[Wiskedjak]

Sex changes, and most other elective procedures, aren't even covered by the pubic health system in Kanukistan.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes it does, and I already explained how. Stop trolling.

Easiest way to solve the problem.

Write in

Not covered by the public option:

Sex Change


Problem solved.

Next!

[Chuckit]

Easiest way to solve: Don't create a totally unnecessary healthcare plan that be more financially devastating than the Iraq War.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you really think the public option would not cover medically necessary operations?

You mean they rather cover sex change than keep grandma alive?

Sex change: approve
Keeping grandma alive: denied

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Easiest way to solve: Don't create a totally unnecessary healthcare plan that be more financially devastating than the Iraq War.

Healthcare plan unnecessary? Maybe to you.

Iraq War was unnecessary.

[0157988944]

The cycle:

Lobbyists for insurance companies get politicians on their side.

Politicians start spreading mistruths and lies. Call it socialism to scare the uneducated.

The uneducated are loud and they protest, the media laps it up, and it appears to be a majority rather than a loud, scared minority.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

The cycle:

Lobbyists for insurance companies get politicians on their side.

Politicians start spreading mistruths and lies. Call it socialism to scare the uneducated.

The uneducated are loud and they protest, the media laps it up, and it appears to be a majority rather than a loud, scared minority.

You mean like the politicians pretending there are massive numbers of people who need healthcare and can't get it? My opinion is my own. It's not that I'm scared of socialism — I just don't think it is a good idea.

[0157988944]

yeah that

[raf66]

There are some very interesting posts on here and frankly many have been entertaining. The fact is that 90% of all Americans are insured currently. These are the government's figures, not mine. That's a pretty significant portion of the population with coverage. In addition, NO ONE is turned down for emergency health care in this country. Car wreck, heart attack, four hour erection, etc. Hospital emergency rooms cannot turn you down in an emergency. Finally, we've had a couple things happen in the last couple decades that have highlighted our current system's inefficiencies (not failures): 1) we are living much longer and it is taxing our system; and 2) Americans go to the doctor at an alarming rate for a cold, flu, physicals, etc. Tied into both of these points is that we now have sooooo many medications and someone has to pay the R&D expenses and the FDA fees for those scripts. Neither of these is cheap.

Is there some "tinkering" that could be done? Probably. Is a complete "overhaul" necessary? Absolutely not. I agree with many on here that Americans, by and large, do NOT want socialism; we want capitalism. The Brown Shirts during Hitler's rise to power did much of what we Americans see happening now: Government takeover of the auto industry, the banking system, the healthcare system, and much of private industry. What we're currently experiencing in the US is much the same thing. It cracks me up that the liberal left has always been quick to chant "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", yet they do not decry the laws that are currently being discussed, which are designed to be all over our bodies.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you really think the public option would not cover medically necessary operations?

I think that no matter what the system there is going to be rationing. There is rationing now in terms of what insurance companies will cover. Rationing is based on an assessment of just what is medically necessary. Unless you can come up with an explanation explaining how a sex change would be medically necessary, there is no profound change here. Why do you feel that a public system opens up the floodgates to frivolous medical procedures? If any, a public system *limits* allegedly frivolous medical procedures, which is why some Canadians come to America for some procedures that are not covered under Canadian Medicare.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Easiest way to solve: Don't create a totally unnecessary healthcare plan that be more financially devastating than the Iraq War.

What we have now is more financially devastating than the Iraq war, literally. Unless you want to join the ebuddy camp of promoting breaking up of the health insurance company monopolies, slapping a band-aid on what we have now is simply not going to cut it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raf66 

There are some very interesting posts on here and frankly many have been entertaining. The fact is that 90% of all Americans are insured currently. These are the government's figures, not mine. That's a pretty significant portion of the population with coverage. In addition, NO ONE is turned down for emergency health care in this country. Car wreck, heart attack, four hour erection, etc. Hospital emergency rooms cannot turn you down in an emergency. Finally, we've had a couple things happen in the last couple decades that have highlighted our current system's inefficiencies (not failures): 1) we are living much longer and it is taxing our system; and 2) Americans go to the doctor at an alarming rate for a cold, flu, physicals, etc. Tied into both of these points is that we now have sooooo many medications and someone has to pay the R&D expenses and the FDA fees for those scripts. Neither of these is cheap.

Is there some "tinkering" that could be done? Probably. Is a complete "overhaul" necessary? Absolutely not.

How is the ability to visit the ER for a hangnail a good thing in any way, shape, or form? For starters, this overburdens ER rooms, makes it pricier for actual emergencies since they cannot collect money from people that can't afford their ER visit, and fundamentally changes the whole role of an ER to more of a walk-in clinic.

My point is that this should not be a source of pride with what we have.

[ort888]

Can we just shut the **** up with comparing this administration to the Nazis? Seriously.

It's insulting to rational thought.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Can we just shut the **** up with comparing this administration to the Nazis? Seriously.

It's insulting to rational thought.

That's exactly what a Nazi would say.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Can we just shut the **** up with comparing this administration to the Nazis? Seriously.

It's insulting to rational thought.

Er, what? Nobody has done that in this thread.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by raf66 

The Brown Shirts during Hitler's rise to power did much of what we Americans see happening now: Government takeover of the auto industry, the banking system, the healthcare system, and much of private industry. What we're currently experiencing in the US is much the same thing. It cracks me up that the liberal left has always been quick to chant "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", yet they do not decry the laws that are currently being discussed, which are designed to be all over our bodies.

7 posts up.

[raf66]

Uh, first, I never mentioned the word Nazi. Second, I never compared this administration to Nazis but rather I compared the "reform" laws to what Hitler did in Germany during his rise to power. But, you know, if the shoe fits.

Finally, Bush was compared to all things evil, including Satan, during his terms so it's a little late to say "no fair" on the comparisons. Hell, cartoons in the NY Times and other influential newspapers of the day had drawings of Bush as a monkey. I DARE you to try that with this administration.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by raf66 

Uh, first, I never mentioned the word Nazi. Second, I never compared this administration to Nazis but rather I compared the "reform" laws to what Hitler did in Germany during his rise to power. But, you know, if the shoe fits.

Finally, Bush was compared to all things evil, including Satan, during his terms so it's a little late to say "no fair" on the comparisons. Hell, cartoons in the NY Times and other influential newspapers of the day had drawings of Bush as a monkey. I DARE you to try that with this administration.

Of course not. You only mention brownshirts and hitler. What does that have to do with Nazi.

Also, Hitler was a White guy in power who invade other countries like Pres. Bush. No, I'm not comparing Pres. Bush to Hitler, I just comparing their skin color and how the invade other countries. I'm just saying.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

7 posts up.

Oh, my bad. I just command-f'ed "nazi".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raf66 

Uh, first, I never mentioned the word Nazi. Second, I never compared this administration to Nazis but rather I compared the "reform" laws to what Hitler did in Germany during his rise to power. But, you know, if the shoe fits.

Finally, Bush was compared to all things evil, including Satan, during his terms so it's a little late to say "no fair" on the comparisons. Hell, cartoons in the NY Times and other influential newspapers of the day had drawings of Bush as a monkey. I DARE you to try that with this administration.

What productive end do you hope to come from this line of conversation?

[dzp111]

If any, a public system *limits* allegedly frivolous medical procedures, which is why some Canadians come to America for some procedures that are not covered under Canadian Medicare.

If you don't my correcting you on that: The only reasons a Canadian will go to the US (or elsewhere) for some procedure it's because a) the waiting time here is too long (a flaw on our system's part), or b) the procedures in question have not been approved here yet. A face lift is not covered here so they need to pay regardless of which country they have the procedure done.

When a Canadian has a procedure done in the US because it has yet to be approved here, trust me, the patient pays 6 figure dollars.

[Chuckit]

Seriously, I don't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but unless you're actually trying to say he's like Hitler, I don't see how comparing him to Hitler is at all illuminating.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

The cycle:

Lobbyists for insurance companies get politicians on their side.

Politicians start spreading mistruths and lies. Call it socialism to scare the uneducated.

The uneducated are loud and they protest, the media laps it up, and it appears to be a majority rather than a loud, scared minority.

You're right on the money Adam! It's the perfect explanation as to what's happening. I've developed much distaste for the media during recent years. And this matter really takes the cake.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

The guy wants to help! (50 million of you)

It seems like most of you don't want to!

WTF?

I think you are watching too many deceptive speeches made by "The guy".

If that was all he wanted to do, it would only require a 10 page bill instead of 1000+ page bill. This isn't about helping 50 million people get health insurance, it's about taking over the healthcare system and putting in little loopholes so that additional control can be had at a later date.

If he wanted to raise taxes by 1% to pay for health insurance for people that can't currently afford it, sure, that could be doable. But that isn't what he is doing.

I also agree with another poster... when people choose to have cable television, beer, cigarettes, cell phones and other luxuries instead of paying for their own health insurance, I don't really feel inclined to help them out in that way. I have known a lot of people that "can't afford" their electric bill, but can somehow afford to pay for their vices, cell phones, and satellite.

If they really can't afford health insurance, and something goes wrong and they need a medical procedure, we already have medicare/medicaid/disability/etc. to cover that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

If you don't my correcting you on that: The only reasons a Canadian will go to the US (or elsewhere) for some procedure it's because a) the waiting time here is too long (a flaw on our system's part), or b) the procedures in question have not been approved here yet. A face lift is not covered here so they need to pay regardless of which country they have the procedure done.

When a Canadian has a procedure done in the US because it has yet to be approved here, trust me, the patient pays 6 figure dollars.

I would say that the waiting list thing is a flaw with the operational implementation of health care in parts of Canada, but not inherent to its design. This is basically a matter of resource allocation and/or not having enough doctors. The latter may be inherent in a public health based system, but we would need to explore this a lot more to make this conclusion, I think, especially given the possibility of the former.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

If that was all he wanted to do, it would only require a 10 page bill instead of 1000+ page bill. This isn't about helping 50 million people get health insurance, it's about taking over the healthcare system and putting in little loopholes so that additional control can be had at a later date.

That's an enormous leap. The bill is that long means that the government wants to literally take over health care? This is just rhetoric, and I don't think we need more of this.

If they really can't afford health insurance, and something goes wrong and they need a medical procedure, we already have medicare/medicaid/disability/etc. to cover that.

Except for the fact that there are millions of middle class workers who are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, nor can they afford their 5 digit hospital bill.

Really, haven't we learned now that these sorts of absolutist "oh it's so simple, we just need to do this" statements are pretty much always incomplete? There is a whole series of tradeoffs that you make with just about everything, this is all a balancing act to find the best balance.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Except for the fact that there are millions of middle class workers who are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, nor can they afford their 5 digit hospital bill.

Do you have solid numbers on these millions of middle-class dudes who can't afford their five-digit hospital bill?

[raf66]

The "productive end" that I hope (and many other posters on this topic, judging from the tenor of their posts) will come is that no one, and I mean NO ONE (other than possibly Winston Churchill) recognized how FAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR away from the norm the laws Hitler was trying to pass were UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE and the German Republic was basically destroyed. I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that president-select Obama would kill millions of his countrymen in an effort to create a perfect race or country. Just like I wouldn't assume that the left literally meant that Bush had a pitch fork and horns in an ocean of fire when some compared him to Satan. I do not believe attacking people personally solves any of the issues. Thankfully Obama has given us a ton of political ideology to attack.

It would seem to me that most of America has finally woken up from the worshipping slumber that many have taken for the last 7+ months and realized (hopefully before it's too late) that the entire system upon which America was/is built is being threatened by the sweeping changes being proposed. In Germany just prior to WWII, there was a new upstart that had never done much professionally but ran on a platform of "change". Unfortunately no one knew just how BIG of a change was coming. It was done in chunks and no one recognized the negative effect these chunks would have in the cumulative. History shows us how negative those effects in total turned out to be. When Obama, an upstart with no real professional experience in anything, ran on a platform of change, most Americans (including, unfortunately, many in my family) assumed that was politico speak for "change from the Bush administration" and many were all for it. Now we see that when he said "change" he meant CHANGE.

Again my intent is not to call the man a Nazi. However, I do believe that the policies espoused in Washington right now by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. are socialistic to their core.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you have solid numbers on these millions of middle-class dudes who can't afford their five-digit hospital bill?

Millions more than those who want a sex change?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you have solid numbers on these millions of middle-class dudes who can't afford their five-digit hospital bill?

Not at my disposal, but the top Google search for "health care bankruptcies" references an American Journal of Medicine article that says that:

A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml


Whether this is true or the site is reliable, I have no godly idea, but if it is I think it is safe to assume that most people with health insurance are at least in the middle class.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raf66 

Again my intent is not to call the man a Nazi. However, I do believe that the policies espoused in Washington right now by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. are socialistic to their core.

Then unless your argument rests on this trojan horse idea that we are on a slippery slope to all sorts of things (a point which we can't really debate because it is your gut feeling), you will have to define how giving people public options in addition to private options in a free market economy makes us socialist when there are many countries with public health insurance that are not considered socialist, and how bailouts of failing private companies does the same when, again, there are many other non-socialist countries that have done the same.

It could be that you just have a unique way of measuring socialism, in which case you should share the basis of your metrics. For now, I can't help thinking that this is just more emotionally loaded rhetoric. Our democracy is not this fragile, really.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think you are watching too many deceptive speeches made by "The guy".

If that was all he wanted to do, it would only require a 10 page bill instead of 1000+ page bill. This isn't about helping 50 million people get health insurance, it's about taking over the healthcare system and putting in little loopholes so that additional control can be had at a later date.

If he wanted to raise taxes by 1% to pay for health insurance for people that can't currently afford it, sure, that could be doable. But that isn't what he is doing.

I also agree with another poster... when people choose to have cable television, beer, cigarettes, cell phones and other luxuries instead of paying for their own health insurance, I don't really feel inclined to help them out in that way. I have known a lot of people that "can't afford" their electric bill, but can somehow afford to pay for their vices, cell phones, and satellite.

If they really can't afford health insurance, and something goes wrong and they need a medical procedure, we already have medicare/medicaid/disability/etc. to cover that.

I say it would only require a 1 page bill. Who cares about outlining what's covered or not, how it would be administered and managed, how it would be paid for, and so forth.

I say a 1 page bill is all we need.

[besson3c]

1 page bill, 24 point type, call it a day!

[besson3c]

torso: there is also much more in the bill than just public health insurance, although one wouldn't know it because this issue has hogged the limelight. There is also a lot of consumer protections stuff relating to existing private insurance, and about all sorts of other stuff.

The system right now is so foobar that it should come as no surprise that it will take something this complex and epic to attempt to sort out a system this complex in its nature.

[raf66]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then unless your argument rests on this trojan horse idea that we are on a slippery slope to all sorts of things (a point which we can't really debate because it is your gut feeling), you will have to define how giving people public options in addition to private options in a free market economy makes us socialist when there are many countries with public health insurance that are not considered socialist, and how bailouts of failing private companies does the same when, again, there are many other non-socialist countries that have done the same.

It could be that you just have a unique way of measuring socialism, in which case you should share the basis of your metrics. For now, I can't help thinking that this is just more emotionally loaded rhetoric. Our democracy is not this fragile, really.

My "unique way of measuring socialism" is this: the current government administration is working towards nationalizing much of private industry: the auto industry; much of the insurance and financial industry; healthcare; the creation of more than a dozen "czars" (this administration's moniker, not mine) that answer to no one and make rules and regulations for private industry. This is pretty close to the textbook definition of socialism and it's clear that the US people want none of it. You claim that what I'm stating is "emotionally loaded rhetoric". Rhetoric is defined as the art of using language as a means to entertain or persuade. (Wikipedia-sorry, just wanted a quick definition). This word, at least as you use it, portends a negative connotation in modern discourse. I assume you meant it negatively as well. However, the facts that I state above are not made up. They are true and they are what your government is currently engaged in. The facts speak for themselves; I do not need to use them rhetorically.

A healthy debate is such a central theme in this country and it's essentially what I do for a living so I believe that listening to others who have a different belief than me is vitally important in my continuing education and learning curve. I understand and appreciate that not everyone agrees with me, and I'm always open to listening to the "rhetoric" of others as I try to form my own opinions about what's going on in our country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raf66 

My "unique way of measuring socialism" is this: the current government administration is working towards nationalizing much of private industry: the auto industry; much of the insurance and financial industry; healthcare; the creation of more than a dozen "czars" (this administration's moniker, not mine) that answer to no one and make rules and regulations for private industry. This is pretty close to the textbook definition of socialism and it's clear that the US people want none of it.

Okay then, you better pony up what you think the definition of a socialist government is then, because clearly you have a unique definition of this too. Hint: we aren't a socialist country until we have a socialist government, which would mean completely abolishing the free market and the whole idea of amassing personal wealth. We are so deeply entrenched in amassing personal wealth that really, to feel threatened by socialism is frankly ridiculous right now.

If your concerns are preemptive, that's fine, but you can't say that right now we are anywhere remotely close to socialism.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay then, you better pony up what you think the definition of a socialist government is then, because clearly you have a unique definition of this too. Hint: we aren't a socialist country until we have a socialist government, which would mean completely abolishing the free market and the whole idea of amassing personal wealth.

Weren't you the one criticizing simplistic, absolutist stances just a moment ago?

[raf66]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay then, you better pony up what you think the definition of a socialist government is then, because clearly you have a unique definition of this too. Hint: we aren't a socialist country until we have a socialist government, which would mean completely abolishing the free market and the whole idea of amassing personal wealth. We are so deeply entrenched in amassing personal wealth that really, to feel threatened by socialism is frankly ridiculous right now.

If your concerns are preemptive, that's fine, but you can't say that right now we are anywhere remotely close to socialism.

I think I've already done a pretty adequate job of defining a socialist government. And frankly socialist governments allow for the amassing of personal wealth. It's just that the "wealth" amassed is congregated in a minute percentage of the society at large and is largely controlled by the ruling class (i.e. the government).

And I'm not the only person in the US who feels threatened by the idea of our country going over to the dark side of socialism. That's where the policies of this administration are headed. And again, while our current system of government is not that close to socialism (at least as it currently exists), my argument has been and remains that the policies this administration is trying to implement are the very definition of socialism. This is before we ever even discuss the issue of the curtailing of free speech that we're currently undergoing. You disagree with the administration, your friends can turn you in. You see tarp money not being spent where you think it should be, rat out your state or local government. If everything this administration wants changed is ultimately passed as law, the US will be closer to a socialistic society than many that we currently consider socialist.

Anywho, I respect your opinion besson3c and I hope that we can BOTH agree that we enjoy using our Macs to continue our debate.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by raf66 

I think I've already done a pretty adequate job of defining a socialist government. And frankly socialist governments allow for the amassing of personal wealth. It's just that the "wealth" amassed is congregated in a minute percentage of the society at large and is largely controlled by the ruling class (i.e. the government).

I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism. (hint: they aren't the same thing)

[dzp111]

My probable ignorance here folks, but I've read somewhere from some reputed philosopher (and I'll look for it) that:

Socialism, if done right, works.
Communism, if done right, works.
Democracy, if done right, works.
All 3 of those blended together, if done right, works. But that would be the garden of Eden I suppose.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not at my disposal, but the top Google search for "health care bankruptcies" references an American Journal of Medicine article that says that:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Would you like to know what they consider "medical related"? You'll be dismayed at the dishonesty. If not, I won't bother with the legwork.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

My probable ignorance here folks, but I've read somewhere from some reputed philosopher (and I'll look for it) that:

Socialism, if done right, works.
Communism, if done right, works.
Democracy, if done right, works.
All 3 of those blended together, if done right, works. But that would be the garden of Eden I suppose.

You're assuming that Capitalism can't be done wrong?

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're assuming that Capitalism can't be done wrong?

Sorry, forgot about that one. Me? I assume nothing. Although the word capitalism tends to leave a sour taste in my mouth.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Opening interstate commerce... What would you do about the care facilities that only work with insurance provider x or y because they are in network?

They are "in network" because they've been set up to be. Only the larger insurers can absolutely dominate a market. There should be absolutely zero antitrust exemption. Again, enforcing antitrust laws instead of catering to the immense insurance lobby, facilitating a national market by easing restrictions and establishing a federal set of guidelines to terminate the ridiculous State-by-State regulations that have built these monopolies, and reforming tax policy; we can go a long way toward breaking up the relationships they've built on convenience, power, and greed and give smaller insurers a chance to compete on a national level.

Do you think that tax cuts are all that is needed to break up state by state monopolies?

No. I've covered quite a few ideals in the other thread.

Do you buy into the argument that the insurance company monopolies have more leveraging power over health care providers?

It has been a marriage of convenience and a feedback process that can be broken by severing the link on one side. Smaller insurers have to be able to compete and antitrust has to be enforced. If a number of folks move to the smaller insurer, the clinics/providers have a couple of immediate choices don't they. *you'll recall the widget example. The free market works when it's allowed to. The national market needs to be opened up before there's any talk at all of simply adding another insurer.

What should be the penalty for non-coverage be?

No significant tax break for health care premiums. The tax and choice of coverage advantages need to be shifted away from the employer and granted the individual.

What happens if you can't afford your own cancer treatments?

You're better off in this country with cancer than virtually any other region on the globe. That's just a fact. That speaks directly to the quality of care in the US. After several years of having invested in an HSA, you will have quite a sum of money to work with. HSA-compatible plans also carry catastrophic coverages such as these. There are also a number of other means available not to mention the ability of an employer to donate to your HSA tax free unlike an IRA. This builds your health investment much more quickly and encourages you to make your own healthcare decisions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Weren't you the one criticizing simplistic, absolutist stances just a moment ago?

I love this. Again, this assumes that Bush would've had to have said; "Ladies and Gentlemen, we're invading Iraq for oil and imperialism." Slippery slopes generally start with a view of what's below, otherwise it's a cliff.

Okay pony up then; is it a slippery slope or a cliff?!?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's an enormous leap. The bill is that long means that the government wants to literally take over health care? This is just rhetoric, and I don't think we need more of this.

Excuse me? Have you even read the thing? I haven't read the entire thing, though I have read quite a bit, and it is not an "enormous leap" at all. Read it and learn.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Except for the fact that there are millions of middle class workers who are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, nor can they afford their 5 digit hospital bill.

If they don't have health insurance and could have afforded it, and then they rack up the huge medical bills, it is a problem on their part. Their medical needs were still taken care of, but since they didn't cover their butts, there are consequences. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for them, but I am also not saying that it is something that the government should try to take care of for them.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I say it would only require a 1 page bill. Who cares about outlining what's covered or not, how it would be administered and managed, how it would be paid for, and so forth.

I say a 1 page bill is all we need.

Here's what it could say: All tax brackets will be raised 1% effective immediately. All tax dollars collected by this increase will go toward paying for the health services needed by those that cannot afford medical care. The criteria for determining the need and eligibility of an individual is to be determined on a state-by-state level. No additional government agencies or task forces will be created for this program.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

torso: there is also much more in the bill than just public health insurance, although one wouldn't know it because this issue has hogged the limelight. There is also a lot of consumer protections stuff relating to existing private insurance, and about all sorts of other stuff.

This is exactly what I am saying... it is not just a way to force 50 million more people to get insurance, it is a way to start taking over the industry. Start making the rules, determine what can be offered, what can be rejected, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Weren't you the one criticizing simplistic, absolutist stances just a moment ago?

Yeah, WRT health care solutions. I think you can be a little more absolutist with the semantic definition of a term or concept, don't you?

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'll respond to your other points as soon as I can, but in the meantime here is another question for you...

Why do we have to clump everything together into a single bill? The main point of contention is the public option thing, but we agree on many other things: changing the system so that it isn't employer based, I'm assuming that you would be for some additional consumer protections if implemented smartly, and I agree with you that we should be doing more to break up the state by state monopolies. I also sometimes wonder whether we should try to push the health insurance companies to work slightly more like non-profits in the sense of being able to demand that our money be put into covering our health care expenses rather than paying for nice big fat administration salaries and stuff like that (there is something off-putting to me about treating our health insurance just like any other business, but I can't quite put my finger on it).

So, if we can agree on several of these things, why don't we break up the bill into smaller pieces that can be voted on separately? This way, if the entire bill gets rejected we aren't back at square one... Moreover, why does this debate have to be about one thing or the other? I would like a lot of the stuff that ebuddy has been recommending regardless, as certainly a more vibrant private sector is a net win regardless. What's up with these big epic bills?

[ort888]

Let me ask people who are opposed to this plan a question...

What is Obama's motivation?

Do you think he honestly wants to help people and is just doing it in the wrong way?
Do you think it's an ego thing and he just wants to be the guy who did it?
Do you think he is doing this as part of a plot to gain more power?

People always think he's involved in these intricate sinister plots. What is he plotting? How much more power can he get? He's already going to be set for life. He's already going to go down in history as one of the most significant people in American history.

What is his plot? Kill the Jews? Destroy America from the inside so his Kenyan countrymen can take over? I don't get it.

[dzp111]

Just out of curiosity, how much taxes does the average American pay on purchases? I know that this differs from state to state. Here in Ontario, we pay 7% provincial taxes on most goods (except for food and baby clothing) plus another 7% federal tax. =14% on all purchases. How much of this goes to our health care system evades me at the moment but I'd like to know the ratio between both countries.