let them believe it. obama has 8 years to create a permanent underclass of government dependents too massive for those who actually pay for it to ever out vote. Everything he has done is a means to that end, including obamacare. Anyone who does not understand that chooses to remain ignorant.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 09, 2013 - 6:56 am

    "IBM Blame Obamacare – Cutting Healthcare – IBM To Drop 110,000 Retirees From Health Care" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

No quick fix for California’s highways

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 1 Comment

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 8 Comments | Gallery

 
Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

 
Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 3 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 1 Comment

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5

 
‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8