YOUR COMMENTS

I don't mind the idea of a government bureaucrat between me and my doctor so long as there is an appropriate limitation on the time that bureaucrat gets to make his decision depending on the urgency of my care needs.

With my private insurance now I often don't find out till after I have received care if its covered or not. Then we have to fight with insurance company bureaucrat to change his/her mind.
- Jim, Manchester

Is there a way. How come other places spend less. Cover more. Thanks you Judd. I hold the daughter of my lover and cry as his lymphoma diagnose changes. Who gets that money? Where does it go? Let us try. Do not let people get rich from a disease. It is not right.
- Pam, Derry

Senator Gregg: If you care at all about your country, you will immediately start work on blocking ANY further federal legislation, and begin efforts to repeal All the programs and laws of the current and past three administrations. While you are at it, introduce an amendment to the constitution ceding all federal lands back to the states to which they belong.
- MAtthew F. McGrath, Auburn NH

Social Security going broke, Medicare going broke, Medicade going broke, population aging fast, add a national healthcare system (Medicare for all) = bankrupt nation. Been to a VA hospital lately?
- M, Raymond

Give me a break guy,
That’s all you’ve got? Poor reading comprehension is you’re excuse for spreading propaganda?

Give it a rest Guy no one is buying it.
- Jim, Raymond NH

Duly noted, Jim. I did read them and I came to different conclusions than you did, which, I'm sure, the bureaucrats in charge will most likely also do.
- Guy Plante, Manchester

Guy Plante doesn't expect you to check his facts. If you did, you would find that his claims were just more GOP spin and double-talk. (You can expect about 20 million dollars worth of it to be spewed in the next 30 days by lobbyists and marketing firms working for the Pharma and Insurance industries)

Guy claims that in the new plan the government:

'-determines your treatment,'
No, not exactly. There will be a committee that recommends plans. The consumer will retain a CHOICE of plans (kind of like it is right now).

'-will have access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfers,'
If you APPROVE, you can set up an electronic transfer for automatic payments, as many of us already do. That is, IF you approve...

'-will reduce physician services for Medicaid (there goes "compassion for the poor", but not for "undocumented immigrants", I bet),'
There will be a fee schedule, as THERE IS NOW. The idea, after all, is cost containment. Should the government pay whatever amount the doctor feels like charging for his services?

'-will provide healthcare to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise,'
There is absolutely NO provision or language allowing illegal immigrants to be covered under this plan. This is simply a bogus claim to rile the Lou Dobbs fans. (BTW, illegal immigrants can already get care under the current system, paid for by other policyholders.)

'-will mandate "Advanced Care Planning Consultations" for seniors, which may include end of life orders,'
This will allow seniors to have a consultation in which they can CHOOSE to direct their end of life care, particularly around terminal illness, DNR orders, etc. NO treatment plan will be MANDATED.

'-and many more provisions that should be repugnant to all.'

Well, actually, they're not. What's repugnant is the idea that someone is determining what care I should receive based on whether they can make a profit on me or not. (Our current system).

There will be a lot of claims made in the next couple of months. Keep your hip waders on and do your homework, folks. It's going to get messy.
- Dave, Sandwich

Senator Gregg has presented a thoughtful approach to reform. I am encouraged that he wants to see the health care system improved and established to offer health insurance to all Americans. However, it’s a bit disappointing that he’s waited this long to become a supporter of health care reform. If he had undertaken bi-partisan support 15 years ago when it was first addressed in the Clinton administration, maybe we wouldn’t be facing such a daunting task of fixing it today. That aside, I hope Senator Gregg will seek to establish a bi-partisan compromise and endorse health care reform this year.

The major items that appear to be stuck in his crawl are the public option and his claim of the looming growth of the deficit. I would remind the Senator that President Obama has gone on the record repeatedly that he will not sign a bill that increases the deficit or fails to pay it’s own way. We don’t know if this will be the outcome, but for now I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until it gets to his desk.

The Senator opposes the public option on traditional Republican grounds- it’s not the job of the Government to provide health care- our heritage of being a free enterprise capitalist society dictates that we should leave health care to the private sector. I would assert they’ve had their chance and failed. If the system worked we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

He doesn’t want a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Who does? I would agree, but what are the alternatives? Today we have an insurance company between you and your doctor. What’s more, the insurance company is motivated to make profit. This means expensive health care treatments may be denied to you, even though you need it, in the interest of maximizing their corporate profit.

The Senator admits that a public option would threaten the private companies and lead us to ghastly single payer health care- what most of the industrialized world has today. The private health insurance corporations don’t want to be driven out of business, so they’re fighting that option vigorously.

And why aren’t the private corporations competitive the public option? Their corporate profits of up the 30% would make them less competitive- you pay for it. Their saturation advertising in all the media costs billions - you pay for it. The multi-million dollar salaries for the CEOs have to be covered- you pay for it. None of that money provides health care to you. I assert it’s not your health they are concerned about. It’s their profit. We need to change the focus of health care from profit to people.
- Gary Way, Bedford

Guy
It’s almost as if you’re just cutting and pasting this stuff. Have you even read the sections you referenced or are you taking someone else’s word for it?

Pg 30 Sec 123

Basically states that a panel shall be assembled to hammer out what is covered in the three available plans. Do you want to pay for someone’s Botox, nose job, or breast augmentation?

Pg 59 lines 21-24

Your payment for the plan will be electronically deducted much like many other payments most Americans make. It’s safe, convenient, and a very cost effective way of collecting premiums.

239 lines 14-24

This is simply a fee schedule that will be hammered out by the panel mentioned earlier. Insurance companies are using a fee schedule right now why shouldn’t this plan included one?

Pg 50 Sec 152
The Secretary of Health and Human services will review the progress within 18 months and make adjustments as necessary. The section clearly states the intent is to be sure all covered procedures are actually being covered by both this plan and the insurance industry.

Pg 425 lines 4-12
This is simply a counseling session to be sure those nearing the end of life understand their rights and the choices they need to make such as a living will and appointing someone to make decisions should you be unable to.

If there’s anything else I can help clear up please don’t hesitate to ask.
- Jim, Raymond NH

My suggestion to resolve the health care crisis is to make the health care coverage enjoyed by the members of Congress and their "staffers" available to the rest of us. Or cancel the coverage that they have now (which would save the taxpayers billions) and sign them up for ObamaCare too!
- Marie Campbell, Oxnard, Ca

Here's the link for HR3200. Copy and paste, people.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

BTW: How about addressing my second question as to why there is no attempt to make the healthcare coverage available to the Congress and to federal employees available to "the public" (us).
- Guy Plante, Manchester

Jim of Raymond, you could not be more wrong.

This bill is a TRAIN WRECK that is going to put decision on what procedures are covered into the hands of bureaucrats.

If its not on the approved list your Md can't do it.

Go read the bill for a change.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
- JP, Warner

I stand by my original post.

Download HR 3200, then check out the following pages, sections and lines. I list them in the order I presented them:

Pg 30 Sec 123; Pg 59 lines 21-24; Pg 239 lines 14-24; Pg 50 Sec 152; Pg 425 lines 4-12.
- Guy Plante, Manchester

Tort reform would lower the cost of aquiring health insurance. It would also reduce the amount of unnecessary "defensive testing" that President Obama repeatedly criticizes.

However, President Obama and the Democratic party reject all tort reform when it comes to Health Care.

Why?
- Charles, Evanston, IL

Kevin in Manchester: good point. The right answer is single payer insurance run by the government like Medicare and military medical care. The insurance companies are nothing but parasites.
- LJC, Manchester

Sen Judd should keep up the good fight. The best that will come out of Obamacare is rationing, and less care for the elderly.
NH is very fortunate to have him as a senator

m ruda
- marilyn ruda, new york new york

Obama care has simply turned into a redistribution of health. Basically reducing health care coverage for the 85% to 90% that have it and bring it to those who don't. Only trouble with his strategy here is that he can't make the same argument that he does with taxes, because he isn't just dealing with that 5% he likes to soak, who are going to be effected, but close to 90%. http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/
- Ron Victor, Bellingham Wa.

I spent four years in the army, including a year and a half in Iraq. The health coverage we had was amazing. I didn't pay a cent for anything and I could not have gotten better health care. It was amazing. So that's proof that the government CAN do a good job on this if they want to. I just don't think this particular plan is the way to go.
- Kevin, Manchester

Guy,
You are grossly misinformed
The government will not determine your treatment you and your doctor will.
Medicare will not be reduced
There will be no benefits for illegal immigrants
The "Advanced Care Planning Consultations" for seniors is simply a counseling session to be sure that people understand their options such as a living will and appointing someone to make decisions should you become unable to do so.

We have exactly what you are complaining about right now.
Insurance companies decide your treatment not your doctor.
Insurance companies in so many cases decide when you die.
Insurance companies have spent decades reducing quality and quantity of care.

You are putting forth the exact misinformation "scare tactics" and "fear mongering" we are talking about. Absolutely nothing you stated is true in fact the opposite is true. You would know that if you had actually taken the time to research the bill instead of spouting off some absurd talking points you heard or read somewhere.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor try some independent thought from time to time instead of letting others tell you what your opinions are.
- Jim, Raymond NH

Guy from Manch,

"will mandate "Advanced Care Planning Consultations" for seniors, which may include end of life orders"

There is no such thing in the bill. There is however a mandate that the Consultation will be covered by the Gov't Option and medicare, but it won't be required.

Again, people against this bill twist everything about it to scare people.

A Gov't bureaucrat between you and your Doctor? Really? As opposed to the bureaucrat from Blue Cross that is there now? When my father had cancer we had to wait for a Cigna bureaucrat to decide if his chemo would be covered. What is the difference?

So which bureaucrat do you want there? the bureaucrat who will make the same amount of money if they approve you or deny you? Or the bureaucrat who is thinking about their end of year profit sharing and pleasing shareholders?
- Robert, Dover, NH

It is vintage Judd Gregg to accept the opposition's premises--that "health care" needs "reform," that measuring total national expenditures is a good way to measure the state of "health care," and that he has any way to know whether $2.5 trillion is too much or not enough--then propose that we creep rather than leap to socialism.

Senator, as with amnesty for foreign invaders, the CAFE standards which wrecked Detroit before Obama got to it, or the National ID card that New Hampshire has resoundingly repudiated, your career consists of seeking a niche for yourself, not preserving our liberty.

There is no reason an individual that provides for himself has a need for "universal coverage." This will evolve to a one-size-fits-all policy dictated by the legislature. We know the Republicans want free stomach-stapling and the Democrats want free abortions. Americans should decide these things as individuals--but that wouldn't let Judd Gregg put his name on a "reform" package.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Dave, Sandwich
"2) Technology is extremely expensive, and our current system guarantees that everyone gets it, no matter what. This leads to some unsustainable realities. What if we found a cure for cancer - and the pharmaceutical company that patented it charged one million dollars per treatment? Should everyone get it? Who is going to pay?"

You are half right--health care IS expensive; DYING is WAY cheaper!!

Problem is, under our present system NOT everyone gets it.

(You have to be an illegal alien to get the best that taxpayer dollars can buy: If you have insurance--or you are an average earner--you are out of luck.)

The 'new' treatment you spoke of; under the present system, only those that can afford it get it (even if they DO have insurance that they can afford.) THAT is a market-based system.

A government run system WILL make choices--and some folks won't get expensive treatments. How is that any more fair than the present market-based system?

Oh sure--you can argue that insurance and pharmaceutical companies put profits (GASP!) ahead of people; or that doctors are overpaid & too greedy; but after you put insurance and pharmaceutical companies out of business, & doctors close their practices rather than become slave laborers under the the government system--who are you going to blame for folks not getting expensive treatments?

Face it--life is unfair.

In the long run it is better that people have the opportunity to work hard and earn the money to buy themselves & their families the best health care available--than that some government flunky can say no.
- Paul, Sunapee

Two questions:
1. How many of you who are bellowing "scare tactics" and "fear mongering" at those who oppose this bill as currently written have read any of it? There are provisions in it that are chilling, to say the least, such as the government
-determines your treatment,
-will have access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfers,
-will reduce physician services for Medicaid (there goes "compassion for the poor", but not for "undocumented immigrants", I bet),
-will provide healthcare to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise,
-will mandate "Advanced Care Planning Consultations" for seniors, which may include end of life orders,
-and many more provisions that should be repugnant to all.
2. If the current health care provided for members of Congress and federal employees is so wonderful, why has there been no consideration for making the same coverage available to "the public" (us)? Ask your letter carrier what kind of medical coverage he/she has, you might be enlightened... and become upset.
- Guyu Plante, Manchester

Judd Gregg was bought and paid for long ago, his actions and vote record speaks volumes about whom he’s actually working for.

Mr. Senator you have spent the last 6 months doing everything in your power to make sure President Obama fails and it doesn’t matter what’s good or bad for America all that matters to you is that Obama fails.

If you put as much energy into representing the people of the great state of NH as you did protecting your big campaign donors we wouldn’t have these issues sir.

You sold us out, everybody knows it and at this point it’s clearly undeniable.
- Jim, Raymond NH

Hey, the Obama administration can't even put together and run a simple rebate program for automobile purchases. Can't wait to see how badly they can screw up a nationwide heathcare plan. Mr. O better move quickly. He'll be back community organizing with ACORN come 2012.
- Brian, Farmington

spend time in a VA hospital and then tell me you want government health care.
Pull the plug on government health care before they pull the plug on you.
They the VA told my farther that the medicine was to costly to give to him to keep him alive. And his family watched him die... That my friends is government health care.
- pete, deerfield

Really? Is Gregg the guy to accomplish anything on health care? The guy, supposedly representing New Hampshire, who opposed lower-cost prescriptions from our neighbor, Canada? Is this the guy that will create a consensus toward a solution that helps regular folks? Does he even know any?

How can we achieve affordable costs in a truly free market (which has never existed, anywhere, in modern history)? Doctors et. al. can charge whatever ransom they want. It's not a non-profit system, it's for-profit, and large profits at that...for the few, at the expense of the many.

This guy, Gregg, who loves the free market so much, wants to reduce costs by limiting the rights of regular folks to hold medical practicioners accountable in court? The guy, who loves freedom, wants to restrict awards by a jury of peers? Who will hold these people accountable, then? The government? Sen. Gregg always says that we can't trust government...

We should ask ourselves, honestly, why we desire so much to be slaves to a "free market" system when that system fails to effectively meet the basic needs of society. Perhaps, just maybe, we should consider that the basic needs of human beings are a higher value than the profits, even the existence, of private corporations. If we can judge anything by Gregg's record as a career politician, we know he won't put us first.
- KB, Berlin

It's always a crisis, and an either or choice. There never seems to be a middle ground. And the one thing no one is talking about with respect to healthcare is the stipping of states' rights in the issue. Whether we like it or not, this is not enumerated in the US Constitution for Congress to determine what healthcare benefits, if any, we get. We are fighting the fight on the wrong playing field and by buying in to the federal government being able to give us a solution are giving the federal more power over us - and stripping the states.

And to this last point, anyone who signed up for cash for clunkers from their home computer, I hope you paid attention to the stipulations after the privacy act page. Your computer is now considered federal government property.
- R, Raymond

Judd Gregg has never "gotten it" because he has always had it.
So many criticize any government involvement in health care yet for more than half a century we have had a government health care system - medicare - which runs far more efficiently than any private health care.
My family has four different health care polices for four people. The only one that has always run efficiently and without a single headache is Medicare. The private ones are nightmares and very expensive and restrictive.
For those of you who oppose universal or government coverage be prepared to pay much more if the current system is not changed.
- Brian, concord

I find it hard to believe that anyone in support of the current health care plan can actually understand what is written in it. What a mess.

Stand firm and oppose this bill Mr. Gregg and demand it be written so the average person can understand what they are getting into. The same way the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution. At the same time remove anything that does not have something to do with health care.

You are old enough to remember having a family doctor. A man or woman who ran a small practice often from their home and most people could pay for the visit rich or poor right out of their pocket. Simply look back a few decades to find out what forced them out of business and remove it. Health care reform made simple without all the politicians and lawyers talking out of both sides of their mouths. Simplicity does work in life.
- Deb, Derry

I had Health care, but then our great state said that it didn't meet their standards, so my company had to cancel it and I have been without since.
- Christopher Collins, Newton

Great post, LJC! Says it all.
- Nashuan, Nashua

Suggesting that the 'market always knows best' is almost laughable in light of the recent history with AIG, Lehman, Goldman, GM, et al. Clearly that idea has been proven false- can we just get past it? What has been shown in the last 12 months is that a free, under-regulated market has the potential to destroy a country's economy.

In terms of health care, we are on a path to that destruction and most Republicans are trying their best to keep us on the path. If costs keep rising at the current level, health care costs will exceed 30% of GDP within 30 years- more than the entire current govenment budget.

We need to find a middle ground here, and quick. A truly free market will not address some of the fundamental problems with our system:

1) Rising health care costs impact the middle class disproportionately. A medical emergency like a major disease or accident can wipe out a middle class family.

2) Technology is extremely expensive, and our current system guarantees that everyone gets it, no matter what. This leads to some unsustainable realities. What if we found a cure for cancer - and the pharmaceutical company that patented it charged one million dollars per treatment? Should everyone get it? Who is going to pay?

In our current system, everyone gets it- and the cost is spread over the entire system- so everyone's premiums are going up EQUALLY, no matter the income level. See #1. Is that fair?

The reason that health care reform is so difficult is that the decisions are extremely tough to make (if it were easy, it would have been done already). When the politicians who get paid to make these decisions do get around to hammering out the hard choices, one hopes that their primary criteria is what's best for the people, not what's best for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. One hopes that their guiding principle is fairness, not profit. One hopes that their primary mission is to do what's right, not what's most likely to get them elected next term.

Is that too much to ask? These days, it too often seems like it is.
- Dave, Sandwich

The is no doubt in the need for healthcare reform to be achieved through non partisan actions in Washington. The American taxpayers and consumers are finding themselves between the old rock and hard place on this one. Deadlines made in haste, will only contribute to waste, and Congress needs to walk that fine line that will contribute the most benefit to the nation's citizens without destroying the freemarket base that employs them.
- Ted Ryll, Winchester

wow sen,greg has been in office this long, and now he is concerned about health care. One of the biggest problems is that the insurance co. overide prescriptions that a Dr. writes they approve of disapprove them.
How do we know there isn't some inside take, as was the land at Pease. Martha Stuwet went to jail for almost the same thing sen.greg...
- Patti, manchester

Once again, Government has an important job to perform but that job does not include meddling with Health Care.

Sadly, its Government that has created a great many of the problems that Sen Gregg has illustrated and only the removal of Government rules and mandates will solve the problem.

Remove the restrictions that mandate what procedures a health ins plan will cover to increase competition and allow individuals to CHOOSE what sort of plan they want to buy for less money.

Remove the government restrictions that prohibit individuals from forming groups for the purpose of buying health ins as a group.

Provide the same tax incentives to individuals that are offered to employers so that individuals may purchase their OWN health insurance that is portable and independent of their employment with any one business.

Get Government back to the job we authorized it to do and get the heck out of the business of regulating the lives of Citizens.

Finally, I would like to remind Sen Gregg that the 2.5 Trillion spent on health care every year is OUR money not the Governments as it comes out of the pockets of individual citizens and as such the Government must keep its hands out of our pockets.
- JP, Warner

The thing about health care is that the costs are going to be there one way or the other. To imply that any sort of change will add costs is misleading. Shift costs is more like it. We have an alleged "market based" system right now and it results in 15% per year increases in insurance premiums. If you think the system is efficient the way it is then you have never dealt with an insurance company. Even the government can do a better job than what we have now.
- Kevin Miller, Rindge

No Rationing Is Required, from my standpoint.

In case you are a doctor, and your pay is dependent upon your patient's outcome, you will more likely strive to prescribe the best medicine for your patient, let alone avoiding unnecessary cares, and hope your patient will feel better as promptly as possible.

Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a 'medical error' each year.

Under the new health care program, practitioners are expected to eagerly and voluntarily implement the 'recommendations', not 'rationing' , I think.

Nowadays, we can't imagine the society without IT SYSTEM, just to think of the bank that lacks it, presumably what we should fear most would be the medical institutes without A MUST. I think measurable savings in the transformative health program might be reached.

Thank So Much !
- HSR0601, OTHER

Senator Gregg, I appreciate your prospective and hope you continue to work and vote no to Obamacare. However you are incorrect on one issue - that we need to insure every American - what we need is to allow each individual to make the deciision whether to buy insurance on their own! We do not need government mandating that we must buy insurance nor do we need government requiring the taxpayers to subsidize insurance for those who are in the country illegally. We need less government interference in our lives not more.
- Patrick R. Spooner, Windham

Three points:

1. Obama and his Congressional cohorts are saying one thing and doing another, again. Surprised? You can't be.

2. If Obama ever does something that is "reasonable and responsible", it'll be a mistake. Maybe he'll be man enough to apologize for that one.

3. This is all about destroying Capitalism and establishing Socialism. When they finish off those wicked Insurance Companies, they'll move on to those outrageous Energy Companies and then establish Collective Farms and on and on and on...
- Leo, Canterbury

Single payer is the only solution that will cover everyone and bring down costs. Yeah, it will put the insurance industry out of business. So what? What's good for Wall Street is seldom good for Main Street. This is about We the People.
- Hilary, San Francisco, USA

If Senator Gregg is serious about putting aside partisan politics--which I doubt he is-- he would urge his GOP colleagues to report the bill out of committee for a vote before the August recess. He won't, of course, because the GOP is hoping to give their insurance industry buddies time to frighten the public with all sorts of outlandish lies about public health care coverage. And I'm sure his is enjoying the millions of dollars lobbyists are spending to defeat meaniful healthcare reform. You are a lame duck, Senator. Stop quacking.
- LJC, Manchester