How would you assess President Obama's merged proposal?

I think everyone's thinking too narrowly. Here’s my idea to fix healthcare. First, everyone should be issued a health credit card of sorts to eliminate all the paperwork/mailing/administrative costs, and the doctors could be paid right away by the insurance companies, so they're happier--less employees to pay, less admin headache. Second, a big part of the problem with healthcare is that somehow it became the burden of businesses, large and small. What if . . . instead of your employer paying about half of your premium as many do now, they paid nothing. And you paid nothing. Imagine the freedom to all American businesses! Instead, the government paid a low, flat rate premium for every citizen for a basic healthcare plan to the insurance companies--whichever companies gave the government the best deals. Volume discount. This would also eliminate the need for medicare and medicaid. Everyone would be covered for a basic plan, period. With the extra money that businesses would have and that individuals would have from not paying premiums, they could elect (or the employers could elect if they chose to reward their employees), to purchase a step-up plan, or a step-way-up plan from the insurance companies, which would still allow the insurance companies the flexibility to market their services and make profits. Small and large businesses would love the thought of not having their profit forecasting tied to the price of healthcare, and the stock market would, I think, improve greatly if businesses had this burden eliminated. Third, how would the government now pay for these premiums without an across-the-board tax or adding to the national debt? I think that when it comes time for the individual to pay yearly taxes, we should be required to pay one-half of one percent of our yearly medical bills. If you had a $30,000 operation, you'd pay $150. If you only had $100 in medical bills, you'd pay 50 cents. I hate to kick someone when they're down, but I hate more to punish someone who chooses a healthier lifestyle too. Besides, it's still less than the 20% and co-pays that many insurance companies charge on their plans now, which is the part that drives people into bankruptcy. It's also an added incentive to remain healthy and reduce unnecessary/frivolous doctor visits. You could also offer credits for things like going to the gym, etc. This 1/2% tax would offset part of the cost of the government having to pay premiums. Remember too, that the government would no longer have to pay full premiums for all the government employees, and there would no longer be the tax write-offs for hospitals and doctors who treat patients with no insurance–everyone’s insured. Fourth, I think under this plan, the hospitals and doctors should be required to cut their prices permanently by 15%. No more $15 boxes of tissues and such. They could afford to do this because #1 they'd have less overhead with the new cards/fewer employees, #2 they don't have to pay premiums for their own employees, and #3 they'd have more patients and will be making more money. Then finally, what to do with all those administrative folks now out of a job because of the swipey cards? I'd suggest that the government partner with the state colleges to offer free college rides to those employees affected if they want to become a nurse, doctor, physical therapist, etc. We're going to need more of them, and I don't think America would object to using public money for this since it would mean less waiting time and more doctors/nurses to provide care when needed. So . . . insurance companies can still make money (and in fact will have more money coming in that's guaranteed by the government for every citizen, not just those who are employed, and they still have the ability to raise their profits by selling step-up plans, and their minimum premiums are guaranteed by the government); businesses are freed from the decades-old burden of having their profits perpetually tied to healthcare costs--a whole new wind-in-the-sails for them, especially as we compete globally; doctors and hospitals make money with many more patients who they know are basically covered, plus they're being paid on-the-spot now; individuals are happy because they either have more money in their paychecks from no premiums, or they have a step-up plan; and, republicans and democrats are both happy because businesses, the stock market, the insurance companies, AND individuals are happy too. And as far as paying in taxes based on your medical bills, we all have the option to increase our withholding if we anticipate having to pay more taxes, which people could do with the money they're saving in premiums. That's my plan, and I think it might actually work!

He is doing smoke and mirrors and the shell game. He made a few (very few) improvements but threw back the abortion issue. Obviously he threw that back so he could negotiate it back out (like he was making a concession)

Reminds me of a Used Car Lot where prices are artificially pumped up so that they can give you a discount. His tactics are sleazy and designed to just suck in the Republicans to make them look bad. He is not doing this in good faith.

He is still playing the reconciliation card and the "my way or the highway" game under the guise of bi-partisanship. He's a phony!!!!

If he was really serious about putting together a good healthcare reform package that would be a win/win solution he would take the Republicans up on their offer to start over and craft and articulate a responsible package that the American people would support.

Barry and the Congress keep putting a new layer of lipstick on this PIG, but it will NEVER be attractive to the U.S. Taxpayer/Citizen/Voters !!!

We have choices...............

The Party of "NO".........

The Party of "DON'T KNOW".............

......and the Man Child currently playing in the Oval Office !!!

What a choice !!!

The only specifics in "The President's Proposal" are Republican ideas, and they amount to millions in savings -- when the health insurance companies take thirty cents on every dollar of health care spending, and nobody can explain what value they add!

If Obama, and the Democrats, had set up a process that was truly open and transparent, and where everything was on the table, there would be single payer advocates at the White House on the 25th, since single payer delivers health care at half the per capita cost and with better outcomes.

How can anybody take a process seriously that leaves $350 billion savings A YEAR on the table from single payer, and then focuses on saving a few millions? Penny wise, and pound foolish. That's our legacy parties, the Ds and the Rs, at work!

Someone ought to charge King Obummer, Botox Pelosi and "Worthless" Reid with practicing medicine without a license.

They are about to give every productive American an exam normally performed by a proctologist.

Merged proposals?....we have been hearing the same sad story form the Dem's for over a year now....re-packaged for the umpteenth time...what part of the American people doesn't want this rediculous expenditure don't the Democrats and Obama get?....pass this Health care package....and the Republicans will be the party in power....for the next 30 years.

I have two comments on the language used in this (and other) debates.

First, I wish our political leaders - Dems, Repubs and Independents - would banish the phrase "the American people." There is no more agreement among the American people than among the representatives they elect. Perhaps we could move closer in our views if opinion leaders would stop lying and driving wedges in what might otherwise be a productive, rational debate. I give President Obama great kudos for putting this meeting on c-span for all to see and for not letting people get away with misstatements, purposeful or otherwise.

My second comment is that I would like us to change the word "taxes" to "dues." I am sure none of the Republicans who believe "taxes" is a dirty word have the same reaction to paying dues to their country clubs, health clubs, home owners associations, etc. They receive services in return for their contributions, i.e., the grass is cut, the pool is clean, the trash is picked up, the snow is shoveled, etc. Are their country clubs "socialist" because they ask everyone to pay dues? Why do they feel that a contribution to their government is any different? I would be happy to pay more taxes if I received more services in reutrn, like health care. And I am not alone.

Ellen Witman

I watched the whole summit proceeding on-line. It was obvious that the Republicans were not serious about finding a solution when they arrived with their stack of paper and kept repeating the number of pages in the bill. How childish that is. As for scrapping the whole thing. I am sure they would have loved that then they could spin out the time again until the fall and then blame the Democrats for not getting anything done on health care.

It is so irresponsible for them to play these games while 30 million people have no coverage. Think about it. That is the population of Canada where we are all covered and the cost per person is half of what the cost is in the US. We pay no co-pays, no deductibles and we can't lose our coverage due to pre-existing conditions, losing or changing a job or getting sick.

I find it absolutely pathetic that the Republican leadership and their supporters can care so little about others. What ever happened to but there for the grace of God go I?

Both sides seem to agree that it is unsustainable to carry on as it is now but the Republicans do not want to do anything serious about it. That is obvious. If they did, they wouldn't get caught up in so many lies. Go to factcheck and politifact. I was shocked to see how much they twist the truth. I couldn't count the times that Mitch McConnel was on TV telling people that in Canada we cannot choose our own Doctors. It is absolutely untrue. There is a conservative sponsored ad about healthcare in Britain in which the former Surgeon General Koop makes false statements about care for the elderly in Britain. Factcheck.org says they are not true and I know for a fact they are not.

If you have a good argument then you shouldn't need to lie and use silly props.

Health insurance companies started out providing health insurance and have evolved into medical management corporations.

Modern health insurance encompasses both catastrophic health coverage and routine medical care.

If the concept of insurance is to hedge against unexpected loss or harm, like in the case of fire, flood or car insurance, then why are health insurance companies handling anticipatory expenses such as mammograms, blood tests and vaccinations? This is not insurance, this is pre-paid medical care.

Compared to comprehensive health coverage, catastrophic health insurance is affordable, easily understandable and likely to be accepted by the public. Universal catastrophic health insurance would resolve the uninsured issue. It would provide a humanitarian service that all Americans will eventually need but that few people would exploit. After all, how many people want to have a stroke or suffer physical trauma? Like fire, flood and automobile calamities, health calamities are generally avoided when possible.

Prepaid healthcare, on the other hand, is expensive, has inherent waste and could be exploited, making universal coverage unpopular with the public. Paying an insurance/medical management company a monthly fee so that they can then fund your annual mammogram, for example, adds a middleman that drives up cost without adding value.

Americans have uncharacteristically relinquished their purchasing power, creating a unique situation in which the patient is the consumer, but the insurance/medical management company is the customer. Patients pay the insurance/medical management companies who in turn, employ doctors. Doctors make their income by properly filing paperwork, not necessarily by satisfying patients.

If obtaining non-emergent and preventative healthcare were turned over to patients in a free market, patients would seek value, service, convenience and/or expertise in accordance with their values. Prices would be readily available to the public and simplified. Competition and downward pressure would reduce patient costs.

Implementing a Food Stamps model, routine and non-emergent healthcare would be available to everyone. And like groceries, out of pocket expenses ought to be tax-free.

The current insurance/medical management companies offer little value in administering non-emergent and anticipatory healthcare, consuming an estimated 40% of healthcare dollars. Returning non-emergent healthcare to the public could result in an immediate 40% reduction in healthcare spending.

I am finally happy he has taken a stand albeit a bit of a gamble with this plan but let's remember that he is the only President in the last fifty years to get a reform bill this far. For the good: the plan eliminates the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Wow, may be these companies will now have an impetus to keep us healthy!? Second, the plan greatly extends coverage to most working families. This now provides greater clout to fix the system since everyone is included but for the negatives. The bill falls far short of what really needs to change that is the financing arm of the health system, the insurance companies and government entitlement programs. Quite simply, I wish the bill simplified the financing system to one like the French or Germans have in that medical fees are entirely paid by private insurance companies that are regulated by the government to provide a basic plan available to all at not-for-profit price. These drastically reduce the high administrative fees seen in our system (no need for companies to pay middlemen who search for ways to deny your coverage) and promote the funding institutions to actually care about preventative medicine since they have to provide funding for your care for your whole life...compare that with our system where people have insurance at a company for an average of 4-5 years. Insurance has no impetus to fund preventative medicine since they will pass you on to the next insurance company or government entitlement program shortly so why pay for a gym membership even though from a cost-control perspective it costs much less money than a quadruple by-pass the next company or medicare will pay. This is called gamesmenship. It drives up cost. We have an incredible expensive system because the financing is complicated and we don't take the moral imperative to simply state that everyone must be covered. Universal coverage impels us to examine financing, which leads to lower costs for all. Without it, those who are the most in need aren't even included in the conversation.

To even address health care reform, cost in all areas must be driven down anyway possible. Since we cannot meet our obligations(Social Security, Medicare and Mediaid) already how can we possibly consider a new social program this massive? I think our leadership in Washington is delusional. The american voters do not want this program passed.

To consider Health Care reform, costs must be reviewed and driven down anyway possible. Since we cannot meet our obligations(Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) already. How could we possibly consider a new social program this massive and costly? I think our leadership in Washington is delusional. The voters do not want this program passed.