Can the Republican John Campbell explain how ANY plan that insures myself and ALL the remaining 50-million uninsured as well as the numerous underinsured who pay profits to the healthcare system only to be devastated when they call for help, will in and of itself be less money?

It seems to me, that the savings will be in the burden of the current uninsured going away (from hospitals and doctors) and trimming the fat off the insurance healthcare companies.

The siphon in the healthcare system is not the medical service side, nor is it the consumer, IT IS THE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE INDUSTRY! That same related bunch who have caused all of our other problems, more or less and I personally, am sick and sick and SICK and tired of listening to lame-lawmakers who seem to think it is better to let 50-million Americans flounder and lay their burdens on the hospitals and doctors as burdens because the fat, plump insurance industry is unwilling to offer a complete solution, which will cut their profits.

Time for change and maybe for a doing away with the healthcare insurance industry all together.

I would love someone to address why we continue to place the burden of providing health insurance to businesses. It does not make any sense to me to link health insurance to employment. Very few people these days stay in one job long term, and linking health insurance to employment forces people to change doctors and insurance plans everytime they change jobs. This is not good health care! It also unfairly places the burden of the cost of health insurance on businesses.

There should be a government health care plan available to everyone, and there should be regualtions on private health insurance companies to insure everyone at affordable rates. Take employers out of the equation!

After having our worked entire lives, we finally have Medicare. I am very concerned when I hear that the plan will be financed by trimming Medicare; what happens when fewer and fewer providers accept Medicare because of low reimbursals.
We pay premiums for Medicare coverage but many, many things are not covered. Physical exams, a key preventative measure, are not covered by Medicare.
I do believe the private insurance industry is responsible for costs of healthcare.

I am a small business operator in John Campbell's district. For 8 years we have been trying to afford coverage for our employees and cannot provide it due to the costs. Most of my colleaugues of my size (approx 10 employees) just cannot afford the cost. My employees are simply not covered and live with the concern of getting hurt on the weekend and unable to pay the resulting bill. Telling us we all have to simply buy that which we currently cannot afford is not a solution.

The current health care system of private health insurance has been a collosal failure. We should scrap it and go to a single payer system.

John Campell, you are so full of hot gas!! My son lives in Spain, he cannot say enough good about the GOVERNMENT run health system of Spain. My next-door neighbor is from Canada, SAME THING. IT works for ALL, not just for fat-cat Republicans.

Just like John McCain, you Congressman Campbell ask us to put our trust (when we have buy our own), in the same industry which has no problem turning away 50-million Americans and under-insuring numerous more.

Can anyone explain why nobody is considering Canada's legislative model for health care? I'm not talking about single payer. I'm talking about the federal government passing a bill saying, "Any state that can come up with universal health care that meets this standard will get transfer payments of $X per capita, and their program shall replace the following government programs."

The federal government caps its potential costs. The states have a clear incentive to control costs. And nationwide we can experiment with several solutions then go with the one that actually works.

All it takes is for the federal government to have the humility to say that it doesn't have all the answers.

Larry.. I like all those people who say and believe that we / America is not a Socialist country... I just dont understand most American's negative attitude towards Socialism-- when three-quarters of them can't even spell it, and even less really know what Socialism really is. It's a pity that this word has such a bad connotation here without any understanding of it. Who do they think provides the road, the police, the fire dept.. What do they think is Medicare, Medical ? FINALLY, who do think provides the health care costs for all those congressmen and senators... Can they think ?

As an employer - We, more than employees, understand the cost of health care.

Today's discussion is completely ignoring family coverage. Coverage for the employed individual is different than covering families.

Most small employers require employees contribute to the cost of covering family members other than themselves. Employees looking at a government plan would see (so it seems) that a plan is available with no required employee contribution.

Basic PPO coverage to cover the employee, their spouse, and their two children approximates 1,500 - 2,000 per month. To compare apples and apples, no employee contribution, then the employer's annual cost for that employee is $24,000. Clearly, an 8% surcharge on payroll cost is less expensive for the majority of employees.

Because many employees share in the cost of healthcare, they will be looking closely at out of pocket costs. Maybe employees will change jobs to participate in no cost healthcare if employers are not permitted to change to a government plan for 5 - 8 years.

Alternatley, if employers can make a change, they will likely make the change that is less expensive to them in an environment of rising taxes.

How does the military provide heath care to family members and dependents? Why not combine it with Medicare so that there are more people in the system absorbing the cost of people that are really sick?

My low cost, high deductable, hospitalization-only private health insurance left me nearly bankrupt fighting cancer. The thought of having to decide among 1300 private plans for health or prescription insurance makes me nauseous all over again!

All people want is GOOD MEDICAL CARE. As long as the House's plan does not require 1-size-fits-all care to keep costs down, I hope it passes.

Susan Braig
Altadena

It is my understanding that a significant portion of the oxygen in our system actually comes from algea - how would using algea affect the environment? Is this just a new type of deforestation?

What we really need is a single payer health plan. No one wants to give up anything, but those who have insurance and like it don't care about those who are unable to afford any health care. We already have rationing. People who can't afford health care receive nothing. If that isn't rationing, what is?

How do private insurers plan on covering my 2 daughters with Type 1 diabetes? They are "uninsurable" at present. Only a government run health care plan will work. The private insurers would rather spend money on advertising and denying legitimate claims, than patients. I am an MD and have yet to hear a single patient praise their private insurance company. I have already had a bankruptcy due to the illnesses of my daughters. In another country, they could lead healthy lives and pursue their dreams, but in the U.S.? Unlikely.

Affordable healthcare, govt vs. private efficiency, blah blah blah...
Larry, the elephant in the room is that people get paid big money and exorbitant bonuses to push healthcare to skyrocketing heights- as close to overland piracy as legally possible. The invisible hand naturally leads healthcare to record profits just like any other business. The question really is whether we want healthcare to be for profit or non-profit.

Todd has an interesting point, maybe we can extend the military healtcare to the public and bring down cost for the military as well.

She's right; medicine shouldn't be for profit. Why don't you look to the UK to see how they pay for their universal health care – over there it works; over there you have a government system which includes everybody, including the Queen, whether they work or not and a private system which includes the people who pay for it or who get it paid for by their employers – that also includes the Queen.
The government system is paid for by National Insurance Contributions deducted from wages and salaries at about 7% (when I lived there) up to a ceiling of about $500 per week so the most you would pay per week would be $35; the employer has to make a contribution too but not as much as over here.
There are waiting lists for elective surgeries but these are in heavily populated conurbations but the patients who live in those areas are allowed to travel to areas to jump the queue.
Over here you put too much onus for the payment of insurance onto the backs of the employers.
Just look to the UK – public and private funding; free prescriptions from the age of 60 and no co-pay at all.

Why isn't anyone looking at the military health systems as a model for a government plan? It works!

I am part of the people, and I want single payer. I have spent my life in and out of insurance since it is tied to employment. Single payer is the only system I can see that will actually work in the long-run. If rich folks want to keep their current insurance polices, let them

What are you afraid of: loss of relection money from Travellers, Aetna, Blue Shield?

I don't know why the Dutch insurance plan has not been discussed. Everyone is insured because insurance companies compete in both price and services provided - no cherry picking, not denying care that is supposed to be insured.

Re Medicare: Try to think of another profession in which each year the government reduces your reimbursement by a certain percentage, as is now done for certain medical procedures. And where if your patient is Warren Buffett, you are not permitted to balance bill but must accept this payment.

European systems (e.g. France, where everyone seems to be pleased) are able to operate with lower physician salaries because 1) the doctors don't leave their training with a debt of over $200,000, and 2) they can earn less because the cost of education is so low that they don't need to earn enough to be able to afford to send their children to university and medical school. Why should insurance company executives be making excessive millions on the backs of physicians?

We don't have to look any farther than our neighbors to the North to figure out how to do health care in a much more affordable way. All the tinkering with the present system may result in some minor improvements in coverage & cost but cost will still be very high.

Hi Larry

I applaud the Episcopal Church. In fact, because of this decision, I am thinking of attending.
I have never been able to square religious sects that have preached a message of love and inclusion with the discrimnation against G&L persons of faith.
Besides, is it not God who is to Judge?
I do not believe it is within the right of Man to judge God's creations.

The health care insurance industry is hellbent on maintaining their highly profitable business model at the expense of the American people. The current model is unsustainable and needs reforming. The most efficient and effective solution is a single payer plan, but the insurance companies are spending $1.4 million dollars per day spewing propaganda and lies (socialized medicine, beaurocrats making decisions...) as well as calling in favors and intimidating politicians to do nothing. I highly recommend people in favor and opposed to the public option and/or single payer watch Bill Moyers interview with former CIGNA exec. Wendell Potter:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html

Having grown up with the military health system it is not all that great It is much harder to get refferals to specialists, appointments in a timely manner, or an emergency room visit that does not require a wait of at least two hours. my current PPO is much better. Also having lost a brother to Cancer I know that all the top research and treatment centres are in this country not in those countties with socialized or universal health care systems. One of the main reasons there are so many advances in modern medicine is because it makes money. Universal healthcare will have some negitive effects on the quality of care and the development of the industry.

Not sure how anyone can figure private insurance is efficient, given that there are many companies doing the same thing in a slightly different way. Why? Eradicating the current redundant system of insurers will certainly free up a lot of very qualified people to other, actually productive industries, while enabling health care professionals to do what they are meant to do without constant interference from multiple bureaucracies.

I don't understand the fear of a single payer system with the horror of losing the for-profit health insurance industry. Am I the only person who can see how freeing it will be for future entrepreneurs to not have to include burdensome health care calculations in nascent business plans?

Has anyone done a study on how many people would start their own small business if it weren't for losing their health insurance as an employee? Perhaps this is a positive cash flow factor that should be included in the calculation of the costs of a single payer system.

Reverend Russell rightly points out that it is a myth that African and Latin churches are unanimous in opposition to the Episcopal Church's decision to recognize LGBTs as a part of the "ALL" of ALL of God's children.

No less a giant than Anglican South African Bishop Desmond Tutu supports LGBT equality. Reverend Russell correctly phrases it in saying that if there is a break in the Anglican Church, it is by Conservatives' choice--not by progressives.

Rick Watts
West Hollywood

I am so tired of hearing Christians proclaiming Jesus on KPCC! I wish you would have coverage of other religions, too!

What about Hinduism? I would be happy to proclaim Krishna on KPCC, just let me know and I will come on and talk about it!

I am not tired of Jesus being proclaimed, aside from that, the bible clearly states that homosexuality is not ok and they will not inherit the kingdom of God. How then is the church allowing them to have homosexuals in the church.

While I support the exploration of natural sources of fuel, and I am curious about the possibilities of algae fuel, I have concerns about the danger of accidentally introducing a bioengineered foreign algae to the oceans and the environmental consequences should such an event occur.

Nevertheless, I learned about algae fuel research from this video, and the theoretical differences between algae yield and ethanol yield are staggering:
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

As a member of the United Church of Christ, which welcomes members of the GLBT community, I am excited to see the Episcopalians joining the community of welcoming churches.

The bible

I believe the real elephant in the room is so-called rationing problem. The model is the Mayo Clinic system that matches treatments with effectiveness; if it is ineffective it is not covered by the plan. People don't want to hear this. People want access to every treatment, drug, therapy no matter the cost. People have been led to believe saving the life of a 28 oz. infant at the cost of a million dollars is good medicine even if nine other infants given the same treatment at the same cost die. Sorry I think that this is a waste of precious health care dollars. Hip transplants for 80 year-olds, liver transplants for alcoholics, we as a society have to reach a consensus about do we pay for any and all treatment or effective treatment as designed by a committee of health care professionals based on honest scientific evidence. Until we thrash this out issue we aren't going to arrive at a truly excellent medical care plan for all. This "rationing" of health care is what people mean when they say "socialized medicine." Lastly, to me universal health care is as valuable to our country as universal free public education! Just as an educated society is an asset so is a healthy one.

As a member of the United Church of Christ, which welcomes members of the GLBT community, I am excited to see the Episcopalians joining the community of welcoming churches.

Tony, the Bible does not so clearly condemn homosexuality and, particularly, the Jesus of the Gospels is silent on the subject and welcoming of many that some present day Christians would find objectionable.

The word of God is not fungible to the desires of the human heart. The word of God is absolute by definition. Read the good book then ask how you can justify your desires in spite of the written word of God. It can be done by detour, omission or intellectual slight of hand. This is simply a group trying to remake God in their own image. They are not being truthful to the word as it is written. It is a reflection of their prioritiy of self-actualization over the word of God. Throughout history, the word of God has stood in opposition to the morality of many groups. The size of the opposition has no bearing on the truth of God's word. God is not a part of any electorate, there is no purpose to tally the votes of men.

I didn't hear your show yesterday but here is what I know for sure simply from running a household and being a parent of 3 kids for 27 years: we pay now or we pay later.

Rather than thinking of America as a financial state only, let's think of it as one really big family. I'll put myself in charge of this huge family for this example. This family of mine gets sick. Some of them have health insurance and some of them are rich so they can pay for their problems.

But then I have these other family members who have no health care. I care about them. I want them to have a good life---not a wealthy life, not a life of fanciness---just a plain, old decent life.

Part of that decent life is that they have an income of some kind. A decent life does not mean some of my family is living in the gutter. If they can work, they must be able to find a job that pays enough so they can afford housing.

What happens to this big, uninsured, unwealthy portion of family when they get sick? In CA you can find free clinics. In the major cities you may find free clinics. But in millions of other places in my country you cannot find free clinics for the sick or injured.

In thousand of places in my country you cannot find a hospital that will take you in for a non-emergency when you are sick or injured. They send my family members away and tell them to go find a way to pay if they want to be treated for an illness. Those family members go and ask friends and relatives for money, or go get a loan from a bank, or go to their churches and beg for donations.

I know from raising 3 kids that you either pay early for their care or it will cost you later. You can defer maintenance with human beings, but it ALWAYS costs you more when you defer care. Always. There is not one doctor or one health insurance CEO who will tell you differently.

I paid up front for my kids' health care. Their dad and I kept them insured and healthy. We even straightened their teeth. As a result I now have 3 adult children who are not only healthy, they are gainfully employed and probably will be employed for the next 50 years or so. Thus they now pay into the system with taxes---taxes they could not be paying if I had neglected their health care and let my son accidentally become debilitated from his asthma, for example.

Or, if I had not had access to health care for my daughter, I might have not taken her to the doctor when the one had pneumonia. She could have died from pneumonia. If she had died our society would have lost a valuable taxpayer.

My other daughter had chronic ear infections and needed surgery for them. If she had not had that surgery she might have gone deaf in one ear. Would she be as productive a taxpayer if she were deaf in one ear? Would she have done as well in school?

Part 2 of my comments(sorry it's so long)

Do you see what I mean? If I neglect my family, big or small, if comes back to bite me in the rear and in the wallet later. It costs me and our whole country more if I neglect them.

This is what America is facing now because I, or someone like me, is not in charge. We are neglecting the health of our children, our future taxpayers, and it will come back and bite us in the wallet. It already has.

If we neglect the health of the parents of our children, then we are hurting our children too, because anytime you hurt or neglect a parent you are hurting their whole family.

Because of FDR we, as a society, decided we should take care of our elderly with Medicare. But our middle-aged and our children can just die, or be made lame, or beg on the sidewalk for money to treat their cancers, and our politicians claim that is OK. That moral failing is too expensive they say. "We can't afford to do the right, good and moral thing" they say. They say they can't raise taxes because raising taxes is not "fair". Fair to whom? If we all want and need health care, and will all will eventually, then we all have to pay for it.

In truth we are paying for it now but it's hidden. Why is a Tylenol $5 in a hospital? Because that's how we pay for health care now.

But somehow Congress always figures out a way to invade other nations and kill people in wars. We always have the money for a war--needed or not, we always find a way to pay to develop more weapons to kill people better.

You know what we really cannot afford? We cannot afford politicians who do not know good from bad, right from wrong, kindness from cruelty, and intelligent planning from knee-jerk reactions.

I have raised 3 healthy children who are now pouring their healthy energy into the system. Their taxes will help pay for my Medicare. What I put into them they will be giving back to me.

What could all of America do if she could just get her people well so they could all pay taxes and be as productive as possible?