And you *** dare *** make false accusations that others are Spamming?

Forked tongued indeed.

I don't have time to truly cover this issue, but then, I'm not subsidized by other industries.

“Polimom, the often left out aspect of that is that here in America we spread out and have to pay for the R&D end of things.”

Jazz obviously didn't read the link or he wouldn't make such a fact free assertion.

Or are you willing to confine your mother to a wheel chair should she need a knee or hip replacement?

The more you pontificate on this subject the more I think you're being willfully obtuse or outright dishonest.

Which might be acceptable if it were not for his snarky forked tongued references.

I don't have time to go into it tonight but isn't it time we call Jazz's post what they are?

Here in Texas it has an acronym you know.

Why does Astrazeneca decide to locate one of it's major drug development labs in Canada?

Why is Jazz ignoring this?

You make the call.

But the same thing could be accomplished without a govt health insurance provider by simply strengthening the regulation of the insurance industry WRT those practices, and passing legislation for the individual mandate to get health insurance with tax credits or vouchers for people who need financial help. Conservatives won't like that, of course, but at least by avoiding the additional step of expansion of public healthcare, the same goals are addressed in a manner that would represent more of a true compromise between the Dem/GOP stances on the issues. Instead, the Dems insist that they've already compromised by shifting from single payer to public option (and now perhaps to coops) but really all of those will probably involve a govt run health insurance entity (I say probably because the coops may or may not end up like that, depending on how they're structured.) Their 'compromise' is mostly semantic and still always insists that having a govt provider is necessary- and on top of everything else that conservatives will be forced to swallow, why should that be non-negotiable when the same goals can be addressed in a different manner?

That's certainly on the minds of those who want any incrementalist federal takeover of health care, and if they were honest, they'd say so.

Or, figure out an alternate way to handle the patients who have increased risks, like high risk pools that some states have?”

Or:

* Community rating (with possible mandatory insurance purchases) state-wide, region-wide, nation-wide;

* Inter-state and multi-state insurance (health care provision) and providers;

* Uniform benefit packages (kept to the realistic minimum to keep the cost reasonable — _insurance_).

This isn't hard. This never hasn't been hard, insofar as _reform_ of the current system is concerned.

But that's not what the current people in charge of the health care effort want — which is “replacement, not reform” — (incremental, partial) replacement of private health care with public (government) health care.

It's not immoral, given that what's sought is “insurance” if only nominally (it's comprehensive care).

Dishonest recission or bogus identification of pre-existing conditions is immoral, but a separate issue, too.

That it's unpleasant and may result in harsh consequences for the individuals of concern is obvious, and is one of the things that so many of Republicans (even) admit are a known problem with the health care system today. (Note that one person I heard comment on this said that the true hard-core population, the truly uninsureable, numbers about [only] ten million.)

There are a number of things that the federal government could do to reform the insurance system we have.

This has been neglected, and in fact intentionally avoided (sidestepped), insofar as anything definitive is part of the current health care effort, because the private insurers really aren't seen as meriting any other than a token position (for now, though not later) by those in charge of the current effort, whose principal goal is to augment federal provision (if only through payment) of health care, replacing the private sector.

It looks like all they're really doing is calculating the number of people who might be vulnerable because there is no state law to prevent denial on the basis of preexisting condition in their state.

So why would the solution to that problem be to create a new govt run health insurance system rather than to make a federal mandate that gives the same protection to the people in those states that is currently protecting those in states with mandates?

Or, figure out an alternate way to handle the patients who have increased risks, like high risk pools that some states have?

CStanley — Because we're talking about “insurance” and “risk”, the problem is as you say. I've known people with serious preexisting conditions who had no health insurance. Coverage for one couple I knew would have run into the thousands per month. So I guess you could call that priced out rather than excluded, but it's kind of a semantics thing I think.

That doesn't mean another 15 years will elapse before the issue is revisited this time.

The last “reform” attempt was bad and wrong, as this one is; having to wait 15 years is no argument against passing this one now, anyway, irrationally.

Obviously the effort is failing and is inept (and incoherent) as well as having other problems; best would be for everyone to stop, then actually think about what they want (which they've shown in numerous ways to have failed to do, or do well), limit themselves to that (sensibility, please), then work to get it enacted.

I shudder to think of the manned space program starting from scratch under “guidance” of these people.

That's fair. But any one of those people would be screwed if they lost their job, or decided to start their own business or whatever. Whatever the numbers, any discrimination on those lines is immoral and we should work to address that fact.

Especially those who will be voting whether or not to enacted what's in these 1000+ pages?

(Hardly a non-partisan source, but [...]“

It suffices. We with pre-existing conditions are a “silent” or “invisible” group, for the most part — we deal with the problems as we can (pay more, move elsewhere, etc. (So often what you encounter are activists who are campaigning on these people's behalf rather than the occasional testimonals from such people themselves.)

Knowing this, I wouldn't be surprised if the total (with or without including a related issue, recission) involved more than 100 million people. (On the other hand, is it really approaching or reaching approximately one-third of the entire population?) Certainly it's large enough that either one is one of these people or knows well one or more instances of such people, and knows this this is one of a number of problems with the insurance-based health care system today. (This is why so many activists for years have sought “community rating” in place of “experience rating” and underwriting. Universality of federal health care includes this appeal and related implementation details, though are other reasons that universality appeals to “Medicare for All” advocates.)

* * *

“We're trying to enact good legislation that people have been thinking seriously about for decades.”

That is absolutely, demonstrably (every day) false about the current Dems' health care legislation.

(That is also the truth about everything the Dems have been doing all year, worsening with time.)