A two-faced politician? I've never heard of such a thing!

We should wallop rich people with a tax, and start a single-payor system. Wipe out "suing doctors for dollars" and limit total medical outlays to 10 percent of GDP.
Next problem.
And oh, stop the whining. Life is not fair. Maybe you pay more taxes. Boo-hoo. Get over it.

Since there aren't enough rich and middle class people to pay for a single payer system, I say we soak the statists: have a national referendum and keep track of who votes "yes". Tax those people extra and use the proceeds for health care vouchers for everyone.

And I agree, stop the whining. Not everybody can afford life-saving medical treatment. Boo-hoo. Get over it.

Read again, ninny: Limit outlays to 10 percent of GDP. We already spend more than that on health care. This would be a reduction in medical spending as a fraction of GDP, down to levels of Europe.
And yes, euthanasia (usually not clearly stated) is necessary, under anyone's plan, unless we do want to go bankrupt.
Who is going to pay for Amy Alkon's mounting medical bills for the next 45 years? Not her, unless she hits it big. I don't want to.
Obviously, past 80 (in another 35 years for Alkon) we are going to have to cut Alkon loose. Past 80, she can pay for herself, or take drugs and die. Same for me, BTW.
80 years of living is a good life, why burden society after that?

Who is going to pay for Amy Alkon's mounting medical bills for the next 45 years? Not her, unless she hits it big. I don't want to.

Since she has insurance, ninny, you won't. Unless of course Congress passes a national single-payer health plan and your taxes pay for her care.

No way Alkon can afford it. The monthly insurance bills will start hitting $1k a month when hits 55, then race higher with any medical problems and age. $2-3k a month is easy.
She might consider Thailand for care until she gets to 65, and Medicare after that(which I pay for, and so do you).
So the libertarian is basically going to fall into socialist arms at 65. Medicare.
In a free market, she would just have to die. In fact, that is the option I advise--euthansia. It is too expensive to keep a lot of old people alive in any bona-fide free market system. It may be too expensive even if subsidized.

Somebody hasn't figured out that people who go find this and pay for it subsidize those who don't.

But that doesn't interfere with making things up, out of impotence.

Brave talk, Alkon. And when your deductible hits $18k a year? And your monthly payments are $2,150?
Authors rarely make much dough. After all the writing, and hawking and getting up at 4 am to be on am radio East Coast at 6-7 am...we are talking minimum wage. Or less.
Good luck.
Of course, even if you hit it big (and I hope you do) it leaves aside the question if what if you don't?
You are essentially saying, "I am going to be rich, therefore I can handle it."
Deux ex machina.

> Hint: Initials are A.A., she writes an advice
> column, and just finished a book that's
> coming out in the U.S. on November 27, 2009.

Tough one... can you give some more clues... ;)

i-hole:

A little remedial math for you. If we were to tax the top 1% of earners at 100%, we would get about 1.3 trillion dollars. For the government to completely take over health care art present costs, we're talking 3-4 trillion a year.

Where's the rest of the money supposed to come from?

And you're pretty much espousing a "duty to die". I do not wish to live in a society that finds such a thing acceptable.

If you think euthanasia is so great, I have only one thing to say:

You first.

Amy-
Surely, you know you are in the age bracket anybody would like to insure. The gap is from 55 to 65. If you should have any serious, or sort-of serious health issues around age 55, you are going to face monthly health insurance premiums in four digits--every month. Plus a luxury-car downpayment sized annual deductible.
Why will we have national health insurance? Actually, people like Amy will tip the balance. The Amys of the world will get to age 55 (in huge numbers now, the baby boom is turning grey), but so many are rugged individualists and self-employed. Of course, lots of us can't find steady work even if we try--and it gets rather hard after age 50, as I can attest.
So, here we are: Brave New World and all that--but those health insurance monthly premiums at $1,300 look scary.
We vote for national health insurance.
Amy, you have 10 years left. Then you will face the wall--your body will start falling apart, and Kaiser will want $900 a month. Then, the rent. Car insurance. And those unmet personal desires.
Then those boys wake you up at 2 am closing time, and ridicule your claims of taking care of a baby, as you are an "old bag." They call you "Grannie!"
That's about time gun control will make sense. Because those boys better put out or get shot. Literally.
It's a schlub's life. Waiting for you. You have one foot in now. Shopping at thrift stores. Clipping coupons to fast food joints. Home perms and color jobs. The car with the ripped Landau roof. And honking about libertarianism for a few bucks. Blogging for dollars.
But waiting for the days you can embrace that socialistic Medicare and Social Security. Home Sweet Home. Well, home, anyway.
It's a schlub's life.

Look, I'm sorry you seem to be driven to make an ass of yourself - Amy to i-haveastickinmy-asshole

I'm not, the douchebag is entertaining.

If you should have any serious, or sort-of serious health issues around age 55, you are going to face monthly health insurance premiums in four digits

Not sure where you're getting your numbers, I-hole, but you need to shop a little harder. I'm 60, with blood pressure and cholesterol issues for which I take four prescription meds, and my health insurance costs $537 a month. And that's going down to $318 since I just switched to Kaiser. My wife, who's 56 with no medical issues, pays $142.

Limit outlays to 10 percent of GDP.

We don't have enough rich and middle class people to pay for anything that costs 10 percent of GDP. Total tax revenues are around 18% of GDP (regardless of rate, interestingly) so you're talking more than half of the federal budget. Good luck getting Congress to cut the military etc.

We already spend more than that on health care.

People who want to receive timely, quality care will continue to pay for it like they do now, in addition to whatever taxes they have to pay for a nationalized system. The only way that won't happen is if the gov't prohibits it. Is that what you advocate?

Amy, what if you're out of state or out of country, where Kaiser doesn't have facilities; do they cover your treatment there?

You need to consider what state you are in. Kaiser is not available where I live (the only way is if say I worked for a large company based in L.A. and had small office here and they took out a policy that covered all employees).

The cheapest non-catestrophic insurance I could find last year was about $600/month. The cheapest was $350/month with a $10,000 deductable and a $500,000 max benefit. I don't know what I will be able to do once I fall off my former employer's plan - but right now it is clearly the best option.

The big HMO in this state is know as "Death Valley" because they are not very good.

"And oh, stop the whining. Life is not fair. Maybe you pay more taxes. Boo-hoo. Get over it."

Let me fix that for you:
Oh, and stop the whining. Life is not fair. Maybe you pay more for your health insurance. Boo-Hoo. Get over it.