Jackson Jambalaya

Liberal elitists like David Hampton who has lived his work life inside the protective cocoon of corporate journalism will demonize folks like that lady while conveniently not addressing the numerous, and specific, issues she brought up in her comments. His column today (I'm NOT going to link it) was the epitome of journo-arrogance. He, and many in Congress, are completely misinterpreting and underestimating the size, scope, breadth and intensity of the dissent.

Get Real. Most Medical Mal suits are brought at the State level not the Fed. What would you have the Federal government do? Pass a tort reform law that overrides the laws of all of the States? I thought most conservatives were for "States Rights". I guess that is only when they are against something.

If you want Tort Reform start at your OWN STATE'S LEGISLATURE! Many States already have extensive tort reform in place, see TEXAS.

The lady was dead on the money! I have a business with eight employees. All of us buy our own insurance. Under the Obama plan, I will be forced to buy health insurance from the company. All of us will be forced to lose our own private insurance. All of us will be forced to see what doctors sign up for the "public option" that we will be required to buy. Yes, that is the way HR3200 is written.

Liberals are really stupid and don't have an idea of how the system works. If everyone were on a system with Medicare rates, all hospitals would close.

Why isn't Obama proposing a public option for malpractice insurance?

The American system of insurance costs more and provides less than other industrialized nations. If physicians had to charge a realistic price that consumers were willing to pay in the free market, without the subsidy of over priced health insurance, cost would be drastically reduced and the public's opinion of physicians would be much lower than under the current system.

Only the if total population of physicians remained constant and/or increased.

Americans have been brainwashed all their lives to believe that only 2 sides exist to any issue.

People need to stop being so linear--no matter which side of the political spectrum we line up on, as long as we kid ourselves into believing governments can bring about social justice, we'll continue to tighten the hangman's noose around our own necks.

This Utopian Ideal that somehow all of us are equal and deserve health care needs to be laid to rest.

The lady's comment was bunk and anti-business. Under our current system, there are valid business reasons why there is wide difference between rates in different states and why some companies do business only in certain states. To make companies do otherwise is truly a communist state. Let that Free Market you always talk about work!

Michael,
If you believe that we are not all equal and do NOT deserve Medical Care, then stand up for your beliefs and ask that Congress repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act also known as "EMTALA" The Act mandates Emergency Medical treatment by a Hospital regardless of the ability to pay. Just know that this piece of what you call "Social Justice" was signed by Ronald Reagan.

Then tell me where I can find more Republicans like Ronald Reagan. The present crop doesn't look anything like him.

The present crop wouldn't have signed EMTALA, either. There are some people they'd rather just see die, like anybody below the poverty line and anybody who isn't white.

10:45 needs to get a clue. Clearly the lady is talking about business conditions she encounters specific to California.

10:45 While there can be some rate differences from state to state that have a valid business basis, the competence of the insurance commissioner and his staff isn't a good business reason but affects what people pay AND what is covered.

The insurance companies that operate in a state are NATIONAL so, their business costs are NOT state defined though they try to make it seem they are state businesses with name games until they pay their CEOs.

Insurance companies talk about losses in a rather convenient way as well. The cash value of a dollar and the investment value those dollars for the years the policies were held aren't brought into the discussion.

If for example, 10 doctors paid malpractice insurance of $25000 a year for 20 years and then got one $2 million dollar judgement against their practice their group, the insurance company didn't lose money. They profited $3 million BEFORE figuring cash value and investment of those dollars. And, the company,with no loss, will still raise group rates.

You aren't given figures to determine whether a real loss has occurred from a business standpoint. What is the value of all malpractice premiums paid over a decade after subtracting all malpractice judgments including associated costs?

Also, it makes no " business" sense why a medication at UMCs pharmacy costs $20 for 30 days with no insurance filed ( total costs) and with insurance coverage at a local pharmacy, there is a $100 co-pay for the same 30 day supply.

When the Clintons wanted to do health care, just to see, I figured up what I'd paid into health insurance since birth against my medical expenses over the same period just to see. I'd have had $20 million dollars then if I'd self insured.

We haven't looked at the insurance industry and there's a reason. There was a little piece of federal legislation just before Clinton came to office that made that information proprietary.

Why would someone think she has "gone nuclear"? She's voicing her concerns on something she feels passionate about. No way did she act out of order.

People like her make American great, dammit. I give her huge credit for caring enough to stand up and be heard. All Americans should care that much!

That's partly what is wrong RIGHT NOW with America- it's turned into vast herds of lazy, obese sheep watching reality tv, wondering what they'll have to eat next, and who'll bring it to them so they don't even have to get up.

If you don't fall into that category, then ACT on your concerns, people. Americans must go back to a time when we were Proactive, instead of just laying around letting things happen and then having the nerve to complain about it. Our "leaders" need to hear from us loud, clear, and long.

Hey 6:47, I get it. The lady said she only had 6 choices in Calif. She wanted access to 1300 that DID NOT sell insurance in Calif. Now just think, those other 1300 companies maybe had more than a few reasons not to sell insurance in Calif. That's the way the current system works! If you don't like it, then support some change! Don't scream about your choices and tell other businesses how to run theirs.

What's missing in this debate is that the insurance companies stand to get a $20 billion dollar windfall. Then they'll have more choices in Calif.

I want a public option for legal coverage. We need to regulate the legal industry the same way as medical so that government takes all the corruption out of the equation.

What's wrong with a public option? Ask the big shot farmers in the Delta about 'public options'. They have been grafting off the public for years. All the while taking skiing trips, buiding duck and deer lodges and so forth.... Did you notice ALL the car dealers taking the 'public option'? When it's YOU, oh it's different! Is your momma on medicare? Oh, her and daddy worked for it!! Bunch of two-faced gee-haws.....

3:41, I also find the irony in that, when it comes to healthcare reform, people react as if the next thing to come will be everyone here in chains and shackles and wearing burlap sacks. I mean, as if this country wasn't already governmentalized?!

If you really feel that way and are committed to being government free, don't dream of drawing disabilty or Social Security, after all, that's a government deal right there. Immediately send back whatever you've drawn out so far. Forget about Medicare too, the long arm of the government is behind it. And your FDIC insured bank accounts, you don't need that either. Don't forget about government backed and insured mortgages....the lenders have to have them to keep the loans a coming.

People are fine as long as they stand to directly benefit from what Uncle Sam will do for them.

10:45 I'm all for "business", but one has only to look at the S&L crisis years ago ,the banking crisis ,the automobile industry ,airline industry and Steadivest to understand there are businesses which will operate for the profit of a few individuals rather than that of shareholders or the company or to satisfy customers.

Insurance companies USED to operate on assumed risk but in the last decades, they have lobbied Congress and insurance commissioners to eliminate THEIR risk. There's no risk when you get premiums paid for 70 or 80 years, invest that money and then when pay out time comes, deny coverage. There's no risk when you invest in high risk ventures and when you lose, you suffer no profit loss but can increase premiums. And, there's no risk when you can lobby to make that perfectly LEGAL when it once was not.

Some insurance companies like USAA which is owned by its policy holders(former military officers, non-coms and their families)
still use the original business model and operate profitably.

Beyond that the monopolies that nearly brought us down at the turn of the century that we KNEW were bad as they prevent competition critical to free enterprise are now called " companies to big to fail".

There's a difference between doing business and scamming the public. There's a difference between a free enterprise system and an oligarchy. One difference is a level playing field and government has a role in keeping the field level. They've failed to do that whether for contributions or out of fear when a segment of
the public was sold the silly idea that all regulation is bad...sorta like saying all laws are bad.

Pickpockets distract their mark so the wallet can be easily lifted. Get us fighting among ourselves and we're easy marks.

In politics, don't follow the slogan, follow the money.

We need a public option for legal coverage. The government needs to regulate the legal industry. All Americans have a right to an attorney regardless of the ability to pay.

7:40 AM wrote: "I'm all for "business", but one has only to look at the S&L crisis years ago ,the banking crisis ,the automobile industry ,airline industry and Steadivest to understand there are businesses which will operate for the profit of a few individuals rather than that of shareholders or the company or to satisfy customers."

You forgot about the legal crisis in Mississippi. You know, Scruggs, Langston, Balducci, Peters, DeLaughter, etc..

The legal industry needs federal government regulation.