Most people don't want and haven't wanted it tho. Health reform is sorely needed, no doubt about that, but too much of what our government does is inept.

41-46% do want it...which means that it's a bare majority that doesn't...according to that one poll. The polls have fluxed up and down on the issue, and are widely affected by the reporting (particularly on Fox, which likes to let people make s**t up about death panels).

My rep won't be voting the way I would prefer...but other states' reps are. Balanced out in the end.

Either way, you can agree that no one really wants to live in a Josh-ruled country. Now if that happened, I would really move.

You are currently paying the health care costs of all those uninsured people who pack the emergency rooms every day.

As for other ways, I've been waiting to hear them. Buying my own insurance for the last nine years, I'm faced with premium increases of 30%-40% EVERY year.

Nice to know yu have no problem putting a price on other peoples life and health. That is what it all comes down to isn't it? It isn't about rationing healthcare or death panels, it is about making sure those with money won't have to pay a little more so that others can afford to keep their loved ones alive, healthy, and out of the streets.

I think we did at one point.

No question about it.

How about if the govt put a stop to their hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in wasteful as well as pork barrel spending, and subsidized health care costs with those funds? Or gave each individual taxpayer a pro-rated rebate so they would be able to purchase low-cost insurance on their own (following both industry and tort reform)? I'd be willing to bet there would even be money left over.

edit: We need to require our govt to balance the budget prior to the end of each term. You can be against this health care bill and not be heartless..

What about, oh you know, a 100% income tax refund?

That would pay for a large portion of health care costs, don't you think?

It sickens me that we think it's ok to steal from others.

I'm curious what's wrong with a Josh-ruled country?

I let people live how they want.

I let people keep the money they make.

I think that stealing is wrong whether its from the government or not. Apparently, you believe morality changes for each situation. I don't.

You`ll not be taxed more if you don`t adhere to the program. I think the legislators that voted agaisnt the bill should be removed for representing corporate interests rather than the people, but we`ll have to wait for the next election for that.

I am pissed you find it imoral for those who can to pay for those who need it, I`d like to see you on the other side needing medical treatment but not able to afford it, I wonder if you`d still be against the bill.

And I hate when someone says "yeah, downvote away", why would you even say that if you really didn`t care for it?

Oh, and this is my first post, hi plime! =)

It's not stealing. And that's the first problem with your imaginary dictatorship. Real people don't work the way you think they do.

Obviously the current system is not working and has proved to be horribly expensive.

That's the problem when preventive protections, be it health care or other services, are financially unreachable for those who are the most vulnerable. When acute systems get used in the end, the price tag has grown astronomically.


The same applies to all "socialistic" services. Providing homes for homeless people is far cheaper than not doing so, when operational costs of shelters, emergency health care systems and law enforcement are considered. Investing in early childhood prevention pays off 17-fold during the lifespan of an individual.

It's simple math but seems to be beyond comprehension to most right-wing types. Pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured it out already.


ETA: Since Finland and Canada were mentioned earlier (and I've lived and worked in both countries): Finland spends proportionally more to preventive services than Canada does (essentially providing a home, free health care including dental, free education and a living income regardless of employment status). Lo and behold; I paid less taxes in Finland than I do here in Canada.

It dumbfounds me that people look to Europe or Canada as a model for how the US should operate their social programs. Opposition to government healthcare has little to do with death panels or a lack of compassion. Liberals think if they beat those drums loud enough they can drown out more legitimate opposing arguments.

Like the fact that this is taking a large chunk of the private sector away from big corporations and giving it to a much bigger, less efficient corporation with mandatory buy-in. I know it's a fairly uniquely American view, but I'm willing to pay more for health insurance if it means smaller government and keeping innovation profitable.

I'm all for enabling everybody to stave off death for a bit longer, but absolutely not at any cost. What's that overused Franklin quote that always crops up during discussions about the government? Something like "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither". That applies to more than the PATRIOT act.

But that's the thing - people are often having to choose between paying for healthcare or paying their bills. This is essentially allowing richer folks to be healthier and probably happier (debatable) than the poorer person that paid to get her anti-depressants, but now is short on her rent...and prob. depressed about that.
Or paid to have a roof over her head, but sacrificed her $200+ a month meds so she wouldn't be living out of a shelter.
In either situation, she's not getting to live how she would like: both healthy *and* happy. And that's seriously phucked up.
It reminds me of some quote about how you can only judge a country by how the poorest or lowest of its citizens are living. And if a large amount of people are struggling to balance life and healthcare bills while there are some who can b***h about shelling out a little more so that their fellow citizens (not even people of another country, this isn't handouts for some unknowns but to help your friend next door), well then something's wrong and people need to really re-evaluate what matters.

Since the current system in US is vastly inferior compared to European and Canadian systems, what's wrong with learning from nations that already know how to manage health care?

If not fixing a problem costs more than fixing it would, why do people stubbornly fight against fixing it? That's what's dumbfounding in the whole debate.

You do know that reformed healthcare is actually more efficient than the current system, right?

The current system is selling a shoddier product for more money. Who would want to pay more for lower quality?

The reformed system isn't taking over healthcare by the way. Its only going to have a public option in insurance, which the CBO calculates will have higher premiums than many private insurance schemes.
So its not medical innovation that's being stifled. I would argue that this reform doesn't stifle any kind of innovation.

The assumption that the current insurance companies have some sort of magical efficiency is not based on facts. I think that if reform passes, it will do a lot to help the economy in the long run. If it doesn't pass, I don't have much hope for the long term future of the economy.


Don't let the Republicans get their hands on my healthcare!

I think that too much inequality(or in any case, processes that contribute to the creation of this inequality), especially the kind of inequality that we have now, with some people siphoning off growth that would go to others under normal circumstances, creates negative externalities. The people who create them should pay for them, as is just an proper and necessary for efficiency.

Canadians regularly jump out of line and head south to take advantage of our "shoddy product".

History shows us that medical innovation comes from the private sector. It's not logical to assume that the government pumping trillions into direct competition to insurance companies wouldn't negatively affect those businesses. Remember, part of the efficiency calculation is the innovation that profitable companies bring; it's not just money in, healthcare out. The government, which has zero financial incentive to innovate, will have a distinct competitive advantage. And that's a bad, bad thing.

All that is beside my main point anyway. I'll never support a new program that forces us to give up a chunk of our financial independence so the government can meddle in yet another area of our lives.

Goodness of a health care system is a sum of its overall quality, its availability to the citizens, and its cost. All that considered, you don't find worse health care in any other industrialized nation in the world than that of US.

You're already giving up a chunk of your financial independence as a result of your poor health care and lack of social security and support systems.

Not actually true- in fact, its just the reverse!

Like I said, the government will only do anything with healthcare related insurance, not the actual healthcare. Insurance companies don't research medical technologies.

How is it going to give away financial independence away? Like I already said, it will only be a public option, and the CBO predicts that it will have higher premiums than many private insurers. There are many examples of private companies competing successfully with the government.

EDIT: this:

and this:

By the way, what do you think of the Singaporean health care system? I'm trying to find reliable statistics about it, but I'm finding lots of conflicting sources. And I don't know how any of those statistics were measured, who/what was counted, etc.