Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor

Here's one such free weekend clinic provided by the Wisconsin Dental Association's Mission of Mercy.

The WDA and WDA Foundation wrapped up its first Mission of Mercy by delivering smiles to 1,533 children and adults – exceeding its pre-event goal of 1,200 patients by 333 individuals.

Intermittent rain on treatment day two didn’t deter 812 individuals from seeking needed dental care on Saturday, June 27, 2009 at the La Crosse Center in La Crosse, Wis. Doors opened at 6 a.m. with the last patient admitted at 1:45 p.m.; care concluded around 5:30 p.m. A total 721 patients were seen on Friday, June 26.

More than 900 volunteers, including 170 dentists, were involved in the setup, two treatment days and cleanup of this inaugural and large-scale oral health care event in Wisconsin.

Given the number of patients seen during the two treatment days, the event delivered more than $850,000 in donated dental care, an amount substantially higher than the original financial goal of $600,000. Patients received fillings, extractions, cleanings and treatment partials as needed.

They need to set one up on the Mall in DC

That's an excellent idea, though I'm sure someone would find a reason to deny them a permit.

Rixar, you know that NV gives the ability to 'donate' the earnings to a list of various causes...

You might want to suggest it to admin as one of the options for us viners to donate towards...just a thought.

Science Guy: "....give the newfound savings to the stockholders and executives, as God intended it to be."

Your sarcasm is appreciated by this Newsviner!

Well, as they say, there is truth in jest.

ScienceGuy, how about "To those that have, shall be given"?

Watched it twice. Potter was great. Yes you can still watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Microsoft sucks:

There you go. Thank you kindly.

MBC

I can see that the GOP scare machine has you square in it's sights. The current system is a mess. It's not even a system. It's a hodgepodge of for-profit insurance companies colluding on price and coverage. Now, it's every man for themselves and with no regulation to create a sense of fairness and prevent price gouging.

It's breaking business, governments and individuals and we can't let it go as it is. I't time to throw these jackals out.

Cites, please.

Debi

It took a whistle blowers testimony to show how the cigarette companies lied to the American people for decades about the dangers posed by cigarettes.

Here are some citations for the problems of the health care industry:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=3

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wendell_Potter

There are many articles in the sourcewatch site about health care problems.

I couldn't finish reading this testimony, it made me sick. Tar and feathers would be too good for these corporate crooks and murderers.

and the proof is in the pudding. Just what Wendall Potter spoke of, bombarding the puplic with so much propaganda against health care reform. The proof it works. MICK

camdenroger you are right none of what the insurance companies do is new, years ago when they first started, I knew it, a lot of my friends knew it, it's not that anyone believed the insurances they just don't have the clout to do any thing about it, but to find anyone who cared or any one that wanted to do any thing about it was another story, they started PPO's, Net work doctor's, if you needed certain things done, they would have to get approval from the insurance companies, with them many times denying that they were needed tests, grant you there are some Dr's out there that will just order tests to test, but when you have more than one opinion as to a test you need, how can an insurance company deny it from the other end of the phone when they have not seen some of the prior test results that resulted in wanting these other tests or treatments done to begin with, what they are saying is the doctor you are seeing is not capable to make decisions about your health care, and if they say that why have him in the net work at all. And now a days it's even worse, if we go to a doctors office around here, more than likely you do not even see a doctor, you see a nurse practitioner and they charge you the same as if you had seen a doctor, if we need to go to the hospital we need to go out of town, as the one here is rated in the top 10 worst in the state of Tn. Now that's scary!!!

I remember the story of the man who had died because he was denied the necessary treatment he needed, they finally did ok his treatment after his wife's big long battle with them, but little did they know he died 2 days before it was ok'ed because they took to long, In cases like this the insurance companies them self's should be held libel for the death, In my eyes it was as good as murder, they should also be held in contempt if they drop some one off their insurance rolls in the middle of there cancer treatments or reconstruction from treatment they were receiving.

We wonder why more people in the Health industry don't speak out an be whistleblowers, We have whistleblower laws, but the sad thing is it really doesn't help much does it, many have to look at the real truth in the fact that they will not be awarded or looked on as hero's in their fields most have put a lot of years into getting there and to be a whistleblower means be ostracised and out casts for being to honest and caring.

beaumrtn-619640: Thanks for your input to my post #20. The sad story concerning the man who died 2 days after the insurance company approved his necessary treatment sounds very similar to the story of the teenager who died needing a liver transplant in the article. I suspect that the greediness of money by the insurance companies actually lets them get away with murder in a sense ! that's why I used the term "modern day euthanasia". How can those people sleep comfortably at night , go to church (if they are believers in the word) and knowingly do this type of underhanded dealings to people?!!

camdenroger, you and I both know that the liver transplant denial of a 22 year old alcoholic had nothing to do with a NHS refusing treatmentl Or was it an issue of finacial greediness and murder by spreadsheet. Livers are not easy to come by, there's not a vault of thousands of livers waiting for transplantation. When one becomes available, it won't necessarily be a match to a waiting recipient, thus the reason why many die while waiting. Right now our for-profit health care system has the right to accept or deny payment for this kind of procedure. Under a NHS I would hope that no one would be denied. But when livers are in such short supply hard decisions must be made.

I for one would be livid if a liver went to a 22 year old alcoholic (hence the cause of liver failure) rather than a 22 year who lost their liver to cancer and has no history of drug or alcohol abuse. I'm sure most would agree.

Potter was also working for Cigna when it became embroiled in the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, whose family went public after Cigna refused to pay for a liver transplant that it considered "experimental" and therefore not covered by their policy. Cigna reversed this decision only hours before the Californian teenager died. "I wish I could have done more in that case," Potter said.

Lola: I was talking about this teenager Nataline Sarkisyan, in this part of the article.... where did you get the idea I was talking about a 22 yr old drunk who ruined his liver drinking all his life ?! Or you just threw that in to confuse the point I was trying to make. I wouldn't know who has priority to vital organ transplants, but for an insurance company to consider a liver transplant for a teenager needing one as "experimental" so they don't have to pay the claim is downright criminal. Pat Summerall a very old retired football player and heavy drinking sports cast announcer got a liver transplant several years ago that saved his life, so tell me why wasn't that liver implanted into a much younger person instead of this high profile old man ? My opinion is that he had the big money available to buy his liver, so it stands to reason that "MONEY TALKS AND BULLSH*T WALKS" when it comes to insurance determinationsof how gets treatment or not !

Or you just threw that in to confuse the point I was trying to make.

Nope, wasn't trying to confuse anything, sorry if I did though.

an insurance company to consider a liver transplant for a teenager needing one as "experimental" so they don't have to pay the claim is downright criminal.

I couldn't agree with you more. They should be charged with murder, IMO!

so tell me why wasn't that liver implanted into a much younger person instead of this high profile old man ? My opinion is that he had the big money available to buy his liver, so it stands to reason that "MONEY TALKS AND BULLSH*T WALKS"

First, I have no idea. Second, odds are, you're probably right. My point was that those who are against any kind of NHS, because they're worried that some bureaucrat will be making decisions in regards to people's health care, well who do you think is doing now? I would rather have a NHS than have some fat cat making decisions based on profit, bonuses, and golden parachutes.

I think your first two questions are great questions that I hope someone with personal experience can answer. (I just don't trust "my friend's friend in Britain told me that..")

Your third question (the first part anyway) is wrong, in my opinion. Doctors, nurses, techs, etc should be able to make a living doing what they do. Their career is an extremely vital part of a society, I'm not going to argue that. However, in the end run, the medical industry as a whole SHOULD NOT be about making money. That's what has got us into the situation that we are in now, and what Mr. Potter is speaking out about.

I am from Britain, did not leave until I was 30.(Good enough cappiez?)

No point in answering those questions with regards to the NHS now. It was badly mismanaged from the start.

However I will say, not once in my life, until I moved to the US, did I hear anyone say.

"I'm ill, but I can't afford to go to the doctor"

> What level of care?

Better than the US. I have diabetes, and the NHS has been top-knock, and
I have no worries about losing coverage when I move jobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente
.....it was generally accepted that the NHS was cheaper and more efficient whereas Kaiser may be more rapid.......

> Vaccinating all the kids is one thing, paying for transplants and cancer treatments for everyone who needs them is another.

We have vaccination programmes for all risk groups.

The hinderance on transplants is the lack of availbility of organs.

Cancer, whilst not perfect is a area that still stuffing from the days when we spend only 5% of GDP, things have improved but not as quick as some would like!

> How much is spent on elder care, since that is when most of one's cumulative life cost of health care is consumed?

The elderly have the greatest portion of spending of any users.

>How much do the taxpayers in these countries pay in taxes as a percentage of their income?

As a portion of GDP, its around 9.5%.

> How much do drugs cost in these countries and is their price held down or subsidized?

If you have NHS prescription, its either full cost or a fixed fee which ever is cheaper.

> How much are doctors and hospitals allowed to earn?

Consultants and GPs earn a decent salary, getting to six figures for many of them

1) What level of care? Vaccinating all the kids is one thing, paying for transplants and cancer treatments for everyone who needs them is another. How much is spent on elder care, since that is when most of one's cumulative life cost of health care is consumed?

They pretty much have all the standard treatments. A lot is spent on elderly care because they cover everyone. However, on a individual basis most elderly care is cheaper because they have had healthier lives up to the point of being elderly.

The reason ours cost more is for specialty. And all the equipment for specialty services cost is passed off on insurance, which is then passed off on everyone (instead of the group that demands it, the wealthier earners)

2) How much do the taxpayers in these countries pay in taxes as a percentage of their income?

On income taxes it's relatively the same. Healthcare is "paid" directly out of most Europeans income tax...officially.

But every single European country has a VAT + sales tax. VAT makes up 50% of some countries tax revenues, and is the real driver of paying for healthcare.

3) How much are doctors and hospitals allowed to earn? How much do drugs cost in these countries and is their price held down or subsidized?

The drugs aren't subsidized (in general). They are are cheaper for multiple reasons.

One being since there is no drive to produce earnings (most public companies attempt to target 10% year-over-year earnings growth, so if they have to do that, how do they make it? - By raising prices year, after year, after year) because none of the companies are publicly owned.

Another is, in general, most American households have higher median income than those countries, so prices for everything are more because it can be charged. That's not 100% though, some of the countries have median incomes above our level, and still pay less for healthcare.

From my view, doctors are still paid enough to want to be a doctor. They just don't have the multi-millionare salaries that every hospital has to pay. At the same time, that's why we have the best specialists, because they get paid the best here.

____________

There's no perfect system. But no one in any of these countries fears going bankrupt from medical costs. Something I believe would be an economic boost to us.

>How much do the taxpayers in these countries pay in taxes as a percentage of their income? As a portion of GDP, its around 9.5%.

I think the question was meant to draw out the real conclusion. That if we want this, we are going to pay.

And by we, it's not going to be only the wealthy. Though many of us would like them to pay because after all, it's the specialists, specialist equipment, advanced treatments, etc that the wealthy earners demand that drive a lot of costs passed onto the public.

If we institute a VAT, which all of Europe has, it will impact the lower/middle classes the most. We recieve the most benefit though, so from my view, it's worth it.

I'd say that while we try to care for the elderly, we don't do enough to ensure that younger people are vital economically productive citizens. We think the creation of destruction (bankruptcy) is the best policy. I'd say in competition of businesses, that might fly. But in the livlihood of individuals? I question that.

mike-330799,

Good questions, but not quite on target.

1) By any measure, all other industrialized countries receive far better outcomes for their health care dollars. So, the level of care, as determined by outcomes, would indicate their care is significantly higher than ours.

2) Lumping all taxes together is no indication of anything if you want to compare health spending and costs. As you see from the comment quoted, the US spends 16% of our GDP on health care, while the next closest is Germany at 11% of GDP. This is the total spending on health care including drugs, hospitals, doctors, and equipment.

3) Are you suggesting, by this question, that doctors earnings are more important than the health of the nation? But, FYI here's some data on their earnings How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make?

What you don't ask is how does the standard of living compare between countries. According to the UN Human Development Index, a new attempt at comparing standard of living, the US is ranked 15th.

Summary explanation of HDI
The HDI combines normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is to measure a country's development.

So, the fact remains, we still pay more for our health care and get less than any other industrialized country.

So, the fact remains, we still pay more for our health care and get less than any other industrialized country.

Because we live in a system that continually favors one group over another. From poor to middle class, middle class to wealthy earners.

I'd say that definitely impacts standard of living, because a disproportionally larger segment of our population lives in poverty, in a system that can't provide them a good standard of living. From education, to healthcare, on down the line.

The concerns do have validity.

• If you want specialized care, or the best options, people come here. (Of course that's if you're money, or have really good healthcare)
• A government run option will result in longer waiting times
• And you will be paying more in taxes than you are now

Are those concerns offset by the benefits? It's possible the amount you pay in taxes could be less than what is currently coming out of your check to your insurance plan. But I don't think that's likely.

The likely result is that most workers will pay more. Because the new taxes are likely to involve consumption taxes which will hit us harder. So the savings (if we go from 16% to 11%) may be more than offset by new taxes in a lot of cases.

My personal opinion is it's worth it, and will result in us being more competitive (by protecting peoples economic futures so they can pay in to the system over their whole life)

Nicey-1026620,

If you want specialized care, or the best options, people come here. (Of course that's if you're money, or have really good healthcare)

True enough...if you have money.

A government run option will result in longer waiting times

And you will be paying more in taxes than you are now

Assumptions based on what evidence?

Assumptions based on what evidence?

• The VAT tax in Europe, plus their income tax, plus other consumption taxes.

While their healthcare costs certainly are lower as a % of GDP or GNI or any measurement you want. If you google the highest taxes, you will find the "average" income taxes are higher across the board in Europe.

Not only that, but every European country has a VAT on top of sales tax. This VAT is on a majority of goods (not all) and while it can range from low, to high. It tends to be around the 20% range for most countries.

This is in addition to gas taxes, which are much higher than our own, along with other "sales" taxes. All else being equal, if we institute a similar style to gain Healthcare, we will pay more. Even with a reduction of costs.

My argument is the economic benefit (healthier workers, less bankruptcies) more than offsets these additional taxes over a lifetime.

• Just simply ask someone who has spent time overseas, or any study, here's one on sweden http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

While essential services, ER, immediate need medical care tend to match the wait times of our own. Things that require specialists take a good deal longer. Hip replacements, knee surgery, etc.

It's not as bad as all get out, but the wait times are there.

Thanks for the answers all.

My question about taxes was exactly what it said; how much do the people in the countries mentioned (France and Germany by th eway, not Britain) pay out of their income in taxes. Is it a matter of paying one way (individually) vs. paying the same amount in another way (taxes)? If so, then the health care question (money-wise) is simply about providing insurance for those who can't afford it.

Curious, et al,

Are you suggesting, by this question, that doctors earnings are more important than the health of the nation?

No. I am merely pointing out that its not just the big, bad insurance companies that are at the root of the problem. Until about five years ago, I woked in Biomedical research at two seperate university "health systems." I saw first hand the emphasis on drawing in monies through any means (used to be all Blue Cross/Blue Shield dollars, but when I entered Grad school, it was switching over to research grant dollars as HMO's started to get stingier wth what they would cover-now you can hardly get research funded if it does NOT have some stated human health care objective). I don't begrudge docors what they earn, their worth every penny when you're life is in jeopardy. But when it costs hundreds of dollrs for a 15 minute consult that you never even heard about until you got the bill, or thousands for an hour on some scanner that was paid for by grants, that's getting a little ridiculous. I am originally from Pittsburgh, and I remember when the city was trying to push the healthcare and biomedical research industry as a replacement for the steel mills. My reaction was "Geez, how on earth can you make money by making people better, at least in terms of a regional economic mover." We were trying to replace selling steel to the world with selling health to the poor communities that just had their steel and coal economies gutted. Cappiez makes a good point. We have industrialized health care as a for-profit concern from the top down. Since this is like any other "service" industry, the industries profits have to come from the end user of the service-us. The problem cannot be simply one of lashing the insurance companies for doing business in the way that insurance companies do. The idea of insurance for any personal reason is about the insurance company betting that you will be OK and that they will profit. Recinding policies because the company lost the bet about your health is fraud to be sure and should be punished, but the whole nature of insurance is not one of munificent charity. Its about pooling risk (most rescisions come from individual policyholders). But who is being paid by the insurance companies? They're the root of the health care cost dillemma. We have, over the last 40 years, turned health care into a for-profit industry, except that its us who have to support it since it creates no exportable product. Whether the money comes out of your pay check as a tax or as fee that you pay yourself is almost irrelevant. From this standpoint, poor people not being able to access healthcare is no different from them not being able to buy new cars.

We need to control costs. We need to de-industrialize healthcare as a for-profit venture. Or, we need to be content with the way things are. An additional system of sucking money out of our pockets will not do anything but make the problem worse from a complexity standpoint.

I agree doctors do need to be paid for there services, it does take a lot of money for them to go to school and start their practices, but I also see some that charge so much because they can, I know I paid a few when my daughter was in the hospital for 2 weeks that ended up the doctors were not in my network so I ended up having to pay them 40% of the bill because my insurance would only pay 60%. And I really didn't feel that bad about it at the time, till after she got out of the hospital and I had to take her to follow up visit to one of these specialist doctors, I wanted to go to him at least once after she got out then try to find someone in my net work, the problem was he was one of the most un-caring doctors I had ever seen, his nurse had even told us in the hospital that he came across like that and was difficult to get along with, lol, he was one of these you just felt it, but it didn't actually really sink in till I took her for her follow up to his office, and it wasn't the visit with us that actually made me positively know that he was un-caring it was a phone call they received while we were there from one of his asthma patience, the nurse came and talked to the Dr saying the lady just needed a prescription renewed an sent to her pharmacy for her asthma inhalers and that she didn't have the money to come in to the Dr. He looked at the nurse and said O-well that's just to bad she don't come in she don't get no renewal, I was like OMG I can't believe how he acted, what he should have said I felt was, ok I will send it this time but tell her she needs to have a check up as soon as she can and the next time it will not be renewed until she has one, I could see if it was any other type of medication, but this is a breathing medication and very necessary for an asthmatic, and this Dr being a pulmonary Dr was not cheap by no means,

Nicey-1026620,

Sorry, I've missed the bill proposing a national VAT. And, didn't realize the connection between health care costs and gas and sales taxes.

I'm sure you don't realize, you really don't know what you're talking about by making your erroneous assumptions about the relationship between the total tax burden of countries with Universal Health Care and the cost of providing that care.

How much we spend as a % of GDP health care is totally unrelated to any other taxes, and saying our taxes will rise before we've seen the final plan, is misleading.

Sorry, I've missed the bill proposing a national VAT. And, didn't realize the connection between health care costs and gas and sales taxes.

I'm sure you don't realize, you really don't know what you're talking about by making your erroneous assumptions about the relationship between the total tax burden of countries with Universal Health Care and the cost of providing that care.

So you think you will be paying more money today in taxes than if we have national healthcare tomorrow?

I'm sure that every country in the world who has healthcare only has a VAT for entertainment purposes. Even Canada and Austrilia have GSTs.

Read the presidents budjet projection. We don't get this without increased taxes. The only discussion is who is paying. The president wants to pass the cost off in higher brackets (but as you see they already increased taxes on things like cigarettes, if you think other consumption won't be taxed to pay for shortfalls, you're deluding yourself)

Being as they need republican votes to make this work, I'm drawing the natural conclusion that since every country we would base our healthcare system on for an example has a VAT, or GST, we will follow that path.

Since the VAT accounts for as much as 50% of the tax revenues in some of these countries, I'd love to hear why they have it if for anything other than raising money for healthcare.

You can't have healthcare for free. And thinking that the expenses of healthcare will drop from 16% of GDP to something similar to EU % of GDP is also wishful thinking. Our standard of living (income) is generally higher than most of those countries.

How much we spend as a % of GDP health care is totally unrelated to any other taxes, and saying our taxes will rise before we've seen the final plan, is misleading.

Sigh...point where I said the cost was equated to the taxes. I said, if you want national healthcare, you and I will have to pay more taxes. Or is the government just going to start running the printing press to pay for it?

Healthcare costs are related to multiple things. But those countries haven't been immune to rising healthcare costs recently either.

You have to factor in median income, you can only charge so much for a good or service. In a country like China, I can get a DVD for a dollar, here it costs me 20. Healthcare services similarly can go up or down depending on the median income level of the country.

Lots of countrys that provide national insurance/healthcare have a large bargaining power with Health Services. They are able to dictact prices to suppliers, vendors, etc because they are the single payer.

mike-330799

> My question about taxes was exactly what it said; how much do the people in the countries mentioned (France and Germany by th eway, not Britain) pay out of their income in taxes. Is it a matter of paying one way (individually) vs. paying the same amount in another way (taxes)? If so, then the health care question (money-wise) is > simply about providing insurance for those who can't afford it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France

Neither country funds its healthcare in the same that Britain does, so your question may not be answerable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France

As a general rule most European countries have a tax on income that pays for their healthcare insurance. However, those don't cover the total healthcare costs to the state, which have caused budget problems.

They deal with that by having higher income tax in general, and consumption taxes. VAT in some cases is bigger than income tax returns.

Let's say for France:

In 2007, revenues amounted to 818.9 billion euros, or 43.3% of GDP.

Over 50% of that goes to social insurance.

overall rate of social security and tax on the average wage in 2005 was 71.3% of gross salary, the highest of the OECD

Let's compare that with US tax revenue which is significantly less of GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/TablesforWeb.xls

For the current year they project 2.186 trillion in Revenues. Estimated GDP of 14.057 trillion dollars, making taxes 15.5% of GDP.

Whose making the argument we are not going to have to pay for Healthcare? All of us. If we're really talking about assuming 16% of GDP for Healthcare is now going to be publicly funded we're talking about doubling the amount of taxes we need to collect to support such a system.

Again, I think public healthcare is a worthy cause. But let's not be naive. You and I, rich and middle class working are all going to pay in if we want this.

Ok you folks are just making stuff up to support your position now.

Do you seriously believe all those other countries are hiding the true cost of their health care? Or, is it that there just cold hearted and don't cover legitimate claims? Or, perhaps, they're just that much better at managing their costs than we are?

You do realize insurance companies currently take a cut of almost 30% in 'administrative costs' off the top of that 16%. Do you think, perhaps, if we were to move to a Single Payer plan and take them out of the loop, we might be able to shave that 30% down just a little bit?

You do realize insurance companies currently take a cut of almost 30% in 'administrative costs' off the top of that 16%. Do you think, perhaps, if we were to move to a Single Payer plan and take them out of the loop, we might be able to shave that 30% down just a little bit?

Yeah, I made all that up. That was under "Taxation in France"

If you take 11.2% of GDP, France has a GDP of 2.978 trillion, that's 333 Billion dollars for healthcare, most of their social insurance spending, about 410 billion. The rest of their social insurance is the same as ours, social security for the elderly.

16% of 14.057 trillion dollars is 2.249 trillion, even if it lowered to say 10% of our spending that would be 1.4057 trillion dollars.

Or, perhaps, they're just that much better at managing their costs than we are?

I think this is probably the main reason. Because wages are capped, and earnings don't really exist.

Hospitals are owned by health management companies, private investors, etc here in the US. As such, they are for profit. Every publicly listed company in America aims for 10%+ earnings growth, in their EPS (Earnings Per Share) on a year-over-year basis.

Generally earnings per share are counted as profit/# of shares (there's some ways they manipulate this, but that's the general idea). So they are aiming for 10% profit growth, every year. Like I said earlier, there's a couple of ways to do that.

But currently, the most general way has been price appreciation.

I never said I was against Public Health Care. I'm for it almost on the lone basis of cost control. The private sector is never going to behave as they should in healthcare. In every other sector, retail, manufacturing, construction, etc, competition breeds lower prices for consumers and better selection. It's simply not the case in healthcare.

But I also realize it's going to "cost" us tax money. Now I say "cost" because at one point or another it's likely going to save you money over even a private plan that won't cover 100%, or will deny you.

Ask anyone who has lived in Europe. Especially high earners. Lampell is a good example, and he talks about it all the time. The taxes he paid when he lived in England he said were just unreal, and Americans have no idea how high taxes could get to support this plan.

70% of my gross pay? Now, I don't think it would get like that because I think we're an economically more efficient country than France.

I'm glad you put that /s down there. lol

Yep, I'm doing OK, so why should we change anything?

</sarcasm>

I'm sorry for your loss.

Please go add your story to Health Care Stories for America.

Peace and health,

G