Obamacare

What We Don't Know About Health Insurance

Is the drive for universal health coverage actually making people worse off?

|

Advocates for universal health coverage frequently claim that they're out to improve health and save lives. Just one problem: Despite the trillions of dollars we've spent on public health insurance programs, there's very little strong evidence to suggest that subsidized health insurance actually improves health. Indeed, the push for universal coverage may be preventing other, more effective health measures. So here's the question: Is the drive for universal health insurance actually making people worse off?

That's the alarming possibility raised by Michael Cannon, the health policy director at the Cato Institute, at a forum hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Cannon's comments came in a discussion of a recently released study attempting to gauge the effects of Medicaid—the joint federal/state health insurance program for the poor and disabled—on low-income adults in Oregon. Researchers from Harvard took advantage of the state's recent Medicaid expansion to run a rare randomized trial experiment that would allow them to determine with a high degree of reliability just what the effects of Medicaid actually are on health, financial security, and utilization of care.

Because here's the thing: Prior to this study, we didn't know. We didn't know despite the fact that Medicaid has existed since 1965, and despite the fact that last year's health care overhaul expanded Medicaid coverage to all individuals up to 133 percent of the poverty line—with the biggest increase concentrated in childless, low-income adults. Indeed, despite the fact that the program already costs taxpayers roughly $400 billion each year, no one has ever never run an experiment like this before. As the website for the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment happily declares, it is "the first randomized controlled experiment to examine the causal effects of having some type of insurance coverage versus having no insurance at all."

What Cannon suggests is that the fact that we are only studying this now "shows that the push for universal health insurance is not about improving health and security." If it were, he says, we'd have seen some of the funding that now pays for coverage used to determine whether that coverage is actually producing the desired effects. And we'd have seen a far more rigorous attempt to spend public money on programs and benefits that have actually been proven to improve health outcomes and save lives. Instead, we've sacrificed the possibility of better care for the nebulous, uncertain effects of expanded coverage.

The Oregon study helps us understand what those effects really are. The clearest benefit is improved financial security. This is not a huge surprise; health insurance insulates individuals from large, health-related financial shocks. Even still, that benefit may be counteracted somewhat by downward pressure on savings created by the program. Researchers have found that larger Medicaid benefits correlate with lower personal asset levels; tying benefits to asset tests makes the effect even larger.

Meanwhile, Medicaid's health benefits are far less certain. On the only objective measure of health the study has yet to report—mortality—there was no significant improvement. (A report on a wider array of objective health measures is due out next year.)

The study did report a substantial increase in self-reported health status. But the correlation of self-reported improvements to objectively better health, or even to increased health care access and utilization, is less clear. Two-thirds of the increase in self-reported health status came almost immediately, after individuals had been provided coverage but before they'd sought significant medical attention.

Meanwhile, despite the study's randomized design, it was only able to test the effects of Medicaid on a particular population: relatively poor adults—with annual incomes in the range of $13,000—most of whom were quite unhealthy compared to the rest of the population, reporting an average of 10 sick days each month. Last year's health care law, in contrast, will expand Medicaid to an estimated 16 million individuals below 133 percent of the poverty line, many of whom will not be quite so sick, or even so poor. The population examined in Oregon, says Cannon, is the "most likely to benefit from coverage." Which he argues probably means that "whatever results you see are likely to be the high water mark" in terms of health improvements when expanding coverage to various populations.

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment is now the gold standard in studies on the effects of Medicaid. Even still, it has limits. Medicaid's systemic effects on employment and assets, on health innovation and administration, are harder to measure, if not impossible. Testing these broader effects would require comparing a world with Medicaid to a world without.

Nor has the study answered the question of whether Medicaid's health coverage actually improves health. "The effect of expanding health insurance on health is a priori ambiguous," says Cannon, though we still need to wait to see what the objective measures say.

What it does highlight, however, is how much we don't know about Medicaid's effects—and, despite having spent trillions on the program, how much we've never bothered to find out.

Peter Suderman is an associate editor at Reason magazine. 

NEXT: Steve Jobs "Made Business Cool Again"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s my right to piss all over the earth with my refinery.

    It’s your right to get cancer and pay for it yourself.

    1. European Capitalism:
      Privatize Profits, Socialize Costs.

      American Capitalism:
      Privatize Profits, Let Them Die of Externalities.

      Cancer from industrial pollution is just nature’s way of saying you’re not far enough upwind in a Gulfstream 650.

      1. The lies of White Indian: https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2503582

        “Now that the doctor says I can use my body again physically to preserve and improve soil, to garden and nurture Mother Earth, it’s time before winter approaches. Again, thanks folks, for allowing a former Fibertarian to test the integrity of his newfound ideas.”

        So what happened White Idiot? Had to go back on the teat of modern medical science? I really love all your “impending nuclear war” psycho-babble. What will you do when it doesn’t happen? That will be a sad day…

    2. Is it my right to make you pay to house, me, feed me, heat my home, provide me a cell phone, a car, an education, and then do it all for my kids too?
      Do healthy adults have any responsibility to provide for themselves? Or is it a right to sit back and take a ride?

      1. Thanks Tim, for helping us avoid personal responsibility for externalities.

        Personal responsibility is for little people going bankrupt with cancer, not the corporate elite who pollute and make cancer rates go up drastically.

        1. Oh, only corporations pollute? Good to know, now I won’t have to worry about my carbon footprint anymore as I burn leaves to heat my cabin and barrel down the street in my ’85 Suburban.

          1. I bet you made that Suburban all by your libertarian lonesome, right? I’m so proud of you, KDN!

            1. Well the firepit in my backyard that I made myself with stone tools also is a pretty good source of pollution, and all without corporations. So congrats to you for proving absolutely nothing. Seriously man, shouldn’t you be gamboling across the plains or something and preparing to die of exposure? I hope that doesn’t take too long, the world will be richer for having lost you.

              It takes a mighty large leap of logic to get to the point where me polluting by using a product is the fault of the person / entity that made the product. It’s stating that the consumer has no responsibility in any economic transaction and that all of them are simply mindless automatons buying whatever producers shill, whether they want it or not. Not much of a surprise considering the latter point is your entire worldview anyway.

              1. “It takes a mighty large leap of logic…”

                In Liberarian Logic Land, I’m sure well-documented causal effects are a big leap. LoL

                1. Why yes, True Temper should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if I use an axe to murder my family.

          2. You have a 26 year old car? How many horses do you need to pull it?

            1. 152, apparently. She’s a good beast, rotted out in every wheelwell, only 1 speaker working. Stinks up the street and sounds like shit, but starts every day I need it and with the best damn 4WD I’ve ever seen.

              1. Make a mental note: when the mob comes after me this time, hide out in KDN’s cabin but BYOW/BYOS*

                *Bring your own firewood and speakers

        2. Cancer rates have been declining, numbnuts.

          1. Cancer rates have been increasing. Drastically increasing.

            Cancer was rare (but known, even in ancient Greek times) before industrial civilization. Now 1 in 4 get it in the US, with lower rates (about half) in less industrialized “developing” countries.

            Numbnuts. See, I’m as libertarian as thou. LOL

            1. Way to just make shit up, lying moron. As though they could even accurately diagnose what was or wasn’t cancer in ancient Greece. Aside from the fact that cancer risk rises as age increases, so in ancient times you were likely to die of something sles before cancer got you. Idiot.

              1. Cancer tumors are fairly easy to see post mortem, as the Greeks did. Don’t read much of the classics, do you?

                And cancer is increasing in modern times even if lifespan is not.
                And don’t let anybody fool you into thinking that the cancer rate increase is because the population is getting older — these rates are age-adjusted.

                Like I said, Libertarians like you are LIARS, in defense of the status quo.

              2. OK, my little bitches; stop slapping each other!

                Richard Doll offered the following estimates in 1998: Ionizing radiation, UV light, 5 to 7 percent; occupational exposure, 2 to 4 percent; air-, water-, and food-borne pollution, 1 to 5 percent. For comparison, tobacco accounts for maybe 29 to 31 percent of deaths and diet 20 to 50 percent. Conclusions: (1) the experts think cancer risk due to smoking and lousy eating habits dwarfs most of the stuff people get paranoid about…

                but Breast, cervical, and skin cancer are on the rise…and men are losing that dick thing to disease but who cares about that?

            2. “[…] the researchers have found that both the incidence rates and deaths from cancer in both men and women are declining.”

              1. Oh wow, they went down “0.8%” in a short time.

                Meanwhile, you ignore they’ve doubled since 1950.

                And still increasing in spite of Disney’s media massaging.

                Geneva, 3 April 2003 – Global cancer rates could further increase by 50%
                World Health Organization
                http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr27/en/

                1. Libertarians are Liars|10.6.11 @ 12:56PM|#
                  Oh wow, they went down “0.8%” in a short time.

                  So you finally admit you lied. It’s a start.

                2. Down 20% since 1990. Up 27% since 1950, when the mortality from heart disease was almost double what it is now.

                  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
                  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html

                  Now go out and play with the other children.

                3. Um I’ve got a giant confound for you. I’m certain that it won’t matter because you’re incapable of recognizing a point, no matter how valid, that disagrees with your worldview.

                  We are MUCH better at diagnosing cancer now than prior to 1950. We have technologies (like MRI) that make the diagnosis of cancer easier and more accurate. In addition, we understand cancer better. There is simply no way that you can argue that 60 years ago they had the same understanding of cancer pathology that we do now. When people died 60 years ago and doctors didn’t know why, they just called it something else. The “spike” in cancer rates that you claim is a result of understanding the disease better and actually having a name for it. A similar argument holds for autism. They expanded the diagnostic criteria of autism in the last DSM manual. Then a spike in incidences of autism occurred.

                  Seriously. This is elementary critical thought.

              1. “Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends.” The gist: A significant fraction of cases (3 to 12 percent, depending on cancer type) don’t get reported promptly to the leading U.S. cancer data registry–in fact, it can take anywhere from 4 to 17 years following initial diagnosis before most (99-plus percent) cancers are counted. The missing cases can make early trend reports misleadingly rosy. Melanoma incidence in white males, for example, was once thought to be easing; now analysts think it’s rising 4 percent per year.”

                1. Yes, now please tell me how melanoma rates have anything to do with corporations.

                  1. Because corporations are OBVIOUS[LY] making the sun hotter and shine more. AND they have tricked [WHITE] males into thinking they need to spend more time in a tanning bed so they can look like The Situation.

                  2. Easy:
                    Nerds use to work in labs spending every second of their sexless lives discovering that cure.

                    Now, because of evil corporations, they are playing World of Warcraft, and masturbating to internet porn.

                    1. Aug 14, 2007 ? About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution…about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment — contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems….

                      Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds
                      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…..162438.htm

                    2. Yes, pollution is an issue but when her refers to ‘worldwide’ he really is specifically discussing 120 studies, of that majority, in 3rd world conditions
                      http://www.news.cornell.edu/st…..es.sl.html

                    3. Holy crap on a hand grenade rectal, that makes no damn sense. Nerds are still looking for a cure. If it’s anything it’s that nerds are going out into the sunlight more and using tanning booths to look more attractive to women.

                    4. If I want to fantasize about nerds, let me you cruel bastard

        3. Personal responsibility is for little people going bankrupt with cancer, not the corporate elite who pollute and make cancer rates go up drastically.

          So these corporations are just spilling toxins everywhere for no reason?

  2. Corporations have fed more people and created more wealth for more people than every communist regime of the 20th century.

    1. “Corporations are people.” ~Mitt Romney

      1. Soylent Green is people!

        1. So… corporations are Soylent Green.

          Fine. Let’s feed them to the dogs.

    2. Corporations have fed more people and created more wealth for more people than every communist regime of the 20th century.

      Wrong. Corporations are evil, they perform no good to humanity. They only care about profits. They must be stopped at all cost.

  3. Despite the trillions of dollars we’ve spent on public health insurance programs, there’s very little strong evidence to suggest that subsidized health insurance actually improves health.

    Evidence, unless of course, you believe that access does not equal care.

    1. Access doesn’t equal care. I have access to a lot of things. That doesn’t mean I can afford them or that they are going to be high quality.

      1. Well, I’ll play it your way:

        access doesn’t equal care, then denial of access is death.

        1. I’m sorry, who’s being denied access? Last I checked anyone can go to an emergency room and get care. Dipshit.

          1. I’m sorry, who’s being denied access?

            Access Denied:
            A Look at America’s Medically Disenfranchised
            The Robert Graham Center, 2007
            National Association of Community Health Centers
            http://www.graham-center.org/P…..Denied.pdf

            1. So, a study that shows that there are places with few or no doctors. But other people want to live in those places, in spite of there being no doctors.

              So, what the cure for that?

              Conscription of doctors, maybe?

              1. places with few or no doctors

                That’s hardly the issue (although it is a small one.)

                A startling 56 million Americans are “medically disenfranchised”…

                No matter where they live ? in rural pockets of America’s farm land, in urban neighborhoods, or in
                suburban developments ? medically disenfranchised Americans face disparities in access to primary
                and preventive health care….

                While more than half (52 percent) of uninsured Americans have no regular source of health care, in fact most people living in medically disenfranchised areas have health insurance.

                And why would somebody who is all for heavy regulation of the surface of Mother Earth via privation property, big government’s Land enTItlement program be against conscripting Mother Earth’s children?

                Myself, I’m against both. But it would be nice to see some consistency from you.

              2. First, I love you Libertarians are Liars

                Second, they bandage people, and put them out the door cause they use the technically “not dying right now” diagnoses

              3. “So, a study that shows that there are places with few or no doctors. But other people want to live in those places, in spite of there being no doctors.

                So, what the cure for that?

                Conscription of doctors, maybe?”

                I like your thinking, Comrade Bartram.

                However, I think we could more effectively address this problem by protecting the proletariat from the chaos of having to make their own decisions about where to live. Think of how much more efficiently the State could distribute health maintenance services to the national work force by resettling the population in labor complexes constructed expressly for the task!

                1. You have my vote but I’d like to keep my physician on a restraining device-they are bitchy little creatures

                2. 🙂

                  1. That was for People’s Commissar Mark, not rectal.

                    1. Putting away the ropes 🙁

  4. I, for one, would buy catastrophic insurance if they offered it instead of these health care plans.

    1. That ain’t the way it works

  5. It seems that in almost every H&R thread someone shows up complaining about !!the!!!OMG!!!coporayshunzz!!and their pollution poisoning all the peepulzz. And the libertarians that wantsuz to let themz.

    Trouble is, I don’t know any libertarians who actually believe that anyone should be able to cause harm and get away with it.

    So I’m wondering, what libertarians are people like It’s my Right|10.6.11 @ 12:16PM quoting.

    Now, as everyone knows we had one stalwart “libertarian” here a few years ago talking about great “libertarians” like Rudy 911ianni, and I remember years ago NBC reporting on the “Libertarian candidate Lyndon LaRouche”*.

    So maybe “It’s my Right” is quoting someone who it has identified as a libertarian in error. Though, I must confess that I don’r actually know of anyone who believes in anyone being able to cause harm with polution and not paying any consequences for it.

    So, is anyone who has made these kinds of claims willing to come forward and tell us exactly which libertarian it is that believes “It’s my right to piss all over the earth with my refinery.” Or for that matter “It’s your right to get cancer [presumably due to pollution, even though environmental factors are implicated in a trivial number of cancer cases] and pay for it yourself.”

    *after the error was pointed out to them, they refused to make a correction, saying, basically, that it didn’t matter because you’re all a bunch of nuts anyway.

    1. Most of you just deny that any harmful pollution is taking place. One thing you never hear from libertarians is “there ought to be a government regulation about that.” One of the more fanciful suggestions is that people should be able to sue for pollution that drifts over their property. Though I’m not sure what legal claims exist on the air.

      1. How about, once I take posession of air, a free public good, into my body, it’s mine, and if that air was badly polluted by you, then I get to sue you?

        But the awkwardness of that–millions of lawsuits to decide–is why we need a least some government to address use and misuse of the commons. And I have no problem with that.

      2. Legal claims over the air are called “nuissances.” This applies to air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution.

        That being said, it is unbelieveable how this thread got totally hijacked by comment about pollution that was a complete non-sequitor on the health care issue.

        We don’t know how health insurance affects health outcomes because it woudl undermine the political justification for greater government involvement. Politicians like to confuse health, health care, and health care financing/insurance so that they can give out more goodies with other people’s money. Healthly people don’t use that much health care. Most health care is either preventive (e.g. annual checkups, tooth cleanings) or in reaction to minor ailments (the flu, ear infections, etc. . . .). By making health insurance cover preventive care and minor ailments, the politicians make the insurance more expensives, so there is a basis for them to promise other programs to pay for insurance.

        Eliminate the FDA, reduce restrictions on who can prescribe antibiotics, and get rid of laws requiring insurers to cover stuff you don’t want, and health care costs would plummet.

        1. it is unbelieveable how this thread got totally hijacked by comment about pollution that was a complete non-sequitor on the health care issue

          Don’t come around here very often, do you, Ben?

          Kidding.

          Good points. I would add to the list that would make health care costs plummet, reining in the the power of medical associations to restrain trade* and separating medical insurance from employment by treating premium payments by individuals the same with respect to tax policy.

          *even if one accepts that state licensure is required to determine that each practitioner has an adequate level of competence, the way various associations get to determine what numbers of practictioners are licensed rather than everyone who can meet the minimum standards being licesed is not helpful.

        2. Most health care is either preventive (e.g. annual checkups, tooth cleanings) or in reaction to minor ailments (the flu, ear infections, etc. . . .).

          Yes, and prudent people would budget to pay for these things out of pocket and keep health insurance to pay for the catastrophic stuff that can hit just about anyone.

          Ast ot the people who are stuck unable to pay for these sort of things, it should be noted that nearly every county health department has a facility to provide low cost or free primary care based on ability to pay, especially for women and children.

          Perhaps if these facilities are not adequate people should be talking about expanding them or doing better outreach so that those who are unaware of them can find them. But let’s end all this talk of “insuring” everyone.

      3. Tony, if you disagree with libertarians over policy prescriptions then speak up and demeonsatrate where they are flawed. Just stop making shit up about what libertarians believe.

        1. Tony didn’t make it up. Nice try, Isaac.

          1. It was addressed to the general population of assholes like you.

            And yes, Tony makes up shit about libertarians all the time, though it’s sometimes hard to tell which Tony it is, since he has so many spoofers.

      4. Most of you just deny that any harmful pollution is taking place. One thing you never hear from libertarians is “there ought to be a government regulation about that.” One of the more fanciful suggestions is that people should be able to sue for pollution that drifts over their property. Though I’m not sure what legal claims exist on the air.

        Negative externalities also produce postive externalities. Consider Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Should I be able to file a lawsuit against a smoker because I breathed in the air that contained the smoke he exhaled? Even if my state already received 405.9 million dollars from smokers that I benefitted from without having to be a smoker?

    2. Trouble is, I don’t know any libertarians who actually believe that anyone should be able to cause harm and get away with it.

      Look harder

      1. Why should I look harder. I’ve been dealing with this for over forty years.

        If you know of libertarians who have said or written these kinds of things then fucking quote them, or STFU.

        1. Hmm, baby, you’ll have to wait for my my opera posthuma like everyone else

    3. a libertarian in error

      “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

      1. I don’t think so.

      2. IOW, you should check the definition of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

        It doesn’t apply to anything I wrote.

  6. Corporations are how we do things together. Government is how we do things together–by force.

    –someone said that

    1. Would there be corporations without the State? I didn’t think so.

      Thus, corporations are a derivative of government concocted for privation profits.

      Thanks for playing, albo.

      1. Would there be roadz without the State? Etc.

        1. Primitive paths suited to Non-State sociopolitical typology? Yes.

          Road (whether by privation property or socialized property) suited to invasion and occupation by the agricultural city-State (civilization?) No.

          “Agriculture creates government.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

  7. There’s nothing like defending the status quo, while you go bankrupt from cancer, birth defects, diseases of civilization.

    1. The government is bankrupting this country, not cancer, birth defects or diseases.

      1. The “government” is a necessary organizational aspect of the agricultural city-State (civilization) sociopolitical typology of mass society.

        So, properly defined, you’re correct.

        But I bet you’re a agricultural city-STATIST to the core.

        1. Libertarian agricultural city-Statists complaining about government is like a libertarian jet passenger complaining about that loud whine while inside an aircraft cabin.

          No, Stupid Libertarian, we can’t eliminate the jet engines and still fly this thing.

          No, Stupid Liberarian, we can’t all individually puff and blow and make this thing fly.

          We could walk though. I’m all for it. We’d be healthier and better off in my opinion.

    2. “There’s nothing like defending the status quo, while you go bankrupt from cancer, birth defects, diseases of civilization.”

      And if you elect me, I’ll BAN cancer, birth defects, and the diseases of civilization!!!

  8. Libertarian agricultural city-Statists complaining about government is like a libertarian jet passenger complaining about that loud whine while inside an aircraft cabin.

    No, Stupid Libertarian, we can’t eliminate the jet engines and still fly this thing.

    No, Stupid Liberarian, we can’t all individually puff and blow and make this thing fly.

    We could walk though. I’m all for it. We’d be healthier and better off in my opinion.

    Still demand to fly jets? There’s gonna be noise.

    Like the agricultural city-State (civilization)? There’s gonna be government.

  9. Much more thorough studies have been done on this.

    Google “health care” and the following:

    – USSR
    – North Korea
    – Canada

    So on and so forth.

    1. Should I?

      “In Cuba, a little over $300 per person is spent on health care each year. In the U.S., we’re spending over $7,000 per person,” said Drain, co-author of Caring for the World and an essay published April 29 in Science. “They’re able to achieve great health outcomes on a modest budget.”

      The U.S. infant mortality rate is on the rise for the first time since 1958, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the infant mortality rate was 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births — in 2002, the rate rose to 7.0. (2003 data is not yet complete.)

      At the same time, other countries are improving their infant mortality rates to the point that they have surpassed the United States. Cuba, for example, reported a lower 2002 rate than the United States at 6.3.
      What Cuba Can Teach Us About Health Care
      http://www.wired.com/wiredscie…..h-lessons/

      U.S. Babies Die at Higher Rate
      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/G…..id=1266515

      So what am I supposed to learn? That a communist shithole called Cuba has better health care than the richest capitalist shithole called ‘Murka?

      1. Folks,
        You don’t give money to street-corner bums; it only encourages them. Pretty good idea in this case too.

      2. From the State Department:
        “Official crime statistics are not published by the Cuban government, but reporting by American citizens and other foreign travelers indicates that the majority of incidents are non-violent and theft-related ? i.e., pick-pocketing, purse snatching, or the taking of unattended / valuable items.”

        As compared to Americans, who shoot each other.

        http://www.education.miami.edu…..isine.html
        Looks like they eat healthier, too.

        I’m not a doctor, but I think lifestyle might account for the difference between their medical costs and ours.

        1. Jack,
          Bums and hand-outs…
          Not a good idea, even with the best intentions.
          WI is a shitbag impervious to any evidence. All you’ll get is some lame un-falsifiable reference.

        1. Mr. Mark,
          You’re trying to use logic on a shitbag who thinks it’s preferable to chase grasshoppers to spice up that rock soup.
          Good luck, but all you’re going to get back is a bunch of references to whackos.

  10. I don’t understand how the liberals justify their obvious belief in the sanctity of life when it comes to healthcare. How can you be so moral about somebody else’s life with nothing else to back it up other than politics? It doesn’t add up. If you stuck to a purely sceintific mindset, you’d see that we are all just a collection of cells going through cycles prone to entropy and eventual death. Why do you care if people die?

    1. “I don’t understand how the liberals justify their obvious belief in the sanctity of life when it comes to healthcare.”

      Well, if you start with a lie, it isn’t easy to find justification for it.

      1. Yeah, seems a bit religious to me. They need to work a few days on a crime scene/suicide cleanup team. Make men out of them.

        1. “Yeah, seems a bit religious to me. They need to work a few days on a crime scene/suicide cleanup team. Make men out of them.”

          Want to try that in English? Lost my brain-dead decoder ring.

          1. Sorry, meant to say liberals are pussy ass bitches.

  11. Check your assumptions, namely that Medicaid advocates are intelligent. Of course they “care about improving health and security,” but money equals results in their minds, with or without research.

  12. I don’t like the Liberals but not at the point of insulting them.

  13. Brilliant comment… Of course this is hampering development of other health care reform. When are we going to look at Medical Malpractice, tort reform, profit of some ” not for profit hospitals”.

    Just ask many Canadians how they feel about Universal Healtthcare… especially those that need an operation. Universal Healthcare has caused many Canadians with any means to come to the US and pay cash.

  14. Putting a band-aid over a wound does not heal it. All in all, you cannot control something you do not understand the nature of.

  15. Admitting you have a problem of addictive behavior is the first and necessary step on the road to recovery. However, it’s not a sufficient one.

  16. And farmers markets, often overlooked in surveys of rich and poor neighborhoods alike, have tripled since 1994.

  17. However, the superintendent of schools arranged for each teacher to receive a turkey for Christmas. I often wondered whether he was sending the teachers a message.

  18. Medical Malpractice is probably the biggest concern for Americans today. We are all getting squeezed except the attorneys.

    Just look at true reported Health Care COmpanies profits and compare that to the Oil Industry, Drug Companies and even retail. Some are making huge profits while others like the Health Care Companies are just getting by with less than 3% profits.

    Let’s get real on Health Care Reform and go after these attorneys.

  19. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  20. One thing that frustrates me as a consultant is that for funding easily available to aggregated small-money people using Drupal for web sites, we could more than match the invaluable corporate and foundation contributions

  21. Live Marketplace and will be available for Playstation 3 via the Playstation Network on August 13th and is rated T for Teen.

  22. This article should be called how to be a better corporate programmed robot. Speak up but make sure what you say is generic enough that you don’t ruffle any feathers.

  23. Perhaps the answer is rewarding those folks who utilize preventive benefits and attempt to lead a healthy life. And of course, additional funding for State Risk Pools would help those with major problems.

    Perhaps a hybrid/HSA type of plan that helps everyone.

  24. I think health insurance is really important

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.