Healthcare Reform Bill Implodes

[Versa-Tech]

So first we had a bill including a "Public Option", a plan widely supported among democrats and condemned by republicans. After the "Public Option" lost support of moderate democrats, the plan changed to drop the "Public Option" while extending medicare benefits to citizens over 55. Far-left support dropped sharply while republican opposition remained. Without the support of the far-left, senators realized that the bill would never pass and the medicare extension was dropped in hope that moderate republicans would turn. The last ditch effort failed.

 

What we're left with is a bill that costs about a trillion dollars with only one clear result... more government control. Who still supports the bill? Good question.

[Ralph Greene]

A lot of people would support real health care reform, and how health care is delivered (or not delivered) in this country. A lot of people would support health care reform whose goal is too make more people healthier at an affordable cost. Our system works good for those with money and good insurance (and the money to buy insurance....or you work for a company wealthy enough to provide it), but compared to other advanced countries who spend a lot less than we do per capita, we don't get better results for all that money spent. We don't live the longest, have the lowest infant mortality rates, have the fewest heart attacks and strokes, stuff like that. Sure some rich foreigners come here for advanced tratment.....if you have the money, we have the most advanced treatment in the world if you are really sick.

 

But I don't see all that being debated. The so called liberals just want government to be the the insurer for all with that huge cost, and the so called conservatives just want the status quo with health professionals and insurance companies continuing to call the shots. So whatever we get won't really fix anything, or improve anyone's health. Liberals do know, however, that the only chance they had to really force the current system to compete at a lower cost structure was with that so called public option. Otherwise....whatever Congress does is just business as usual.

 

I'm a retiree on Medicare, which I paid for over many years plus still pay some each month fom my SS check, plus I buy supplementary health insurance, and the only way my Doctor gets paid to treat me is by the number of things he can do to me on a routine visit, the various ways he can run up my bill which gets first presented to medicare, then my private insurance, then the remainder to me, and the number of tests he can farm out to other Doctors. They fight for these referrals and just work the system. That's the only way they can get paid....and they do have wages and overhead in their offices....and they are accustomed to making more than most Americans. So until this system is changed, I don't see much promise of reform. My Doc is a friend of mine and a nice guy, but he lives in a $2,000,000 house, and his lifestyle is expensive, and he's fighting to retain it. They all are....and I can't say I blame them for that. They also have an effective lobby. Go up against them and you would think you are attacking Mom and apple pie. It will take more than the wisdom of Solomon to figure this one out.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[xr7g428]

Ralph, You got off to a good start and then...

 

compared to other advanced countries who spend a lot less than we do per-capita, we don't get better results for all that money spent. We don't live the longest, have the lowest infant mortality rates, have the fewest heart attacks and strokes, stuff like that. Sure some rich foreigners come here for advanced tratment.....if you have the money, we have the most advanced treatment in the world if you are really sick.

 

So many of these statements sound good but are either not true or not pertinent.

 

We spend more per-capita. Why is this considered to be a bad thing? Yes, we spend more per-capita than any country in Africa. Do you suggest that we reduce our spending to match Africa or any other country? We also spend more per-capita on just about every other good and service. We spend more because we can.

 

We do live the longest when you take accidental death and other fatalities beyond the influence of the health care system out of the statistics. The real measure of health care effectiveness is the prognosis for those who become ill and in virtually every case we surpass every other country for cancer survival and treatment and most other treatable diseases. That is why people come here for treatment.

 

Infant morality rates are not measured the same way from one country to the next, or even with in the same country. In some places a death with in the first 24 hours is considered to be a still birth. In the US any indication of life is considered to be a live birth, not matter what the degree of prematurity. In Engalnd, care is denied to infants that fall below certain birth weights and term periods. No matter how alive the child is, in England, it better be able to fend for itself as care is denied if those standards are not satisfied.

[Ralph Greene]

Ralph, You got off to a good start and then...

 

 

 

So many of these statements sound good but are either not true or not pertinent.

 

We spend more per-capita. Why is this considered to be a bad thing? Yes, we spend more per-capita than any country in Africa. Do you suggest that we reduce our spending to match Africa or any other country? We also spend more per-capita on just about every other good and service. We spend more because we can.

 

We do live the longest when you take accidental death and other fatalities beyond the influence of the health care system out of the statistics. The real measure of health care effectiveness is the prognosis for those who become ill and in virtually every case we surpass every other country for cancer survival and treatment and most other treatable diseases. That is why people come here for treatment.

 

Infant morality rates are not measured the same way from one country to the next, or even with in the same country. In some places a death with in the first 24 hours is considered to be a still birth. In the US any indication of life is considered to be a live birth, not matter what the degree of prematurity. In Engalnd, care is denied to infants that fall below certain birth weights and term periods. No matter how alive the child is, in England, it better be able to fend for itself as care is denied if those standards are not satisfied.

 

 

Many disagree wih you. That's also part of the problem.

 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

[xr7g428]

A left wing blogger that uses almost 20 year old raw statistics is a formidable challenge?

 

If you brought this level or rigor to your work you would be flat broke.

 

The raw statistics for infant mortality do not take into account the differences in what constitutes live birth. If we adopted a system like they have in Italy, we would not count any child that died in the first 24 hours as ever being alive. Which do you prefer, better statistics or better results.

 

The raw statistics for longevity do not take into account that no where else in the world do you have drunk Harley riders going without helmets. Or 16 year old drivers, or even the same rate of number of miles driven per-capita by any age group. To your nanny government friends, all of these risks can be eliminated if they can just get complete control of our lives. It will improve the statistics, but not our lives.

 

You got it right here:

The so called liberals just want government to be the the insurer for all with that huge cost,

 

The problem is that our third party payer system has removed the consumer from the cost of service. Until it is in the best interest of the consumer to control the cost, there will be no solution. A very simple almost no cost start would be to require doctors, clinics and hospitals to post the prices of their services. We do it with every thing else, why should the price be a secret in medicine?

 

I think this is wrong, but more a matter of opinion:

Liberals do know, however, that the only chance they had to really force the current system to compete at a lower cost structure was with that so called public option.

 

I don't believe that Liberals truthfully believe this. I think they see this as more of a first step toward a government single payer system. You might think this strange, but I think our best bet is to go to a single payer system, but to allow a layer of additional coverage to those who are willing to pay for it either as insurance or cash for service. The single payer system would at least put a powerful negotiating force in place to control costs. Not by being more efficient than free enterprise (there is no way it ever could be), but by being the blunt force of government. Right now, no one has the ability to say "no".

[Ralph Greene]

I see you are as set in your opinion of the quality of our health care as I am in my opinion about how we rank on a global comparison.

 

There are some Doctor groups around the country, groups large enough to include about all the specialities, that will take care of your family for a flat fee. Say.....maybe because I don't know.....$12,000 per year. That's about what I spend now on insurance....and I spend that now for healthy covered wife and step daughter plus myself....if no one gets sick. But some think that's un American to have a class of health care most don't have. But if folks would investigate what they actually spend for healthcare.....insurance plus what they spend....I think they might be surprised. Most could easily afford a preferred level of care.

 

However....in a contract like that....you would still have to have insurance for Hospital stay.

 

One of the things about our current system that just torques me off is when I walk into a Doctors office....with my medicare and secondary policy....it's like they see dollar signs. And I am constantly suspect of about everything they want to do beyound weighing me, taking my temp, and pulse and blood pressure.

 

It kinda reminds me of walking into a full service brokerage office about 25 years ago to discuss my account. A broker was going to find enough things that needed changing to make a $1000 or so in commissions. He got about 1/3 of that. To make a $1000 a day for himself, he needed to have 3 of me in front of him every day. It was just a numbers game, and if he played it right, he made $250,000 a year for relatively easy work. That business mostly doesn't exist anymore with advent of Schwab, E Trade, Scott Trade, etc.

 

I think that's about how the medical profession works now. I'm including Dentists selling crowns, and eye Docs pushing contacts in this as well.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[Edstock]

The raw statistics for longevity do not take into account that no where else in the world do you have drunk Harley riders going without helmets. Or 16 year old drivers, or even the same rate of number of miles driven per-capita by any age group. To your nanny government friends, all of these risks can be eliminated if they can just get complete control of our lives. It will improve the statistics, but not our lives.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20se...capita-2004.htm

 

India 90,000 deaths

 

China 107,077 deaths

 

US 42,636 deaths

 

These numbers are for all vehicles. Now, while the Indians and Chinese don't have many Harley's, they own a lot more motorcycles than Americans, and you're just as dead if you do something stupid on a 50cc moped. AFAIK, the rest of the world has lots of 16 year-old motorcycle riders instead of 16 year-old drivers.

 

http://www.bikes4sale.in/wp/776/motorcycle-accidents/

 

"Particularly in India, statistics reveal that almost 400,000 road accidents occur each year. WHO report predicts that by the year 2020, the major killer in India will be road accidents and will account to almost 546,000 deaths alone. In fact, the accident rate in India 35 per 1000 vehicles is one of the highest in the world."

Edited December 16, 2009 by Edstock

[grbeck]

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20se...capita-2004.htm

 

India 90,000 deaths

 

China 107,077 deaths

 

US 42,636 deaths

 

These numbers are for all vehicles. Now, while the Indians and Chinese don't have many Harley's, they own a lot more motorcycles than Americans, and you're just as dead if you do something stupid on a 50cc moped. AFAIK, the rest of the world has lots of 16 year-old motorcycle riders instead of 16 year-old drivers.

 

http://www.bikes4sale.in/wp/776/motorcycle-accidents/

 

"Particularly in India, statistics reveal that almost 400,000 road accidents occur each year. WHO report predicts that by the year 2020, the major killer in India will be road accidents and will account to almost 546,000 deaths alone. In fact, the accident rate in India 35 per 1000 vehicles is one of the highest in the world."

 

Do India and China outrank the U.S. for longevity? Are their outcomes regarding health care any better? If not, then these statistics only further support what xr7g428 posted.

 

It's no accident that the nations with the best health care outcomes and longevity statistics tend to be either relatively wealthy Asian nations or smaller European ones with relatively homogenous populations. The first benefit from good dietary and lifestyle habits, while the second find it easy to restrict certain behaviors and also have unwritten social pressures that prevent abuse of government programs. In Europe, public support for generous welfare programs in many nations has fallen as they have increasingly opened their borders to immigrants who don't share the same culture and are not shy about taking full advantage of taxpayer-provided largesse.

 

It's interesting to note that national characteristics tend to follow people wherever they go. When a Swedish politician boasted to Milton Friedman that there was virtually no poverty among Scandinavians, Friedman replied that there was also very little poverty among Americans of Scandinavian heritage.

[RangerM]

You might think this strange, but I think our best bet is to go to a single payer system, but to allow a layer of additional coverage to those who are willing to pay for it either as insurance or cash for service. The single payer system would at least put a powerful negotiating force in place to control costs. Not by being more efficient than free enterprise (there is no way it ever could be), but by being the blunt force of government. Right now, no one has the ability to say "no".

I definitely think it's strange given that we have a fairly equivalent system like that now in Medicaid. As for the "layer of additional coverage", it seems to me that most are already there.

 

Medicaid will cover anyone who qualifies, but given those qualifications, most would prefer to rise above. Given that Medicaid is basically broke, I fail to see how expanding it would improve matters, and so long as there are people willing and able to pay, the doctors (if they are free to choose) can provide services to those who will pay more.

 

Controlling costs is happening now with Medicare and Medicaid, and if they really cut $500 Billion out of Medicare, the reimbursement rates will plummet and the providers will simply choose not to serve them. Reducing supply is not a reasonable way to cut costs.

 

So long as healthcare providers can choose who they care for, using whatever criteria they set for the patients (e.g. who pays more and who pays less), a sort of healthcare plutocracy will continue to exist.

 

Now I invite anyone to argue that the government should take control of healthcare apportion.

[Versa-Tech]

Good points by all. But does it really even matter if the bill never passes. Word is that several senators have been bribed to vote "yea" to push the senate bill through. But the house still has to approve, and we all know they wont until their coffers are filled...

[xr7g428]

As I pointed out, I know it sounds odd. It is not my preference, but rather what I think is most probable. The issue is that the consumers of medical services are not interested in being a part of controlling costs. Consumers want a free ticket that allows then to avail themselves to any amount of money in the form of medical services, all at no cost to them selves.

 

Then we have a group of people that think the only thing that is wrong with the current system is that too few people are able to get this great benefit of unlimited medical benefits. So realistically, how do you supply everyone with more of anything than they could possibly afford to pay for?

[Edstock]

Consumers want a free ticket that allows then to avail themselves to any amount of money in the form of medical services, all at no cost to them selves.

You're entitled to your opinion, even a grudging and myopic one. In Canada, consumers want the amount of medical services necessary to make them well. Those services aren't free, but paid by taxes and a small deduction from pay checks, on the order of $30 per month, depending on the province.

 

When people are in bad health, it's the treatment that's top-of-mind, not the concept that it's a "free ticket" to "avail themselves of any amount of money". They don't want "any amount of money", just that whatever services they need are covered.

[Roadtrip]

As I pointed out, I know it sounds odd. It is not my preference, but rather what I think is most probable. The issue is that the consumers of medical services are not interested in being a part of controlling costs. Consumers want a free ticket that allows then to avail themselves to any amount of money in the form of medical services, all at no cost to them selves.

 

Perhaps consumers of medical services, and, more specifically, consumers of medical insurance and health-care coverage, have been led to believe that health insurance should cover all their medical needs -- as opposed to covering what they can't afford should a catastrophic event or the necessity of a costly procedure occur. Think auto insurance: It doesn't cover oil changes, new tires, or normal maintenance, and most people would prefer to pay out-of-pocket for minor fender-benders rather than see their rates increase. People buy auto-insurance coverage for when bad things happen. After all: Isn't that what insurance is meant for? And isn't it funny how competitive the auto insurance industry is to get people's business -- we've all seen the ads for GEICO, Allstate, and Progressive, etc. -- without Congress deeming it necessary to intervene with a "public option"?

 

Consumers COULD control costs of routine medical procedures if they would merely pay for them themselves. They could actually shop around. LASER eye surgery (and its variants) is a great example of this. The cost is rarely covered by medical insurance, but the advances in the technology have improved over the years -- along with demand -- and yet the cost of surgical vision correction has declined dramatically since it was first introduced. Why should other "elective" surgeries be any different -- especially those that are actually affordable for patients who could finance the procedures themselves, save enough money to pay for the procedures, or even obtain financing (as in the LASER eye-surgery example, where state-certified eye surgeons offer third-party financing). Same with cosmetic surgery.

 

Why can't other elective surgeries, such as hernias, knee replacements, and so on, fall into the same realm -- where people could shop around for the best offer? Why must the health-insurance industry be charged with paying for the cost of such things when the auto-insurance industry isn't responsible for covering the the cost of a broken transmission, or for that matter, a bad tail-light? When people have a problem with their cars, they are able to shop among a variety of places that will fix them. They don't call their insurance agent and ask him where to go. When people want to ditch their eyeglasses forever, they shop around and ask -- after all, this is their PRECIOUS EYES they are dealing with -- they consult and do the necessary research before they make the decision to pay for and have the procedure, with any given number of options. People are not likely to make stupid decisions when it comes to their eyes; why should it be any different for other elective surgeries?

 

In the case of corrective eye surgery, consumers absolutely control costs. Ditto for cosmetic surgery and certain orthopedic procedures. The market decides, pure and simple. Why not let the market decide with other "elective" surgeries? The market not only decided with corrective eye surgery, but it also drove the costs down for, along with the quality up of, flat-screen TVs, PCs, telephony, and, well, you name it. . . .

 

When people get more involved in deciding the costs of their care -- and everything they consume -- the costs come down and the quality of their care becomes better.

[RangerM]

As I pointed out, I know it sounds odd. It is not my preference, but rather what I think is most probable. The issue is that the consumers of medical services are not interested in being a part of controlling costs. Consumers want a free ticket that allows then to avail themselves to any amount of money in the form of medical services, all at no cost to them selves.

You're entitled to your opinion, even a grudging and myopic one. In Canada, consumers want the amount of medical services necessary to make them well. Those services aren't free, but paid by taxes and a small deduction from pay checks, on the order of $30 per month, depending on the province.

 

When people are in bad health, it's the treatment that's top-of-mind, not the concept that it's a "free ticket" to "avail themselves of any amount of money". They don't want "any amount of money", just that whatever services they need are covered.

There are people in America, who even with the opportunities available, would rather be taken care of than do for themselves. There are politicians who use their promises of "something for nothing" to occupy office, and the ones who wish to be taken care of (or those who just want more) are all too happy follow these Pied Pipers down the drain of debt.

 

Ed, when people are in bad health they want "any amount of money" to be better. It's human nature to want relief from pain or ill. I'm not lost on the fact that there really are people who suffer, but bad things happen to good people. I can't change it, and neither can anyone else, and it will always be that way.

 

Given the choice, I'd prefer that my industriousness determine my outcome, more than dependence on the judgement of others. I'm sure the Canadian system works for some, especially the healthy, but it is impossible to ignore the downside when there are so many examples of how the Canadian system fails those who are forced to wait based on availability or government guidelines for treatment ("guidelines" is just a pleasant way of saying "rationing").

Then we have a group of people that think the only thing that is wrong with the current system is that too few people are able to get this great benefit of unlimited medical benefits. So realistically, how do you supply everyone with more of anything than they could possibly afford to pay for?

You increase the supply to bring down cost, or you improve peoples' ability to pay by improving their ability to achieve. Both would be ideal.

 

There are plenty of things wrong with the current system; much of it associated with previous "fixes".

 

When the current administration gives me a realistic alternative that does not involve bringing people down (through higher taxes or rationing) to bring others up, I'll start listening. Until then, it's just robbing from Peter to pay (for) Paul.

Edited December 17, 2009 by RangerM

[chevys]

Other than the military, when has the goverment ever been able to be more effective than the private sector? And what makes anybody in their right mind think this will be any different? Spending is out of control folks and its going to catch up to us all soon. I have already prepared for this to pass because I feel certain the dems will ram it through. They will pay a heavy price for it in 2010 and i cant wait to get rid of some of them and that goes for irresponsible spending republicans as well. Its time to stop this madness and kick some people out of office. If you think this bill is not going to wait up a sleeping giant think again.

[xr7g428]

You're entitled to your opinion, even a grudging and myopic one. In Canada, consumers want the amount of medical services necessary to make them well. Those services aren't free, but paid by taxes and a small deduction from pay checks, on the order of $30 per month, depending on the province.

 

When people are in bad health, it's the treatment that's top-of-mind, not the concept that it's a "free ticket" to "avail themselves of any amount of money". They don't want "any amount of money", just that whatever services they need are covered.

 

Edstock, once again, I am thrilled that Canada has developed a system that has many Canadians happy.

 

However, when we look at the situation from a dispassionate view, the per-capita health care spending in Canada in 2005 was already up to $3500 per year. What that one simple number tells us is that Canada must raise $3500 for every man woman and child to break even on its spending. This is about 10 times the $30 per month that you are paying. I can certainly see why you would be happy to get more than $3500 in health care service for $360. Actuarial tables set the cost of an insurance policy based on the probability of having to pay out. An insurance policy with a high probability of pay out is expensive, whether it for health care, a boat, or house in hurricane country. This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that people are unwilling to pay the actual cost when the cost is matched up to the benefit. This is the problem in the US right now.

 

For my family of 4 I am currently paying over $1000 per month for a policy with a $5K deductible. This means I will spend $17K before insurance benefits kick in. The sobering part is that as a self employed person, I don't get to pretend that my insurance is paid for by my employer. This is the real cost of having the ability to spend $3 million dollars (life time max) on health care if the need arises. Should I get cancer, require a major transplant or some other million dollar procedure, It will be done quickly in one of the top facilities in the world giving me the best of odds for survival. So I can come back here and frustrate the hell out of you people.

 

When we break out total government paid health care spending in the US we have make a distinction between what is paid for patient care, and what is paid for research. Canadian research spending is a very small percentage of Canadian heath care spending. The MD Anderson Clinic in Houston spends more on research than the entire Canadian health care system (no criticism of Canada, I believe that Canada actually gets a much better return on the spending they do) . Research benefits potentially all members of society, patient care, not so much. From what I have been able to discern, it looks like the US currently spends about twice as much ($7200) on each person covered by government programs (Medicare and Medicaid). So in the US we have three groups: those currently covered by private insurance, those covered by government plans, and the uninsured that still get services that are largely paid for from direct payment, over charging the first two groups, and through charitable donations. What we are faced with is finding a way to provide coverage for this group.

 

What has not occurred, is the health care providers stepping up to the bar and offering a reduction in fees to those who are currently insured, in the instance that every one would be insured in the future. I do not see this happening with out the force of government. Here is where pragmatism steps in. If the consumer doesn't demand the reduction in fees, who can?

 

And for Gods sake, Edstock can you come up with some better insults. Would it be too much to call me niggardly or some other more interesting epithet?

[Edstock]

And for Gods sake, Edstock can you come up with some better insults. Would it be too much to call me niggardly or some other more interesting epithet?

Aw, c'mon, read what I wrote again, and you will see that I did not use any insults or epithets. I used an adjective that seemed to my mind, to describe your attitude towards people as being freeloaders concerned with entitlement to any amount of money.

 

That seemed somewhat unfair, as in my stupid, humble opinion, when people are sick they are concerned about the specific treatment, not access to money.

 

But, you know, thinking about it, I realize you are probably right, and it's being in Canada that's the difference: we think about the treatment, not the money, but if I lived in the U.S., that would be top-of-mind — where do I get the money to pay for the treatment I need?

 

If you review my postings, you will realize that I use insults and epithets very, very rarely, and only in reaction to moronic postings by morons. Your contributions to the forum have never been in that category.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Other than the military, when has the goverment ever been able to be more effective than the private sector? And what makes anybody in their right mind think this will be any different? Spending is out of control folks and its going to catch up to us all soon. I have already prepared for this to pass because I feel certain the dems will ram it through. They will pay a heavy price for it in 2010 and i cant wait to get rid of some of them and that goes for irresponsible spending republicans as well. Its time to stop this madness and kick some people out of office. If you think this bill is not going to wait up a sleeping giant think again.

 

 

I can put a .44 stamp on a letter and have it delivered across town the next day. I can't see FedEx or UPS doing that for the price.

[goinbroke2]

If you review my postings, you will realize that I use insults and epithets very, very rarely, and only in reaction to moronic postings by morons. Your contributions to the forum have never been in that category.

 

 

HEY!! I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE YOU KNOW!!!

 

<oh, your not talking about me? sorry>

[xr7g428]

I can put a .44 stamp on a letter and have it delivered across town the next day. I can't see FedEx or UPS doing that for the price.

 

Time for another Lysander Spooner? Postage rates were very high until they were challenged by free market competitors. Government is only efficient when it is forced to be.

 

Postal rates were notoriously high in the 1840s,[6] and in 1844, Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company, which had offices in various cities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York.[7] Stamps could be purchased and then attached to letters which could be sent to any of its offices. From here agents were dispatched who traveled on railroads and steamboats, and carried the letters in hand bags. Letters were transferred to messengers in the cities along the routes who then delivered the letters to the addressees. This was a challenge to the United States Post Office's monopoly.[citation needed] As he had done when challenging the rules of the Massachusetts bar, he published a pamphlet titled "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails." Although Spooner had finally found commercial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the government eventually exhausted his financial resources. He closed up shop without ever having had the opportunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims.[citation needed] The lasting legacy of Spooner's challenge to the postal service was the 3-cent stamp, adopted in response to the competition his company provided.[8]

[retro-man]

Do we have to go through this "the government can't do anything right" discussion again? And you have to go back to 1840 to torpedo the USPS? They've managed to keep their rates among the lowest in the world for 170 years after eliminating the competition, and that's bad how? Would a private monopoly have done the same thing? I don't think so.

 

But I digress. All I see in this schadenfreude over the health care bill imploding is this: the public option - which polls showed 75% of Americans wanted*, and which was and is backed by a similar percentage of surveyed physicians, and by the American Medical Association, and by the AARP (among many others), but which was opposed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries who, after all, have our best interests at heart, has fallen victim to American realpolitik. Great news. Cheer your frickin' heads off.

 

*Somebody will surely come on here and tell me those poll numbers have shifted now that the American public "knows more" about the health bill. All that tells me - if in fact it's true - is that the old Iraq run-up strategy of repeating the same lies over and over and over again until people begin to believe they're the truth, is working once again on a gullible and intellectually lazy American public. I've spent plenty of time overseas, had plenty of exposure to a different system, and know plenty of others who have too - and I can tell you our system is seriously flawed and needs to be changed. What? Y'all think that this whole issue came up and helped propel Obama into the White House for nothing!?!? It was all in our collective imagination? If this fails this time, it will come back bigger and badder next time. Maybe it'll bring both parties down. And if the Democrats are so weak, compromise-prone, and/or beholden to the interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that they squander the mandate that the voters gave them in the last election, they will deserve it too. Just my take.

[RangerM]

.....What? Y'all think that this whole issue came up and helped propel Obama into the White House for nothing!?!? It was all in our collective imagination? If this fails this time, it will come back bigger and badder next time. Maybe it'll bring both parties down. And if the Democrats are so weak, compromise-prone, and/or beholden to the interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that they squander the mandate that the voters gave them in the last election, they will deserve it too. Just my take.

The mandate (if there really was one) was fix healthcare as it applies to the uninsured, not to f*** up everybody else's in the process.

Edited December 18, 2009 by RangerM

[retro-man]

The mandate (if there really was one) was fix healthcare as it applies to the uninsured, not to f*** up everybody else's in the process.

Concisely put. Perhaps so. But I stand by what I said regarding the support of the majority of surveyed physicians, the AMA, and the AARP for a public option. The first 2 groups in particular, are knowledgeable about the issue. That is not to say they are necessarily impartial - any more than the insurance or pharmaceutical industries are - but I have greater faith that their interests are aligned with my own and that of my family. Obviously you feel otherwise.

Edited December 18, 2009 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Concisely put. Perhaps so. But I stand by what I said regarding the support of the majority of surveyed physicians, the AMA, and the AARP for a public option. The first 2 groups in particular, are knowledgeable about the issue. That is not to say they are necessarily impartial - any more than the insurance or pharmaceutical industries are - but I have greater faith that their interests are aligned with my own and that of my family. Obviously you feel otherwise.

As many have learned, when the government attempts to fix something, they often inflict an unforseen (and negative) consequence. This is why status quo is often preferrable.

 

At this point, even the politicians who support the bill don't know what's in it. It seems odd to expect most persons to accept (and support) something with such widespread ramifications, especially when you have Monte Hall (a.k.a. Harry Reid) offering the "Mystery Box".

[Versa-Tech]

Other than the military, when has the goverment ever been able to be more effective than the private sector? And what makes anybody in their right mind think this will be any different? Spending is out of control folks and its going to catch up to us all soon. I have already prepared for this to pass because I feel certain the dems will ram it through. They will pay a heavy price for it in 2010 and i cant wait to get rid of some of them and that goes for irresponsible spending republicans as well. Its time to stop this madness and kick some people out of office. If you think this bill is not going to wait up a sleeping giant think again.

Even the government run military can't compete with the private sector. Why do you think all the big dogs end up at private security contractors. The US military is like a draft league to private contractors pro league. This isn't to say that a privately funded contractor could beat the US Military in open war... but if they had equal budgets it would be a different story.