YOUR COMMENTS

@Mary from Manchester - you are right. Look up 'Complete Lives' program. Its proponents claim that (and I'm quoting directly from Ezekiel Emanuel, a doctor who is advising Obama) "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

"Ultimately, the complete lives system... empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

If this isn't cost and life control, I don't know what is. This is what they do in Britain, France, Canada. If you are over 60 FORGET IT!
You are not contributing anymore and are thus considered a useless eater even if you worked since you were 15 and supported two other families via your taxes, as I have done, without ever getting a thing back (I'm not in the SS system at all so I can't collect).

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE BUT ABOUT CONTROL OVER THE POPULATION...remember in his campaign speech when Obama said "we need to give [] a stake in the world order everyone would like to see"? It ain't the world order I'D like to see that's for sure!
- Sue, Manchester

The most efficiently run health insurance in the US is Medicare. Even private insurers admit this.
The anti reform people got theirs. If there is no reform they will pay more. The only difference is that they can afford it because they make more or already have government jobs that provide.
The reason that health care reform has not occurred is because doctors refuse to discuss salary caps. Until doctors salaries are brought under control, nothing will change. Don't listen to the propaganda that doctors and anti reformers spew.
- Brian, Bow

Greg Smith: If the bill had been written by doctors it would be illegible.
- LJC, Manchester

John of Antrim, I don't agree that "The only way [to lower health-care costs] is for the government to take a larger role." Government involvement has already pushed up costs: Lawsuit mania has forced doctors to buy expensive malpractice insurance, and to perform unnecessary tests "just in case." Paying customers at hospitals are double-charged to pay for free care for bums and foreign invaders. Please explain how we can solve the problems of partial socialism with total socialism.

Or please simply tell me what the problem is. And don't say "affordability." That world-class medical service costs money is not a problem. That some people cannot pay the cost of the things they want is not a problem. That, some day, the cost to extend my life 1 year will be infeasible is not a problem. We cannot even measure "affordability" unless we propose to take total control of the individual's personal budget--and I wouldn't put this past Obama.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

The Gov't runs the Post Office and Amtrak. Both run over a 1000 million plus dollars in the red each and every year.

You're only fooling yourself and screwing your grandchildren if you make pretend that gov't run healthcare will reduce costs or improve care.

This country is doomed to bankruptcy unless you are willing to get rid of your entitlement mentality.

Sadly, next to none of you are willing to do that.
- John II, Manchester

Why would any thinking person give control of health care to those who's actions are the reason for it's troubles?

It is from the actions of radical politicians, lawyers, and judges that we no longer have the family doctor working from his or her home simply because those mentioned are what drove up the insurance costs of the family doctor and made them go the way of the dinosaur.

The great manipulators for power have struck again and now want you to give them full control or just one more small piece of control towards the end goal of domination. Resist and be free. Try thinking rather than using your emotions and giving away your freedom at the same time. But most of all teach your children because they are the target of the government takeover crowd and are being sold communism in a pretty package, but it will always be communism in the end.
- Deb, Derry

The worst thing they ever did was put in managed health care. Costs have skyrocketed since the 70's, to the point where a lot of people cannot afford it. I was unemployed from 2001 until last year and had no health benefits. Now that I have insurance, it takes a year to get an appointment for a physical!!! I find this totally ridiculous!! It should not take that long to see a doctor. Give me the good old days where if you needed to go to the doctor, you went, if you needed a specialist, you went, not go to your primary care first, pay the co-pay, just to have him give you the referal to the specialist. The whole system needs to be completely overhauled and costs need to come down. I don't think the current politicians will be able to do it to the peoples' satisfaction.
- Ruthie, Fremont

Be carefull not to falsely criticize Obama's health plans or some of the White House union thugs will copy & paste your comments to the White House enemies list.
- Joe Conway, Charlestown, NH

Doctors know best. But why does the govt. get off it butt and fix healthcare with a plan to work. Other country have a plan why not USA.
- mo, plymouth

First, the current system has too many faults and cannot continue for reasons to numerous to mention in this space.

Second, both public and private health care insurance stink - they both have good and bad points. The devil is in the details and the problem is that we do not know what all the details are. However, setting the public option reimbursements at current Medicaid rates would destroy the health care system as we know it, since Medicaid reimbursements do not cover the costs for patient care.

Third, with all due respect to Beth Roberts, my former administrative director, we do have government run health care. It's called Medicare, and the private insurance companies frequently adopt the same rules Medicare has.
- Bill Siroty, MD, Manchester

I am against government run health care primarily because the federal government has no constitutional power to do this. The one thing that really bothers me aside from that issue is that the congress and has quietly exempted themselves as well as the rest of the government from participating in the very program we would be required to use. They get to keep their gold plated medical care.
I would propose that either they must get rid of their plan and participate in every way in whatever they put us into or make the government option the plan they have without any possibility of rationing anything and with no mandatory end of life counseling. If they consider themselves to be elite there is no place in our government for them.
- Walter Royal, Bradford

In response to Palin's statement, last night Obama said that his plan does not promote euthanasia Okay, but denying services to the sickest or elderly, because it is not a "best practice" (ie economically beneficial) is essentailly the same thing. On the other hand, the health plan IS a way to eliminate the social security/medicare shortfalls.
- Mary, Manchester, NH

Bottom line is the cost of health care has to come down significantly. The only way that can be accomplished is for the government to take a larger role . The United States pays more for health care than any country in the world and our life expectancy is no better than most major industrialized countries. The major players in the debate , insurance companies, doctors, drug companies are going to have to take a hair cut in order for health care to be affordable in the long term. On the present trajectory health care will dominate our GDP, not desireable. Companies will not be able to keep the same level of coverage for their employees without major increases in co pay etc. Health care and colleges are the only two businesses that seems to raise their rates seven to eight percent a year no matter the economic climate. Change is hard!
- John, Antrim

Dr Larkin says the public option would be paid at Medicaid rates, why wouldn't a single payer system be set at those rates as well. Both rates would be set by Congress.

Jerry

Carol Shea Porter has always said she supports "Medicare for All"(Single Payer Plan). This was on her campaign websites in 2006 and 2008. What is strange is she has never attached her name as a co sponsor to HR 676 (Medicare for All) bill currently before Congress introduced by John Conyers.

The difference between the HR 676(Single Payer) and HR 3200(Obama's bill) is that with HR 3200 it will be up to your boss to decide if you will have private insurance or will be on the public option. We all know the Health Insurance premiums will keep going up more than the rate of inflation. So over time that 8% tax on employee payroll will look cheap by comparison. The question is not if you will have government run health insurance but when.
- Chris, Merrimack

Greg--The reason HR3200 is difficult to understand is because it was designed to be ambiguous. If it is passed, then it will be turned over to bureaucrats who will provide their interpretation of the law and set rules and guidelines. At that point, through this process, healthcare will be under government control. Why is Obama rushing healthcare, because the dems now control both houses which allows them to fashion healthcare, through rules and guidelines, in the image they want. Obama wants to accomplish this before mid-term elections, because legislative control may change, or at least be diluted, after mid-term elections.
- Bob, Bath

Greg--The reason HR3200 is difficult to understand is because it was designed to be ambiguous. If it is passed, then it will be turned over to bureaucrats who will provide their interpretation of the law and set rules and guidelines. At that point, through this process, healthcare will be under government control. Why is Obama rushing healthcare, because the dems now control both houses which allows them to fashion healthcare in the image they want. Obama wants to accomplish this before mid-term elections, because legislative control may change, or at least be diluted, after mid-term elections.
- Bob, Bath

Why would we listen to what doctors think??? Congress is on this and they are all knowing. Chris Dodd will do for healthcare what he did for my 401k. I have total faith in Pelosi/Obama/Reid/Barney Frank and Joe Biden. They care more about my family's healthcare than the world class Harvard educated doctors that we go to when my family is sick. People should show up in Portsmouth Tuesday and let Obama know how they feel about Congress taking control over the health of our babies.
- michael, londonderry

After writing my representative, Carol Shey-Porter and expressing my concerns about Medicare coverage, her reply didn't address my concerns at all but made it very clear that she was in favor a public option.
2010 election will tell the story!
- Jerry Clark, Newington

Why no tort reform which would save big dollars on our health care costs. Because Lawyers are big contributors to the Democrats.

Just like in saving Detroit, the UAW was protected because they are big Democrat supporters.

Except we have to pay for it. This is is change.
- Bob, Salem

As anyone actually tried to read the House bill HR3200)? It's just over a 1000 pages. Perhaps there would be less opposition if the bill was being written by doctors instead of lawyers.

I'm predicting that Hodes will vote for it, but it will cost him the Senate seat he wants in 2010.
- Greg Smith, Pelham