Bipartisan Health Care Reform

Obama has a right as the man elected president to 'push his agenda'. Every president 'pushes his agenda'. If he reaches out to the Republicans, again, and they do 'just say no', again, how does that NOT make them the party of No? Do you all realize there have been 112 filibusters by the Republicans over the last year. That is more than twice as many as any other year ever. FYI, Tort reform, cross state insurance, insurance pools? All in the current bill.

I want John Stossel to sponsor/ arrange a real debate with real healthcare experts. NO POLITICIANS. His Fox show would get "off the charts" rating. And while I'm at it .... The same for global warming/ climate change

I think any politician that doesnt say no is at the end of their job. The people are sick of lying ,corrupt politicians . We The People are sick of being lied to and We The people are Going To FIRE anybody involved in this backroom Mafia Group. Dont you people understand Andy Stearn From the S.E.I.U.is running our country Obama is a puppet on a string He is not a leader he is a Follower Wake Up People

Apparently Democrats believe they are the party of Yes. As in: "We don't believe in tort reform but YES we will include it in exchange for concessions on your part." "YES we can find a trade for Interstate Competition" "Medical Savings are useless but YES we will allow it if you will just give a little." Republicans please, if you believe it is useless or harmful, don't just say NO. Say h@## NO !!!

Mr. Stossel, Could you introduce Americans to the bill proposed by Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin - "A Roadmap for America's Future"? His bill offers specific proposals on healthcare and the other critical issues. The proposals would insure the future financial health of our nation - and restore many of the liberties we have lost. Here's a capsule version of the plan - http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=167112. Thanks for your consideration.

I just want the ability to opt out. I want to opt out of medicare, social (in)security, and whatever new schemes they come up with to confiscate more of my income. I want to pay as I go and make my own decisions. Give me liberty!

Before talking about Health care reform find and elinate the alleged $50 billion in waste and fraud per year in medicare payments. Meaniful tort reform that cuts down on lawsuits

Web techies - the "Older Posts" link isn't working right. It switches to page 2 but it has the same posts.

I think politicial wants to make money for offering this govenment health insurance. We do have current great insurance from our company and it is working for me fine for years. I believe I should do my own choice which insurance do I need to choose not govenement. I think this is will not work for middle class what govenement offer to us. WE DO NOT NEED THAT GOVEMENT HEALTH INSURANCE. I REALLY WANT TO HAVE MY CURRENT HEALTH INSURANCE. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH MY HEALTH BENEFITS.

On item 5b...Why reduce or eliminate the tax inequity? Why not REVERSE it? Why not DISCOURAGE employers from offering medical coverage, encouraging them instead to give that money to their workers as wages, with which said workers should be able to buy whatever health insurance they want at a tax advantage? Step 1: Employers disclose all premiums paid on employees behalf. Step 2: Individual health insurance premiums fully tax deductible. Step 3, years out, employer paid premiums taxable.

Just saw on the news that Blue Cross was increasing their premiums by 40%. I guess if all of the health care organizations follow that example, we will all have to go to the emergency rooms for treatment because none of us will be able to afford health care. We are almost there NOW. INCREDIBLE

I think that this list would go a long way (not all of the way) towards alleviating the very problems that the Democrats are out trying to solve.

I have a three-part plan for any reform: 1) Anytime we see the word "government" written in a law, we have to replace that word with "politicians." This should eliminate almost all government, err, politicians' spending overnight. 2) Politicians are not allowed to spend other people's money. This would end government overnight. 3) Free markets and competition, which is the opposite of fair competition (a demagogic codeword for socialism)

That's because the supporters of the bills do not want any real effective working change. They want control. They want to be the gatekeepers of health. Heck if they could monopolize the grocery stores and make us come to them for food they would do so.

no cost cutting with taking on drug, doctor, and getting medicare back to covering the eldery like is was originally meant to cover, get the illegal alliens and drug heads off the American tax payer, and no louisiana purchase or nebraska purchase, get cost down by not buying things like scooters and other items that have nothing to do with health care, and you cannot use savings to pay for something else expecially when your broke

They need limits on pain and suffering awards by juries and an end to frivolous lawsuits by making the people who bring and their lawyers liable for the other party's legal costs.

I have an MSA and they are certainly a good alternative to the insurance company rationed care. I have my choice of doctor and I do not need referrals. I manage my account and track expenses. If something seems expensive and unneeded, I question it.

you cannot control cost with drug cost reform you cannot control cost with stopping the doc fix doc fix is not needed ( if you wont a group of patients then you agree to treat them for lest to get that large group like a ppo provider ) stop buying scooter on tax payer dollars get non-senior and drug addicts off the tax payer back make the uninsured pay their own medical bill and not allow them to pass the cost to the people that have insurance, illegal alleins

Tort reform can reduce provider costs; however, difficult without violating individual right. 2. Cannot do interstate competition both because it supersedes state rights for consumer protection,and adds costs as ins.carriers must spend capital to negotiate out of state costs thereby raising their costs.3. Cannot have guaranteed issue unless force people to purchase ins. due to anti-selection option to public deferring purchase of ins. until time of need. 4.Could regulate industry ala utilities.

Add to this that any "savings" in Medicare, by proposed pilot programs to replace fee for service etc. or even scheduled doctor fee reductions, should also be used to shore up Medicare itself. No new entitlements until the existing ones are paid for.

Perhaps tort reform? And insurance companies can't cancel people's policies if/when they get sick. I'm mixed on pre-existing conditions. I think it's horrible when a person can't get any insurance at any premium cost if they have any pre-existing condition. Unless it's urban myth that people have been refused for minor conditions that have little effect on general health.

Yeah, but if they do this then they won't be able to take over 1/6 of the US economy and constantly shake them down for bribes... errr... I mean campaign contributions. How's that supposed to work for them?!?? Think of the poor politicians!

[...] Stossel posted the health care reform ideas of GMU economist Arnold Kling. These are the type of changes I would [...]

John: I'm surprised you neglected to mention tort reform!

I think all politically astute people realize that this health care summit is just an opportunity for Obama to push his agenda, while pretending to be reaching out to "Just say no" conservatives. It is a trap, that is designed to show them as "just say no" if they refuse to attend, and if they do show up, it will be conducted in a way to make them appear as bad as possible and Obama as reasonable as possible. It's real goal is to recapture hearts and minds of moderate voters.