Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Question of the Day | 03/16/2009 11:00 pm

Are you willing to accept more gov't regulation and fewer choices in health care to cut costs and provide insurance for all?

© Shutterstock
Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 03/16/2009 11:00 pm

Joan Ganz Cooney on Nationalized Health Insurance: 'Your Money or Your Life'

Hmmmm. This reminds me of the great comedy moment that received the longest laugh from the studio audience in radio history, when Jack Benny, notoriously tight, was confronted by a gunman who said, "Your money or your life." No answer from Jack. The gunman then said, "Well?" Benny replied, "I’m thinking. I’m thinking."

Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 03/16/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith Will Sacrifice to Provide Coverage for All

I don’t know but I am willing to accept the good will, the new plans and the hopes of health-care realization via the Obama method because we need to make sacrifices, obviously, in order to provide coverage for everyone.

I won’t examine this process too closely, just as I don’t complain about paying taxes. It costs something to live in a great democracy even if everything isn’t perfect. 



269 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

under stimulated
oh—ok
By under stimulated on 03/18/2009 3:31 pm
Elena Voltman
YES!!!!!!!!
By Elena Voltman on 03/17/2009 10:28 am
margaret britt
Yes, definitely yes.
By margaret britt on 03/17/2009 10:29 am
Bonnie Oliver

I will also be in the minority here.  I do not trust the government to provide equal care to all citizens.  I also do not trust the government to manage health care without at least 25% of the money being lost to graft and crime.  Just for the record, I pay the full premium for my own health care….about $9,000 a year.

As for fewer choices, does that mean having a mammogram every two years instead of annually?  Should a rectal scan be prescribed for adults at age 55 instead of the current age of 50?  The cost of the ICU facilities are very high …. should the ICU beds be available for only patients who are under age 85?    That question about fewer choices is darn scary so I think I would say no to that also.

By Bonnie Oliver on 03/17/2009 11:07 am
EKA -

Bonnie, Nothing I have heard or read is suggesting that the government is going to provide care to all citizens. The Obama plan, actually just a blueprint, calls for a public/private initiative. You will never be able to get rid of the insurance companies, which would have to happen with a Govt. run program. What I hear him saying is to establish a kind of "best practices" panel which would gather information from around the country to actually decide WHAT works best, instead of every state and insurance Co making the decision, it can cut out worthless procedures, duplicated tests and wasted hospital time, AND maybe save some money. If you read his speech, which I linked at the beginning, you’d get a better idea than I can relate.

We just can’t go on as it is !!! 

By EKA - on 03/17/2009 12:15 pm
Bonnie Oliver

EKA - I will go back to the link you mentioned.  However, I did listen to President Obama when he was a candidate talk about his plan to revamp the health care system.  According to his plan at that time, I would be eligible to receive a $2,500 credit …straight off the income tax.  Yet, he never once indicated the cost of his package or how he planned for the government to afford his plan.

Medicare is already a partnership between the government and the private sector.  Is it working?  I believe so.  However, the Medicare program along with the Social Security program are both due (actually they are overdue) for serious updates inasmuch as they will soon cost more than the government receives from the income tax rolls.  And that means a cutback on benefits… the age to retire will be raised while at the same time individual cost for Medicare will increase.  The primary reason why Congress has refused to act, is that they fear for their successful reelection.  It was during the Reagan presidency when the last social security adjustment was made and the Republicans paid a price because the Dems went after them hammer and tong during the next elections even though they knew the program had to be updated.  The changes can only be attempted when there is a strong President in office who can take the heat from the irate seniors.

I don’t know EKA.  I will read the link to see if President Obama’s new proposal is different than what he favored last summer.

By Bonnie Oliver on 03/17/2009 2:33 pm
EKA -
Well, You can’t listen to any, and I mean ANY, candidate during a campaign, First of all they are pitching to the base, and second, things always change once they get to the real job. But he was serious about doing something about health care, and as he says in the speech, the costs are going up so much every year that it will bankrupt all of us if it is not changed, and the difference this time around is that the medical profession AND Insurance Co’s are on board because they see the collapse ahead also …. but as usual, the devil will be in the details ♧
By EKA - on 03/17/2009 3:42 pm
DeBúrca obj
Oh yeah, and what about that little boy about a year ago… had a toothache and the mother couldn’t afford to have it removed and he ended up with an absess that attacked his brain and he died. He was about 6 or 7. These things are happening all over the country, horror stories. American healthcare horror stories.
By DeBúrca obj on 03/17/2009 4:14 pm
DeBúrca obj

I know women who go without mammograms because they don’t have insurance, or their insurance is so bad they don’t want to find anything before they can get a better policy if they get a new job, etc. As it is now we pay more money per person for less care under this top heavy private system where something like $35 for every $100 goes toward administrative costs. We have Insurance companies dictating to patients and doctors what sort of treatment is allowed and these are the "lucky" folks who have insurance… what about the millions without? What about the millions who are so under-insured they can’t go to a doctor unless they have a catastrophic illness? I know a couple, both working, WITH insurance… husband is diabetic and one son is autistic, and they went bankrupt due to medical expenses. This is WITH insurance.

I know many people in Ireland, and my best friend is a nurse who moved from the US 20 years ago to Canada and has lived and worked in their system that long and none of them would trade the care or peace of mind they have with their systems, with the American health industry. 

By DeBúrca obj on 03/17/2009 4:11 pm
under stimulated

and yes, we need to revise our current health care system—but, socializing is not the answer

By under stimulated on 03/17/2009 11:16 am
DeBúrca obj
I’ll tell you what, lets get rid of the socialized post office, police force, military, military health system, fire department, public school system, libraries and public works too! Then we can all just fend for ourselves like good Libertarians.
By DeBúrca obj on 03/17/2009 4:15 pm
under stimulated

well see, now that’s a ridiculous arguement

—there you go again

By under stimulated on 03/17/2009 4:49 pm
rocky rocky
I’m curious. Why do you think that is ridiculous? The services DeBurca listed are offered to the citizens of this country not by private industry, but by way of the collective demand, efforts, and monies (including the tax dollars) of the American people. These "businesses" are owned and run collectively for and by us. That IS a form of socialism. So again why is that a ridiculous argument?
By rocky rocky on 03/17/2009 6:01 pm
under stimulated

you can’t just lump everything together—though most of them would be run more efficiently if they were privately owned

…ever heard of going postal?

By under stimulated on 03/17/2009 6:21 pm
DeBúrca obj
No… you can’t cherry pick what government services are OK and call the others "socialism" every service I mentioned are gov’t run services that fall under the same category as the one you are accusing of being "socialist". Give up the rest if you don’t want a single payer healthcare system.
By DeBúrca obj on 03/17/2009 7:27 pm