Lets say me and 5 obese guys are running a race. I win. I'm the "best."

 

You putting me in the Olympics?

 

Not sure I follow your analogy. Are you saying we should drop to the level of the 5 fat guys instead of trying to be better? This healthcare reform will give us the same horrible system that the UK and Canada have.

I have access and it doesn't bankrupt me

That is naive. It is the largest growing cost of nearly every employer and our government, as it bankrupts them it will in turn bankrupt you.

 

It is good that you have access. But I can't say as though I feel it is better for you to pick your doctor than for another person not receive health care at all.

That is naive. It is the largest growing cost of nearly every employer and our government, as it bankrupts them it will in turn bankrupt you.

 

It is good that you have access. But I can't say as though I feel it is better for you to pick your doctor than for another person not receive health care at all.

 

Equal outcome for all right? Same misery for everybody? Let the people who contribute pay for the people who don't contribute?

You're naive if you think that the "free market" is in place today.

Didn't say it was but the reform is sprinting in the opposite direction.

That is naive. It is the largest growing cost of nearly every employer and our government, as it bankrupts them it will in turn bankrupt you.

 

It is good that you have access. But I can't say as though I feel it is better for you to pick your doctor than for another person not receive health care at all.

Is naive the word of the day.

 

100% of people in this country have access to health care. 85% of people in this country have health care. Of the 15% that don't, how many are here illegal, how many choose not to have it, and how many want it and can't afford it?

Not sure I follow your analogy. Are you saying we should drop to the level of the 5 fat guys instead of trying to be better? This healthcare reform will give us the same horrible system that the UK and Canada have.

 

No, I'm saying that "best" is a relative term. It doesn't mean that there is not significant room for improvement. Hanging our hat on "best" doesn't do any good.

Here's a perfect example of one side using a study by a supposed nonpartisan group to support their side without telling us the full story.

 

If you've watched the cable news shows you've heard almost every R quote the "highly respected" Lewin Group and , lo and behold, the Lewin Group has a problem with all of the proposed plans.

 

Who is the Lewin Group?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html?hpid=topnews

No, I'm saying that "best" is a relative term. It doesn't mean that there is not significant room for improvement. Hanging our hat on "best" doesn't do any good.

 

You can guarantee that if there is "significant room for improvement" government involvement will not provide any... It will only make the system worse. I am still waiting to hear which government entitlement program has done a better or even equivalent job than its private sector counterpart? Last time I asked that question all I heard were crickets chirping... Reason being, if there is one thing we know is that no matter whether it is the left or the right, government does a crappy job of managing money which drives up costs for taxpayers.

You can guarantee that if there is "significant room for improvement" government involvement will not provide any... It will only make the system worse. I am still waiting to hear which government entitlement program has done a better or even equivalent job than its private sector counterpart? Last time I asked that question all I heard were crickets chirping... Reason being, if there is one thing we know is that no matter whether it is the left or the right, government does a crappy job of managing money which drives up costs for taxpayers.

 

Yep

I'll disagree on them being powerless. They've driven the news on this.

 

90% of the soundbites you hear about this reform are the Rs. John Boehner has had more face time in the last 6 months than his previous decades in Congress.

 

Add in 2010 elections and the fear that pols have and it will be a challenge to get anything substantive passed.

 

They are powerless to stop it vote wise. If the Dems want it, they can get it.

Sure the GOP has jumped on the rhetoric of the infighting and such and they are wise to do so when public opinion on the this bill plus the two other biggies have gone against the Democrats.

It is the type of push they need to try and gain some seats in Congress in 2010.

Many of the freshman Democrats in the house are very weary of this bill.

Some have suggested the urgency to get this done before August is so that the Dem's will face a hostile constituency when they return home.

You can guarantee that if there is "significant room for improvement" government involvement will not provide any... It will only make the system worse. I am still waiting to hear which government entitlement program has done a better or even equivalent job than its private sector counterpart? Last time I asked that question all I heard were crickets chirping... Reason being, if there is one thing we know is that no matter whether it is the left or the right, government does a crappy job of managing money which drives up costs for taxpayers.

 

Im surprised that many people have not jumped on the fact that there is a fairly high amount of illegal immigrants who will receive free health care from the government under this reform.

Does that not bother some?

 

Again, why should we trust the government to fund health care when they cant even fund Social Security and Medicare?

Medicare recipients will get hosed in this reform.

Im surprised that many people have not jumped on the fact that there is a fairly high amount of illegal immigrants who will receive free health care from the government under this reform.

Does that not bother some?

 

Again, why should we trust the government to fund health care when they cant even fund Social Security and Medicare?

Medicare recipients will get hosed in this reform.

 

I think people fell powerless now, as far as being able to stop some of the nonsense. And yes, it bothers me. And no, we shouldn't trust government funding on health care.

I'll ask this question as a person who firmly believes in the superiority of the market: What makes private enterprise superior to a public system? How does this apply to the health system in the US?

 

I outlined my argument as to why the forces and mechanisms that make private systems work are either convoluted or non-existent here and no one challenged it. Based on my observation of the debate surrounding healthcare, it seems most people opposed to reform do so for purely partisan reasons or to peddle strained cliches on behalf of the status quo. Perhaps both. There are serious problems with the system of healthcare in the US and I think it a necessary part of argument for an opponent of reform to admit as much rather than make the current system out to be flawless.

 

Im surprised that many people have not jumped on the fact that there is a fairly high amount of illegal immigrants who will receive free health care from the government under this reform.

Does that not bother some?

 

Illegal immigrants and the uninsured receive free health care now through the use of emergency rooms, which is a contributing factor to both inefficiency and cost in the current system. And the proposed reform would require one to purchase insurance, not merely be a recipient of unconditional and free care.

 

Again, why should we trust the government to fund health care when they cant even fund Social Security and Medicare?

Medicare recipients will get hosed in this reform.

 

How? If you are arguing that the addition of the uninsured to the scrolls of the insured will somehow diminish the ability of seniors to receive the same care they do now then you have a lot of leg work to do. Not to mention supporting the untenable position that this country requires a large swatch of citizens to be uninsured.

I'll ask this question as a person who firmly believes in the superiority of the market: What makes private enterprise superior to a public system? How does this apply to the health system in the US?

 

I outlined my argument as to why the forces and mechanisms that make private systems work are either convoluted or non-existent here and no one challenged it. Based on my observation of the debate surrounding healthcare, it seems most people opposed to reform do so for purely partisan reasons or to peddle strained cliches on behalf of the status quo. Perhaps both. There are serious problems with the system of healthcare in the US and I think it a necessary part of argument for an opponent of reform to admit as much rather than make the current system out to be flawless.

 

 

 

Illegal immigrants and the uninsured receive free health care now through the use of emergency rooms, which is a contributing factor to both inefficiency and cost in the current system. And the proposed reform would require one to purchase insurance, not merely be a recipient of unconditional and free care.

 

 

 

How? If you are arguing that the addition of the uninsured to the scrolls of the insured will somehow diminish the ability of seniors to receive the same care they do now then you have a lot of leg work to do. Not to mention supporting the untenable position that this country requires a large swatch of citizens to be uninsured.

 

The plan currently calls for reduction in medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, which will be driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.

 

How, voters will ask, can we cover 50 million more people without any new doctors or nurses? The answer is to ration health care, with the government deciding who’ll get hip and knee replacements, heart-bypass surgery and other medical treatments. And what does rationing mean? It means that the elderly will be denied care that they can now get whenever they want.

 

The Obama plan effectively repeals Medicare, putting a Federal Health Board between the elderly and their doctors. This board will instruct public and private insurance carriers on what procedures are to be approved, at what cost and for what patients.

 

Per Dick Morris....The bulk of this rationing will fall on the elderly. We’ll have to revisit the idea that the elderly have, in the words of former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, “a duty to die.”

 

Most Americans are now against the health care bill.

Per Dick Morris....The bulk of this rationing will fall on the elderly. We’ll have to revisit the idea that the elderly have, in the words of former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, “a duty to die.”

This is actually something we really do need to discuss. For most people the majority of your health expenses will occur in your last few years of life. Why do fight so hard and exhaust so much wealth for these last few months of generally low quality life.

 

Why do we Americans believe we can and should beat death.