<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AARP Poll Shows Big Majority Want Government Health Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/</link>
	<description>A Wide Open Weblog for Big News, the Big Picture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Blackledge</title>
		<link>http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3338</link>
		<dc:creator>John Blackledge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/26/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/#comment-3338</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s face it- the insurance companies have had years to show us how they run health insurance, and none of it is good. So, for some reason, now they come forward and expect us to ignore all that, they delays the paperwork, the rejected claims, the dozens of phone calls, the bean counters dispensing medical care, over a doctor&#039;s advice, the dropping someone for no reason, the rejection because of previous conditions. They expect us to believe that now, the skunk will change it&#039;s stripes, and they will do it right. Fat chance. Some say the government will do a bad job, but look at what the insurance companies have been doing, and at a 34 percent (vs. 4 percent for medicare) profit margin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s face it- the insurance companies have had years to show us how they run health insurance, and none of it is good. So, for some reason, now they come forward and expect us to ignore all that, they delays the paperwork, the rejected claims, the dozens of phone calls, the bean counters dispensing medical care, over a doctor&#8217;s advice, the dropping someone for no reason, the rejection because of previous conditions. They expect us to believe that now, the skunk will change it&#8217;s stripes, and they will do it right. Fat chance. Some say the government will do a bad job, but look at what the insurance companies have been doing, and at a 34 percent (vs. 4 percent for medicare) profit margin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yana Davis</title>
		<link>http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3337</link>
		<dc:creator>Yana Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/26/aarp-poll-shows-big-majority-want-government-health-care/#comment-3337</guid>
		<description>My support for a public option is contigent on the idea that it be achieved through regional or statewide cooperatives, run by and accountable to those who participate. There are plenty of precedents for this and plenty of models that can be adapted for universal health care coverage.

Giving federal bureaucrats any control is a bad idea, other than that necessary to do audits, make sure thievery is not in progress, and that money is spent mostly for care and not administrative costs.

Run by federal bureaucrats, the public option could easily end up looking like a health care version of the post office or Amtrak, or one of the dozens of other federal programs that purportedly serve the public good, but do not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My support for a public option is contigent on the idea that it be achieved through regional or statewide cooperatives, run by and accountable to those who participate. There are plenty of precedents for this and plenty of models that can be adapted for universal health care coverage.</p>
<p>Giving federal bureaucrats any control is a bad idea, other than that necessary to do audits, make sure thievery is not in progress, and that money is spent mostly for care and not administrative costs.</p>
<p>Run by federal bureaucrats, the public option could easily end up looking like a health care version of the post office or Amtrak, or one of the dozens of other federal programs that purportedly serve the public good, but do not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

