Burr plugs GOP health care plan

Neo: You are doing a great job of explaining how this bill will ruin the country, but you are preaching to folks that have no common sense. These are just some easily led libtards that are easily glamored by people like Obama that will promise anything to get their support and then turn on them in a minute. They are too dense to see it. They don't want to believe that their messiah would/could possibly lie to them. The facts are blatantly clear so it is not the way you are explaining,it is their lack of brain power to see the impending crash rushing to smack them right in the head. They will still be standing there confused after it is all over. When this thing fails, they will still be blaming Bush or Reagan. They take no responsibility and that's why they prefer to be led around with a ring in their nose. Even the Democrats know that this plan won't work, and if they are more scared of the voter than they are of Pelosi, this bill won't be passed.

That was my point. Because LASIK is not covered by insurance and is an out of pocket expense (that is still costs more than glasses is irrelavent) means that it is subject to true market forces. It (and elective plastic surgery - also not covered by insurance) has come down in price over the last decade while the costs of everything else medical have increased.

LASIK is a red herring not only because it is an elective but because vision correction is not covered by typical private insurance plans. For insurance coverage of eye care a supplemental vision plan is typical, with limited benefits and even if LASIK is covered the benefit is at best a discount or a fixed out of pocket cost which is still more expensive than corrective lenses.

So you claim LASIK is a bad example because of one person? Tragic for that one person, but yes, he should have known the risks. I did. Not everything bad that happens in our lives means we get to sue somebody for a lot of money to make up for it.

You are also correct that LASIK is more expensive than glasses it was worth every penny. I was legally blind without my glasses which were heavy and bulky - even with titanium frames and super-polymer lenses. I was unable to wear contacts. Now - 11 years later, I am 20/40 without glasses and I am sitting here typing without wearing glasses. I only use them for driving.

LASIK is a red herring because it's an elective that's more expensive than glasses and can damage your eyes. I know a man who is legally blind because of laser eye surgery and who lost a lawsuit over it because the defense argued that as a retired actuary he should have understood the risks.

COBRA drives the cost up? Really? The insurance company receives the same money. Calling portability uless *and* claiming to be for freedom? How many sides of a mouth can you talk out of?

I'll admit to clumsily getting my COBRA point out. I was trying to point out that COBRA really didn't help portability because it is so expensive. What would better help with portability is to wean us off of employer-based group coverage. You know, really transform the market. Change the tax code so we can deduct all of our medical expenses - not just after we pay 7.5% of our adjusted gross income. Then if we change jobs, it doesn't affect our insurance at all. "Unleash" the markets from the standpoint of getting rid of state coverage mandates and allow us to choose our options - ala carte - that are best for ourselves and families. Allow us to purchase from other states. Have a catastrophic option. And for those that really need help because they are "uninsurable", then have some government help to just help those folks out. And means test for Medicare and Social Security. Markets do work - look at Lasik Eye Surgery. I was in the FDA study on it in 1997 and it cost $3000 per eye. Because it isn't covered by insurance and there is true competition the prices are down to between $500-$750 per eye now.

"We needed a solution yesterday, but we didn't get it, because we were distracted with unnecessary wars against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "

Red Herring not worthy of response

"The agenda *is* known:
- insure more people"

How can more people going for services (with the same number of docs) cost less?

"- give people the FREEDOM of choice between their employer's plan and other, public, no-profit options."

Then how about getting rid of all the mandates of "approved" plans where if any changes happen your old plan gets dumped? How about getting rid of the part where it is cheaper for your employer to dump you onto the government role than keep your private plan? How the hell are those FREEDOM or CHOICE?

"- get things going before August because the status quo has a multi-billion dollar war chest, built with higher premiums and denied care, to replace elections with public relations and smear campaigns. The GOP did their part to stall, and now the paid activists are doing theirs."

You can't be serious. ObamaCare supporters are putting together a $160MM ad campaign for September. John McCain spent $126MM over the course of his entire campaign. WHO has the money again?

"6 months of good analysis and debate would help, but the GOP has no interest in providing either. They have confused "analysis" with campaign contributions and "debate" with fear mongering."

Fear mongering? Like the crap about life expectancies and the over-stated number of people without insurance and the can't-quite-reconcile talking point that lack of insurance = assurred death? Please.

"Right now, decisions are made by corporate insurance drones who deny everything without any thought, requiring the patient and doctor make a case for treatments that should be covered. Burr's plan keeps this in tact by maintaining the status quo of private insurance."

I'd take fighting an insurance company any day over fighting the Feds. At least I have some recourse with a private company. Remember the old "You can't fight city hall?" And as we can see here in Raleigh, the government is full of benevolent and honest angels looking out for your best interest, right?

Like I said - spitting in the wind..... But I admire Don Quixote

OK RonB -

"She claims to want to "focus on the 12-15 million that are chronically uninsured" .... Obama's plan goes far to fix this with the government option avaiable to everyone."

Why does everyone need this option if they are already covered?

"The "innovations" she wants to attribute to our existing system do not come from the existing health care system. Patient care is as good (or worse) here as it is in Canada, England and other countries with "socialized medicne". The "innovations" have come from the rich from the rest of the world paying what would be a lot to anyone else but a drop in the bucket to them to get the best treatments. Meanwhile the rest of us pay more and have shorter life expetancies than the rest of the world."

See my earlier posts with actual FACTS about the fuzzy math of life expectancies. Not to mention that our lifestyle choices don't have any impact on those either right? It's all about insurance? Please.

Regarding innovation. Have you ever had an ultrasound or and ECG or a CT scan or an MRI or a PET scan. If you have thank the innovation of the markets. Especially the US medical equipment and drug markets. You think that the government worked to develop the algorithm that can detect subtle arythmias in and ECG? Nope. It was a little company called Marquette Medical. They spent a boatload to create the product and made a boatload off of it later. And have saved countless lives since. How about the 64-slice CT that can clearly image your beating heart (and the rest of your body). Or the PET scanner that can isolate your cancer for targeted surgery and radiation therapy. Advanced mammography? Vascular ultrasound? All developed by companies competing in the market putting money into R&D hoping to make a profit at the end. You think the Feds can do that? Really?

What about new drugs? Do you know ANYTHING about what it costs or takes to bring a new drug to market? Have you ever dealt with the FDA? I didn't think so. How about you put down the talking points for a few minutes and get some facts. Like how it can take more than 10 years in R&D and clinical testing and government approvals that can hundreds of millions of dollars - if it even makes it to market? Then you risk finding a rare side-effect in the general population (100's of thousands) that wasn't found in the clinical trials (5000) and get sued for a couple hundred million. The Vioxx effect. The drug that a helped millions aleve their pain but was pulled because less than 10 people had a severe reaction actually caused by the drug and died.

"It is amazing that "managment bonuses" and "shareholder dividens" didn't make her list of why healthcare costs are going up, even though they are by far the most costly reasons. "

Really? The CEO at Pfizer took a total compensation last year of $13.7 Million including bonus. I'm not sure how many major drug companies there are, but lets call it 10. To account for VP bonuses - lets just round it to say $40 Million per company for a total of $400 Million - double it even to a Billion, quadruple it for effect to $2 Billion. A large number you say? Yes, I agree. But quite paltry compared to the estimated $100 Billion that is driven by excessive CYA testing. Or the over $36 Billion year to date in estimated Medicare fraud. I don't think that "management bonuses" are "by far the most costly reasons."

Well, you can tell that RonB either didn't do his homework and read 3200, or he is so far up Bama's ..... Anyway Ronny, Mac Daddy be proud of you buddy. You swallowed the whole lie.
You left out how much it was going to cost. Duhhhh!
You forgot the part in the plan that leads to a one payer universal socialist system.'
You still haven't caught on yet. The doctors and hospitals charge a lot. They have to be paid. Insurance companies pay them for you. If you pay cash, you have to pay more than if you pay through insurance. That's a fact that I can prove. I have proof right here in the statement from my wife's last operation.
You are just so full of Bama that you can't do your own thinking.
Obama said and I quote "maybe that (senior) doesn't need that hip replacement. We can just give him a pain pill". He said it. He also said" maybe (that senior) doesn't really need a pace maker at his age...just give him a pill". This is the guy you are championing, buddy. Can you believe a guy that says, "doctors will amputate a foot off to make a little extra money"? Sounds kind of like rationing, huh?
You are kind of arrogant when it comes to false indignation and taking up for the poor. You don't understand that the rest of us are also concerned. Just not enough to put our families in ruin to fix things. Instead of crashing through the door, why not check to see if it is unlocked?
You wonder why conservatives (and in this case Independents and most Democrats) get upset with your (liberal) reckless attitude.
Bama's plan will eventually put private insurance out of business. He knows it, but I can't understand why you don't understand that. If you put them out of business, you have the same problem as now, millions out of work. Why are you not all up in arms against the high price of doctors and hospital care? Duhhhh! Didn't think about that. Bama didn't tell me to be concerned about that.

Yet the question remans: The Dems are in control and have the votes to pass health care reform - so why haven't they?

I am sorry I guess the quote from the story above is incorrect ---
"You don't need to stimulate competition," Burr told about 30 people at the Crabtree Rotary Club. "What you need is to unleash the markets."

Unfortunately since he is running for re election we will see more and more elightened quotes.

As much as I'd like to, I can't let neo_mom's post go any longer.

She claims to want to "focus on the 12-15 million that are chronically uninsured" but Burr's plan doesn't do this. They are uninsured because they have been deemed "uninsurable" by the unleashed health insurance industry. Obama's plan goes far to fix this with the government option avaialbe to everyone.

The "innovations" she wants to attribute to our existing system do not come from the existing health care system. Patient care is as good (or worse) here as it is in Canada, England and other countries with "socialized medicne". The "innovations" have come from the rich from the rest of the world paying what would be a lot to anyone else but a drop in the bucket to them to get the best treatments. Meanwhile the rest of us pay more and have shorter life expetancies than the rest of the world.

It is amazing that "managment bonuses" and "shareholder dividens" didn't make her list of why healthcare costs are going up, even though they are by far the most costly reasons. Or expensive drugs that are pushed through an underfunded FDA only to find that they do more harm than good. And a Republican-created Medicare prescription drug plan that lets drug companies sell in bulk and deny selling at bulk discounts. Obama's plan fixes this, and the drug companies are on board.

COBRA drives the cost up? Really? The insurance company receives the same money. Calling portability uless *and* claiming to be for freedom? How many sides of a mouth can you talk out of? This is why no one takes you seriously other than other right-wing tools who think the heatlh care industry's plan with Senator Burr's name on it is a good idea. And the "malpractice insurance" boogie man. I'm sure she and others like her want doctors to not pay insurance or be held accountable for their mistakes. Renaming death panels "councils" does not make them magically exist. Sorry.

We needed a solution yesterday, but we didn't get it, because we were distracted with unnecessary wars against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The agenda *is* known:
- insure more people
- give people the FREEDOM of choice between their employer's plan and other, public, no-profit options.
- get things going before August because the status quo has a multi-billion dollar war chest, built with higher premiums and denied care, to replace elections with public relations and smear campaigns. The GOP did their part to stall, and now the paid activists are doing theirs.

6 months of good analysis and debate would help, but the GOP has no interest in providing either. They have confused "analysis" with campaign contributions and "debate" with fear mongering.

Right now, decisions are made by corporate insurance drones who deny everything without any thought, requiring the patient and doctor make a case for treatments that should be covered. Burr's plan keeps this in tact by maintaining the status quo of private insurance.

The only "patients rights" the GOP is delivering is the right to pay more for less.

We fix the parts that need fixing by electing officials who listen to their constituents and pass real reform to take the motiviations of profit and greed out of the buisness of improving the health of every American. The majority has spoken and deserves to be listened to. Instead they get yelled at health insurance representatives, the members of congress like Senator Burr they paid for, paid protestors, and duped individuals that like to protest but hate knowing what they are protesting about.

Hopefully this will show to everyone once and for all just how out of touch Senator Burr is with reality.

Unleash the market? Unleashing the market is exactly what we have now -- higher premiums and co-pays for less service. How can it get any unleash-ier?

Tax benefits? Republicans? Ha. I can't laugh hard enough. It is a sad smokescreen to directly fund the existing inefficient, for-profit insuers as payback for campaign contributions.

I'd ask Mr. Burr this at a town hall, but he has continued his 5 years pattern of not listening to the people of North Carolina. Just like Elizabeth Dole did.

Like I said before, what difference does it make who has the greater infant mortality rate? Liberals want to improve infant mortality how?.....ABORTION.

Libtards, why don't you go back to trashing, rather than fight over something that just makes you look even more stupid. At least your Democrat brothers are smart enough refrain from that argument.

Exactly what did you expect from Burr? He knows we don't like the Socialist plan so he is trying to find a compromise to get us safely away from disaster. For some reason, you have succumbed to Mac Daddy's fear mongering and think that the world will surely end if we don't pass this thing by the end of the year. Give me one good reason that this bill can't wait until the beginning of next year? You haven't fooled anyone. The bill is so bad that it can't stand on it's own merit, so it has to be rushed through before anyone can analyze it and discover how really dangerous it is.

senex24 -
Read Sen. Burr's bill - it's been posted by me here & on other stories. You keep repeating that Burr's done nothing ("seat warmer"), and that his only idea for HC reform is to let the markets loose - that's not true.

The tactic of repeatedly issuing untruthful statements about conservative opponents is just not working anymore. Read his bill (it's only 248 pgs, unlike the 1,000 pg treatise drafted by Pelosi-ites & her insurance company exec's & big PhRMA execs), then come back & make a substantive critique of his ideas.

the point is that Mr Burr as a United States Senator should be more than just a seat warmer for the GOP. If his only response to the bank failures of last fall was to pull money out of an ATM it shows a lack of understanding of the Banking Industry and the FDIC. If his health care plan is to simply let the markets loose, then we should really be worried about this deep thinker

OK - so your argument is that if you are a

UNITED STATES SENATOR

you are not allowed to pull your own money out of your account using an ATM to prepare for something bad that may or may not happen.

Got it..

Still lame.

difference is that you are not a UNITED STATES SENATOR

senex24:

So what? So he pulled some of his own cash out of the bank based off "the sky is falling" information that he was given. Its not like pulling money out of an ATM was going to cause the bank to collapse. I pulled some cash out too. Kind of like when a hurricane is approaching - you prepare to get through bad things for a several days until things stabilize again. If this is your only argument, its pretty lame.

sky:

That's why the tangent last night into the infant mortality rates. The EU countries LOOK better because they don't actually COUNT all the babies.

Also, a higher infant mortality rate will bring down the overall life expectancy score. Its all math - and fuzzy math at that.

But I notice nobody here is even trying to refute those facts. They just go back to the "Republicans are evil and want to kill everyone for profit and Democrats are god-like in their benevolence to their fellow man" crappola.

This really isn't about Ds and Rs anymore. Healthcare is the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". This is about those that believe in the Constitution and keeping our freedoms - and the responsibilities that go with that freedom. Or those that want to willingly give up their freedoms and responsibilities to the false prophet of a loving and benevolent government and the soft tyranny of the rules, regulations, and debt that goes with it.

That's why you see all the Gasden flags.

If you aren't sure that Mr Burr's Health Care Plan will work just remember his economic recovery plan from last fall when he told his wife the following

"Tonight, I want you to go to the ATM machine, and I want you to draw out everything it will let you take. And I want you to tomorrow, and I want you to go Sunday," he said, according to an account in the Hendersonville Times-News. "I was convinced on Friday night that if you put a plastic card in an ATM machine the last thing you were going to get was cash."

The N&O must have removed Giggles' inappropriate comment. Here's to you, Giggles - you must be really desperate when you throw in the race card. That's worked before to shut conservatives up, because to be simply accused of racism is a sin worse than the worst libel or slander. Times have changed - that weapon is no longer as effective as it once was. Just "gates" your opponents & they'll roll over? Not going to work anymore.

Sen. Burr's bill came out in May this year, not November last year - why don't you try reading it? Maybe you need to hit the Red Bull this morning.

Over & over I hear how people in Sweden or Denmark or Germany have higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, etc. We have a very different population here in the U.S. - it's ridiculous to compare apples & oranges. There are cultural differences, and it's disingenuous to pretend they don't matter to the evaluation of a population and the health choices people make in their daily lives.

Hey Black, how many government employees do you know that aren't being paid? Great statement! Were you trying to say something? Are you talking about the past again? Tell us about your great idea in the grand scheme of things to come.

I see the school kids are posting today. They must have their blackberries with them so that they can text between classes.

Now, the republicans want you to believe reforms will destroy Medicare. Medicare has been bleeding for decades and the republicans and other "paid" government employees of the insurance industry have blocked changes to fix it.

Fox news may not appeal to some folks. Funny how it has more of a following than all the other news channels combined. You must be right, it must be a good comedy channel. Real mature comment you made. The reason folks are watching it more than ever is because it has more NEWS and factual NEWS than the other pro-bama programs. It is the only one that Bama is trying to shut down too. Seems to me that this fact would concern you. But, no your head is so far up Bama's a... that if he takes a sharp turn, he will break your neck. How does it feel to be a groupie for a fraud?
Burr may not be the best we have to offer, but at least he is out there doing what he can to hold his finger in the dike, so this crxp doesn't drown us.

Neo: What do you expect from Puddinhead? You should know that trying to have an intelligent exchange with him, or NCSU is having to lower yourself to juvenile standards. Radicals will always be radicals. It's the way the liberal education system programs them. Rather than face an issue, these types will divert by talking about TV news, or past politicians. They won't use facts or common sense, because most of the time they are just kids, trying to express themselves in an adult world. Computers make it easy for them to hide, but you can see through them by their words and expressions.

Dog, FoxNews IS the Comedy Channel!

I don't understand the purpose of debating birth mortality rate here. Liberals already agree with abortions, so what's the point? Why would they care about birth mortality. Everyone talks about how the Republicans haven't done anything about health care. Well, when Nixion introduced his heath care bill, Kennedy and his group shot it down. There is more than enough blame to go around.
I think that most of you want cheaper health insurance. Lets face it, cheaper is your REAL motivation. You can see it in your words. NOT giving free health care to the ones that don't have it. YOu want cheaper, then go with the cross state line idea and tort reform together. That WILL work. Does it matter who's idea it is? You still get what you want. Or, is it that you just want your party to win. Is winning more important than the gain?
Everyone knows that the uninsured have ways to get treated. This country doesn't preclude help for the needy. It's always there.
Lets face it, bama wants to tear up the whole system just to gain a win. He is not open to compromise. He doesn't care about the deficit. He doesn't even care about doing his own job. That's why he has hired 45 czars and hasn't even filled some important positions in gov.

Grinder, what? Burr sounds like McCain/Palin on healthcare. It's the same proposal we voted against last November. Are you just so wrapped up in attacking moderate Democrats you think reasonable Republicans are the new vice. Don't make me defend Burr now. I will.

Oh, I get it. You ARE a crazy right winger and think Burr's being too reasonable. That makes sense now. Thanks.

From what I have read of Burr's and the other plans, it appears that Burr is a Blue-Dog Democrat. We are in trouble when the Republicans start sounding like the blue-dogs.

@ puddentain

If you look through more of the CDC report on preemie births, you again find many reasons for these early births. Primary among them lifestyle choices like smoking and drug use and our high level of teenage pregnancies, and larger number of older women having babies. There may be things wrong with our "system" with these issues, but they are more related to culture (and pop culture) than our health system.

Regarding the control over my life and your Madoff analogy. While I could point out many flaws with your analogy itself, I understand your point. That is why the majority of us that, even though we don't want HR3200, do want some reform to address issues such as this. HR3200 simply wants to trash everything, throw a bunch of stuff to the wall, make some very intrusive moves into our lives (i.e. the IRS being required to provide all of our info to other agencies) and see what is left. I don't want to experiment with 1/6 of our economy. I want reforms to be specific and targeted - like at creating true portability, going after the fraud, and tort reform.

The hypocratic oath says "First, do no harm." HR3200/ObamaCare does harm.

@nc_mom: "people can spout dreck about how our current system sucks because our babies die more."

That's the wrong way to put it. Perhaps our babies die more because the system sucks.

You make a valid point about premie births - but premie births may be higher due to the lack of pre-natal health care to large portions of the population.

@nc_mom:"That is the reason why I don't want to give them any more control over any aspect of the economy or my life and decision."

But that means you want to give control of your health and life to the Bernie Madoffs of the world. We've already seen what unregulated financial markets bring, and that's basically what we have now in health care. And it's going down the tubes.

Submitted by PaulTerrell on August 27, 2009 - 8:59pm.

James, quit babbling.

That's Paul Terrell's job.

I can't read all the comments but I did send Burr and Hagan some simple things to start with. Trade Association groups(Home Builders, Realtors, Chamber etc.) cannot form groups across state lines. The Dems have voted against changing that for over 8 years. Why,because it would work and then there would be less reason to have Universal. Work on Tort reform. Make everyone pay something for every visit to prevent abuse. I am not totally against single payer but I am definitely against mandatory employer payer. Why should employers pay any more than they already do with social sec, unemployment medicare, and workers compensation? I will lay off every employee and use contract labor if forced to provide health insurance and I know many small businesses who will do the same

@wma1958

I believe that 99.9% of politicians are corrupt. Seriously - have you looked at Raleigh or Washington lately?

That is the reason why I don't want to give them any more control over any aspect of the economy or my life and decision.

Not only do I think that HR3200 will make things worse and will be more expensive than what we have now...

Its a matter of freedom.

Am I to infer from your post that you don't believe such a thing as a corrupt, hypocritical, & self-serving GOP public official exists?I'm also curious about how in-depth your knowledge is about Se. Burr's "heath-care plan". It certainly doesn't represent anything I'd define as a "middle-ground" health-care reform proposal. Worse, I have doubts that Sen. Burr himself would support his own proposal if he had to cast the deciding vote on whether or not it became law.

Yes - the UK probably does have a lower infant mortality percentage than the US does (and then by the laws of statistics gets that extra year of longevity). But lets look at why:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm#hasthe

Excerpts: Preterm birth (births at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation) is a key risk factor for infant death. The percentage of preterm births has increased rapidly in the United States in recent years. From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of preterm births increased from 11.6% to 12.7%-a 9% increase.

Preterm birth (births at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation) is a key risk factor for infant death. The percentage of preterm births has increased rapidly in the United States in recent years. From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of preterm births increased from 11.6% to 12.7%-a 9% increase.

In 2005, 68.6% of all infant deaths occurred to preterm infants, up from 65.6% in 2000.

Very preterm infants accounted for only 2% of births, but over one-half of all infant deaths in both 2000 and 2005. Because the majority of infant deaths occur to very preterm infants, changes in either the percentage of these infants or in their infant mortality rate can have a large impact on the overall infant mortality rate.

The infant mortality rate for very preterm infants was 183.24 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2005, not significantly different from the rate in 2000 (180.94), halting a long-term decline (1,2).

The plateau in the U.S. infant mortality rate from 2000 to 2005 was largely due to the combination of the increase in the percentage of very preterm births and the lack of decline in the infant mortality rate for these births. However, the increase in the percentage of late preterm births has also had an impact. In 2005, the infant mortality rate for late preterm births was three times that for term births (37-41 weeks) (1)

Now - lets compare the US to those other countries: http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2009/07/06/health-myth-1-“the-us-has-one-of-the-highest-infant-mortality-rates-in-the-developed-world”/

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country’s infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don’t and so don’t count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.

The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don’t report.

And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says.

And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway’s underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Add in that the CDC also states that infants are the at the highest risk of murder... http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031202a.htm

and VIOLA - people can spout dreck about how our current system sucks because our babies die more.

"Burr may not be the best Republican choice out there, but he is still better than any Democrat choice. As long as good Democrats follow what they know is wrong, then they are not thinking for the people."

I think you hit the nail on the head. I see 2 types of Democrats from NC:

1) Center-Left true Democrats who vote primarily with the left
2) Ambitious people who try to play a center to center-right attitude and then vote with the liberal leadership on close votes.

While I disagree with the people in #1, I respect them and that they are committed to serving their constituencies. I don't have a any respect for the second group who will vote with anybody if it suits their ambition.

Richard Burr got into Congress back in the 1990s because he believed a certain way on issues. He went to Washington and voted with his beliefs. He is trying to lead on the healthcare issue by providing a middle-ground proposal. The majority wants it their way and need a "win" rather than a good solution for this country. Richard Burr is representing North Carolina and is staying true to himself in Washington. He will get my vote.

I find it unbelievable that so many of you folks seem to be missing the obvious about Richard Burr & his "health plan". Richard Burr has no interest at all in reforming our health care system (including health insurance law reform). If push came to shove I don't believe that Burr would support any legislation that anybody in the world could possibly devise to give us real health-care reform.By real reform, I mean laws that would prevent health insurance companies from being able to deny or cancel affordable (not free-affordable) coverage to anyone with a pre-existing medical condition.This could be done using either a public option or existing private insurers & such an effort need not be so expensive that it bankrupts the government.

Richard Burr, & most other GOP members of congress may say they support a "plan", but their "plan" is to do everything in their power to kill off ANY health-care reform legislation totally using any means that they have to do it.

Big money health care players (insurance companies, drug companies, etc.) have contributed more money to Sen. Burr than to almost any other member of either House of Congress. They didn't funnel all of this money to him with no expectation of a return on their investment, and Burr's shown no interest in disappointing his benefactors.He'll do anything in his power to try & insure their continued health (i.e. their continued big profits)That, and positioning himself for his re-election campaign next year are the only REAL interests Richard Burr has in the health-care reform efforts.

Sen. Burr doesn't care that 50 million Americans lack health insurance, he doesn't care about the many people who work hard all their lives only to find themselves in bankruptcy because of one illness.In short, he doesn't give a ripping flip about what our current health care system is doing to large numbers of the people he was elected to represent.Sen. Burr is covered personally by a lavish public health care plan that we (the taxpayers)are paying for.Members of Congress HAVE passed laws insuring that they have health coverage for life(paid for by us).So, Burr will never have to worry about things like losing his insurance if he loses his job, any pre-existing condition he may have, or an illness bankrupting HIM. He's covered health insurance-wise for life. My question for our esteemed Senator is this: Why do you think the health insurance you have for life is fine for you, but too good for the rest of us that pay your salary?

Folks, politicians like Sen. Burr are trying to pull a fast one on us. They have used every trick in the book to distort the debate on this issue beyond recognition.Their whole focus is on preserving the status quo, making sure their big money donors have their interests protected, & positioning themselves for their next re-election campaign.Don't let 'em snow you into thinking they care about your interests here, because they most certainly DO NOT!

@neo_mom:"I am OK with doing SOMETHING, as long as it is the RIGHT thing. "

That's my whole point - you'll never get the "right thing" and you'll never get everyone to agree what the "right thing" is.

But the current system isn't going to work much longer. This is a case of either going down with the ship (ie, waiting for the right thing), or taking a chance on the lifeboat.

I don't expect the new plan to be perfect. And I don't expect the government to be particularly efficient at it. But plans can be tweaked.

What I like about the public option is that it provides competition to the private insurance companies. It's not government control, it an option. That's why they call it that :*)

BTW - the British have a longer life expectancy than us and lower infant death rate that us (as do a lot of countries). While it's true that sometime in the past there were long wait times in Great Britain, they tweaked it and fixed it.

If you would like to learn about the British system, here is an interview with a Doctor from England. Here is a link to it. I'll only ask you to listen to it, I don't expect it to change opinions, but you should at least know the truth rather than seeing Fraidy Freida on the TV commercials.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111976190

BTW - they are a single payer system and I am not advocating that, but you may find that the reality doesn't match the propaganda.

James, quit babbling. Why are you concerned about the number of pages of Burr's plan but not the over 1,000 pages in the Obamacare plan. Quit being a hypocrite and bring something worthwhile to the debate.

@ puddintain

I am OK with doing SOMETHING, as long as it is the RIGHT thing. The "stimulous" and "TARP" and "omnibus" and "cash for clunkers" have not exactly been models of efficiency and effectiveness.

Is it too much to ask, really, that the SOMETHING fixes the part that needs fixing and leaves the part that is just fine alone? HR3200 doesn't do that - it is a SOMETHING that will certainly break the part that doesn't need fixing and it is questionable if it will fix the part that is broke.

@sky

Thanks! I'll keep tilting at the windmill :-)

@neo_mom - we have a saying here in the South.

"Do SOMETHING even if it's wrong"

It means that things are so bad, that no matter how bad the new plan is, it'll be better than what we have now.

The major cause of the inability to solve problems is that people resist because they're afraid of change and want the perfect plan.

No plan will ever be perfect. But it's 100% obvious that the current health care system is broke.

The conservative philosophy is, somewhat by definition, a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. In most areas, I am a firm believer in that philosophy.

But the modern conservatives stuck with the "don't fix it" part, and they've forgotten the "if it ain't broke" part, and the associated corollary.

@neo_mom - we have a saying here in the South.

"Do SOMETHING even if it's wrong"

It means that things are so bad, that no matter how bad the new plan is, it'll be better than what we have now.

The major cause of the inability to solve problems is that people resist because they're afraid of change and want the perfect plan.

No plan will ever be perfect. But it's 100% obvious that the current health care system is broke.

The conservative philosophy is, somewhat by definition, a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. In most areas, I am a firm believer in that philosophy.

But the modern conservatives stuck with the "don't fix it" part, and they've forgotten the "if it ain't broke" part, and the associated corollary.

Thanks anyway, neo mom - as usual you're exactly right. Good try, but in the end, it's casting pearls before swine with this crowd.

sigh

I thought Burr said he needed only one word, "portability" to write his plan, no more than five pages, is what he said. (Though it's hard to imagine how you'd need five pages to write the word "portability" ... but that's another issue.)

And now you're saying his official plan is 248 or 47 pages? Either of those is a lot more than five.

Can the guy even count?

neo_mom: Good job. I'm sure nobody has tried to identify specific problems with the health care system before. Quick, someone phone the White House.

I know I'm spitting in the proverbial wind here, but what the hay....

The thing that is glaringly, obviously, missing from the Obama/Pelosi plan? Some good, old-fashioned, root-cause analysis. The very first requirement to solving a problem??? You have to know what the &!$#*#! problem IS? Define it.

WHO do we really need to help? If you choose not to be or can afford it and don't want it or were temporarily uninsured, why should we be concerned. Lets focus on the 12-15 million that are chronically uninsured.

WHAT are the best parts of our system and how do we ensure that we don't destroy it? Like our responsiveness to the patient needs, or our cancer survival rates, or how we lead the world in medical technology and drug treatment innovation.

WHY is the cost of healthcare going up? There are a multitude of reasons - from mandated coverage, to being dependent on our employers choices (a little monopoly if you like), to useless "portibility" laws like COBRA, to people using the ambulance as a taxi (yes, it happens), to lifestyle choices, to fraud, to new neonatal and geriatric care technologies, to malpractice insurance costs and the CYA testing it drives, and on and on and on. HR3200 doesn't even really address the "cost curve" as per the CBO analysis, certainly not in any way to address any of the above. It has gaping holes where "the Secretary" or some "council" makes, as of yet, unknown calls.

WHEN do we need a solution? Is ramming a bill written by (does anybody know who wrote this?) an unknown entity with and unknown agenda, then trying to pass it before some artificial August recess deadline without anybody even knowing what is in it or what some potential unintended consequences (you know they are there) really the best course of action. Would another 6 months of some really good analysis and debate hurt?

WHERE should decisions be made? By the family/patient and their physicians, or in Washington by a yet-to-be defined and politically appointed government panel that decides what the best treatment protocols are?

HOW do we fix the parts of the system that need fixing. And even those that disagree with HR3200 agree that there are parts of the system that need fixing.

Seems odd that we are not putting Schultz, Overbite, Madcow, Press, Rhodes, Hartmann, Thompson, etc. on the same Crazy Train as Hannity, Levin, Limpbaugh, Wilkow, etc. Anyone who puts their full faith and credit behind one point of view in this debate about our healthcare is seriously misguided. The constant barrage of blatant misrepresentations and flawed logic serve only to isolate and alienate we the people from any civility.

This debate has been dumbed down to soundbites for our ADD society that cannot handle anything longer than 60 seconds of information. Has anyone on these commment posts provided any insights into the actual workings of the FEHP, T18, T19, private insurance, etc? Rarely at best, it is all "Medicare for All!", "Death Panels", "Rationing", "47-55 Million Uninsured", "Illegals are covered", "Illegals are not covered", etc....

Having working in healthcare and insurance for over a decade it is amazing how stupid and naive the politicians in Washington as well as the talking media heads really think we the people are.