Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']Here's the thing though - just because Myke doesn't feel it will help improve the situation doesn't mean it won't. Myke *thinks* it won't help - which is fine, he's allowed to think whatever he wants. I'm simply asking why it would hurt.

I wonder if Myke would support legislation that would prohibit individuals from one state buying *anything* from another state. I mean, surly being allowed to buy something from out of state doesn't help anyone, right?[/QUOTE]

I'll sub in for him. The insurance companies will simply based their operations in the state or states that sides with them more often.
 
You're a fucking moron who can't answer a simple question without resorting to some sort of so-far-beyond-contrived-it-gives-me-a-headache-to-read-your-idiotic-posts allegory.

I bet you rocked the simile section in the SAT and shit the bed on the essay portion.

EDIT: More or less, foc. lowest-common-denominator and all that.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well then why don't we just do away with our government, and just vote on a king every four years?

While we are at it, let's make sure they pass all the academic and political tests we can come up with before they can be voted on - to ensure they truly know what's best for us more than "the average citizen" does.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good. Where do we sign up?

The less influence the unwashed, under-educated masses have on things the better. What we have now is essentially a more sophisticated version of pandering to the mob in Rome.
 
Myke - can you find it somewhere, deep within yourself, to carry on a conversation with someone you disagree with without resorting to cursing and name calling? Because if that's your default position, I'm not even sure why you're here except to scream "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG I'M AWESOME BOW DOWN TO ME!!!" into the darkness so that you can feel better about yourself.
 
Cross my heart and hope to die, I'll be nice if you can stop arguing in terms of allegory, because it's ridiculous and fallacious - and dodges the issue at hand, more importantly. Your persistent inability to argue without resorting to allegory is a fucking nightmare, because it means you parry more than you engage, and yet you do this and think of yourself as a reasonable individual capable of holding a conversation. Which isn't really true.
 
Myke - I'm not asking you to be nice - just civil. Please, speak up when you disagree and tell me I'm wrong when I'm wrong. All I ask is that you do it in a civil - i.e.: non-flaming - manner.

While I do commonly use one situation to lead into another, in this case, I'm not. the idea of opening up the market to more competition is a good one - and there's little reason to allow states to individually interfere in interstate commerce in such a specific category of the market place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']From a quick google, it looks like they have multiple claim processing centers in some states, and several states came up. So I'm guessing that the answer is that they do probably have at least one in each state.

It would be too hard to have one for the whole country (or a few in each region), given how policies vary from state to state. Too difficult to train employees to know a bunch of different policies for various states.[/QUOTE]

Each BC/BS is completely autonomous from one another. Aside from the fact that they share the same brand name, they do not share a common management structure. Some are for-profit, some are not-for profit, most are private but some are even publicly traded companies.
 
Bob I know this sounds crazy but if you want to be treated courteously maybe you should try arguing something in good faith for once.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll help with this deadlock.

You answered your own question. If a course of action isn't going to improve the situation, then it can be deferred until the courses of action that will improve the situation have been exhausted.

For example, a public option versus buying insurance across state lines (BIASL). In a public option, the uninsurables such as Joliet Jake simply get some measure of coverage. In BIASL, they get to apply for insurance (and probably denied) to hundreds of companies instead of tens of companies. BIASL helps people like Joliet Jake realize he can't receive insurance anywhere and receive more paper for starting fires, but it doesn't cause anymore coverage.

I'm sure somebody has pointed this out, but BIASL will simply allow all insurance companies to relocate to state with laws more in their favor much in the same way that most credit card companies relocated to Delaware.[/QUOTE]
I'll need the paper for burning when i end up in a box on the street.

IT pisses me off that i can get help from the government to go to school, yet i can't get any help for health care. As a college student, i don't have the money to lay down $100 every time i need to see my doctor, plus the Rx cost. Since i know someone will ask, no i can't get on my parent's insurance.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Each BC/BS is completely autonomous from one another. Aside from the fact that they share the same brand name, they do not share a common management structure. Some are for-profit, some are not-for profit, most are private but some are even publicly traded companies.[/QUOTE]

Since there appears to be more than one CEO of BC/BS, I'm going to say you are correct.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']the idea of opening up the market to more competition is a good one - and there's little reason to allow states to individually interfere in interstate commerce in such a specific category of the market place.[/QUOTE]

What are you basing this on?

Assuming the country went with opening up the market...

1. What would be the time frame for determining success? Do we give the industry five years or fifty years?

2. What would be the threshold for determining success? Is the US staying at 37th place good enough? Is the US rising to 30th place good enough? Is the US falling to 50th place good enough?

3. What would be the consequence of failure? Will every interstate operator hand over all profits? Will every interstate operator be forced to go with no insurance for themselves and all of their workers for ten years? Will a public option be mandated?

...

I'm not opposed to opening up the market if there were no better ideas out there. Unfortunately, a public option appears to be working in dozens of other countries already.
 
Again - I'm not against a public option. I wouldn't be opposed to offering a public option side-by-side with opening the insurance market to interstate commerce.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Since there appears to be more than one CEO of BC/BS, I'm going to say you are correct.[/QUOTE]

Health care is my business. On these facts, I know I'm correct.

The problem with this issue is that everyone has strong opinions but very few have a good handle on all the facts, this being just a single example. On one hand, the issues are actually a lot simpler than people make it out to be. However, how the different factors in delivering health care affect one another are very complex. It's not simply the "evil" insurance companies or the "evil pharmaceutical companies." The problems are systemic and it's going to take a lot more than a simple wave of the hand by the government to provide coverage from everyone. You have to have a sustainable reimbursement process that is fair to providers which we don't have. You have to provide an environment for doctors to practice proper medicine without the "cover your ass" mentality which we don't have. You have provide incentives for patients to actually see their doctors on a regular basis from preventative care rather than focusing on acute care which is high inefficient. The health care bill does none of this and actually adds a moral hazard for hospitals to turn away patients and for patients to delay seeking care until they are sick.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'll need the paper for burning when i end up in a box on the street.

IT pisses me off that i can get help from the government to go to school, yet i can't get any help for health care. As a college student, i don't have the money to lay down $100 every time i need to see my doctor, plus the Rx cost. Since i know someone will ask, no i can't get on my parent's insurance.[/QUOTE]

If you got care that would offend the market gods.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The health care bill does none of this and actually adds a moral hazard for hospitals to turn away patients and for patients to delay seeking care until they are sick.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how you picture this as a moral hazard. You describe it as a financial hazard, since that's what's being risked to provide care.

This, ironically, is framed as a financial hazard but has clear tones of a moral hazard as well, unlike your argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html?_r=1

The shitty health care bill passed this morning. ZERO Republicans voted for it, despite it being neutered to their liking (though they would never admit as much). Politics Over People, Party Over Country: Your Republican Party in 2009.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't see how you picture this as a moral hazard. You describe it as a financial hazard, since that's what's being risked to provide care.

This, ironically, is framed as a financial hazard but has clear tones of a moral hazard as well, unlike your argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html?_r=1

The shitty health care bill passed this morning. ZERO Republicans voted for it, despite it being neutered to their liking (though they would never admit as much). Politics Over People, Party Over Country: Your Republican Party in 2009.[/QUOTE]

This is the moral hazard I'm talking about. I'm not sure what you were alluding to in your statement.

Okay, let's put forth a common scenario which I'm sure many people here might face.

Under either plan, everyone is forced to get health coverage or else pay a fine (either 2.5% tax or $750 depending on what ends up in the final bill). Also under this plan, insurers cannot adjust their rates for pre-existing conditions, only age. So regardless if you are healthy or sick as can be, you would pay the same rate.

So being a young, healthy, uninsured person with limited resources, what would be the logical course of action? Pay thousands out of pocket to purchase insurance while I'm healthy, or simply take the fine and wait until I get sick, then buy insurance? Since I can't be turned away later on and will pay the same rate, the logical course of action would be to take the hit and wait until something catastrophic happens and then buy insurance. This then overburdens insurers, since the only way they can stay in business is if there are enough healthy people in their insurance pool to cover the payouts for those who are sick. If the exact opposite behavior is encouraged, then insurers have to jack up premiums for everyone and in turn leads to a vicious cycle reinforcing that behavior and actually ends up driving up costs significantly.

It's a poorly conceived plan through and through. I have no clue how the government thinks this plans saves money aside from shaking down the pharmaceutical and medical device companies and making drastic cuts to Medicare and payments to providers. None of these measures are sustainable solutions. I'm just as disgusted with the Republicans because they're clueless and are against the plan for all the wrong reasons by raising a stink about non-issues (death panels? abortion? who cares?). That's why as a doctor, seeing this bill pass is like having a front row seat on a runaway train about to head off a cliff while everyone else around me is high-fiving each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moral hazard compared to what?

Using an ER as healthcare of last resort?

No one is gonna cry if a health insurance company loses a bit of money.
 
Yes, actually, people will. When the insurers start to lose money/profit, they'll begin rationing care and/or raising premiums.

Furthermore, when it comes down to actually making cuts to Medicare, does anybody really think that our government will really cut over 400 billion in Medicare payments? There's not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening; which makes this bill anything but "deficit neutral (which it isn't, anyway)," and will lead to not only the government handing out more money to insurance companies, but also citizens, by way of increased premiums.

Myke, what you mentioned earlier about states' rights when referring to the opt out of abortion isn't a good example of states' rights in action. What's the point in opting out of federal funding of abortion in your state when you will still be taxed for those services that will be covered in other states?
 
We spend so much more on healthcare than other countries with so little to show for it that I have no doubt we can trim trillions over the years and show better or at least the same results.
 
I disagree, in a sense. Nobody in the first-world comes close to our obesity rates, and cutting costs isn't going to fix that problem. If we didn't encourage obesity in our society, we could certainly cut costs and be fine. Problem is, how do we discourage people from becoming/staying obese?

A good way to reduce government costs on a general level would have been to draw down our foreign policy budget (we can cut it in half and still outspend almost every country in the world combined, if memory serves me correctly), and use some of those savings to help with healthcare/infrastructure. If ever we were to cut back on our foreign policy, I think now would have been the time to do it.
 
Are we fat bastards?

Yes.

Are we spending twice or thrice as much on healthcare as others because we are fat bastards?

Not so much.

A true universal system and an emphasis on public health might be a huge step in fixing the problem.
 
Again the solution isn't as simple has simply "universal health care."

In countries with nationalized health care, access to providers is far more restricted. Also care for disorders that are deemed ineffective relative to the cost, like dementia, is often not covered. Thirdly, and a major point that is overlooked, all countries with nationalized health care have caps on malpractice damages, since the government, in effect is the defendant. An award over a million dollars is unheard of in Canada and England but int he U.S., multi-million dollar judgments are fairly common. However, the U.S. has never made any significant push for tort reform which is clearly necessary to make a dent in keeping costs down. Yet, we would rather cut services to the elderly. Just doesn't make sense.
 
As far as I know FoC the CBO hasn't scored it.

There still isn't any doubt it would be better than the monstrosity that is going to pass.
 
Tort reform would barely be a scratch let alone a dent to the juggernaut that is health care costs in America.

Not that there couldn't be some worthwhile savings, but for the most part it is just something cons say so they can pretend they are contributing to the conversation.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit

I love how all these Republicans come out and defend their own entitlement program that had no way of paying for itself but ridicule one that does provide some mechanism to pay for itself. It boggles the mind that the Republican party wants to be the party of borrow and spend when it is in power but hates it when the other guy wants to tax and spend to achieve their goals.

It also drives me crazy that this is the party of the no bid contract and the party whose entitlement bill was a significant increase in government power. Their trainwreck was so fiscally irresponsible that it drives me up the wall that they even have the nerve to criticize the works of others when they took every precaution to screw over the American taxpayer.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Tort reform would barely be a scratch let alone a dent to the juggernaut that is health care costs in America.

Not that there couldn't be some worthwhile savings, but for the most part it is just something cons say so they can pretend they are contributing to the conversation.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so me evidence that this would be so since everything else suggests the contrary.

Physicians in high risk specialties have to pay premiums that are up to a third of their income to cover malpractice premiums. Two thirds of all physicians get sued for malpractice at least once in their career, but less than a third of cases that go to court lead to a verdict in favor of the plantiff. It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a major opportunity here to reduce frivolous lawsuits and therefore provider costs in this area which then get passed along to patients. It also would encourage better access to specialties that are seeing shortages due to malpractice concerns. And lastly, every major nationalized health plan in the world has caps on malpractice damages so it seems to me this would be a vital cog in reducing costs. I wouldn't even need a cap, just a "loser pays" system without much effort.

Of course many of our lawmakers made their fortunes in suing doctors (hello John Edwards), so they're not about to make any changes to their fallback plan when they get voted out of office. Not to mention that the Trial Lawyers Association is one of the biggest lobbying groups in the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit

I love how all these Republicans come out and defend their own entitlement program that had no way of paying for itself but ridicule one that does provide some mechanism to pay for itself. It boggles the mind that the Republican party wants to be the party of borrow and spend when it is in power but hates it when the other guy wants to tax and spend to achieve their goals.

It also drives me crazy that this is the party of the no bid contract and the party whose entitlement bill was a significant increase in government power. Their trainwreck was so fiscally irresponsible that it drives me up the wall that they even have the nerve to criticize the works of others when they took every precaution to screw over the American taxpayer.[/QUOTE]


You know damn well we aren't supposed to talk about that. Everything Republicans do is in the name of FREEDOM and we can't criticize their moderate standpoints and views.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

It isn't that there are literally zero savings to be had but in the context of how much is spent on healthcare in this country it is practically nothing and completely out of proportion to how often it is touted as a solution.[/QUOTE]

One guy's opinion is hardly irrefutable evidence. Perhaps the number of claims has remained the same, which I do not contest, but he mentions nothing about the hidden costs of out-of-court settlements which is the predominant end result in most malpractice claims. Even if a claim is relatively unsubstantiated, in most cases, it's settled out of court. Implement a loser-pays system and that problem would go away.
 
I know that neurosurgeons in New York State have to pay $1 million in malpractice. That's one MILLION before they even have to pay for overhead, nurses, secretaries, advertising, etc.

Somehow, they still make out like bandits. That's just in New York but that's one example of the enormous cost that gets passed onto consumers.
 
[quote name='Paco']You know damn well we aren't supposed to talk about that. Everything Republicans do is in the name of FREEDOM and we can't criticize their moderate standpoints and views.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, now, most of us don't like the Republicans either.

Is there anyone here really willing to stand up for the current Republicans in office (outside of Ron Paul, that is)...?
 
[quote name='dopa345']One guy's opinion is hardly irrefutable evidence.[/quote]

I have yet to see anything showing that if extraneous lawsuits were done away with (one way or another) there would be more than 1 or 2 percent (if that) of the problem i.e. very little in savings for how much this talked about.

So instead of healthcare costs outpacing gains in income five times it would be the tiniest fraction lower than that.

The reason why IMHO this is bandied about so much is because it lets certain people pretend as if they are contributing something worthwhile to the conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ruined']Bottom line is that the government rarely does anything right/well. If they play a larger role in healthcare, my educated guess is that healthcare for most will go down the toilet.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I am not a fan of what we have now and Congress should make changes to encourage competition (across state health insurance) which in turn will foster a better environment for personal choice.

My biggest problem with a government run system is that government programs never seems to go away even if they are not doing so hot. A health tax would just be another way for the government to take your money and do what it wants just like it does with Social Security and Medicare (takes the money going to those programs and uses it for something else).

Encourage competition to reduce prices of health insurance
Implement Tort Reform to reduce insurance costs for doctors and therefore reduce the cost to see a doctor
Reduce the cost of going to Med School
Encourage more competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry
Encourage everyone to watch the Jersey Shore
 
[quote name='LaMeRz']...Congress should make changes to encourage competition (across state health insurance) which in turn will foster a better environment for personal choice.[/quote]


Speaking of non solutions...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit

I love how all these Republicans come out and defend their own entitlement program that had no way of paying for itself but ridicule one that does provide some mechanism to pay for itself. It boggles the mind that the Republican party wants to be the party of borrow and spend when it is in power but hates it when the other guy wants to tax and spend to achieve their goals.

It also drives me crazy that this is the party of the no bid contract and the party whose entitlement bill was a significant increase in government power. Their trainwreck was so fiscally irresponsible that it drives me up the wall that they even have the nerve to criticize the works of others when they took every precaution to screw over the American taxpayer.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you should direct that animosity toward both parties. Both parties have done what you say, and worse.

1. The health-care plans that passed the House and Senate don't pay for themselves, despite politicians' lies to the contrary.

2. Democrats are one of the two main parties of "borrow and spend" - witness the record deficit this year, "stimulus" bill, bailouts, etc etc.

3. Democrats have embraced no-bid contracts just as much as Republicans, as long as they go to their political allies. Or even outright grants/gifts, as in the $6 million to 2 Democratic political strategists.

4. If you want fiscal irresponsibility, look no further than the budget proposed by Barack Obama and passed by the Democratic Congress, which projects $1 trillion + deficits in perpetuity.

As you say, Republicans do the same thing when they are in power, just in a different way, so when they criticize I tend to think "you're right, they're fucking things up...but you did the same thing just a few years back when you were in power, assholes!"
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sounds like you should direct that animosity toward both parties. Both parties have done what you say, and worse.[/quote]

You are so full of it.

1. The health-care plans that passed the House and Senate don't pay for themselves, despite politicians' lies to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You are so full of it.

The Public Option bill was deficit neutral and even if the current bill isn't they at least made an effort to offset the costs unlike the Republican go at it which was entirely thrown on the W Visa.

You guys have zero credibility.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sounds like you should direct that animosity toward both parties. Both parties have done what you say, and worse.

1. The health-care plans that passed the House and Senate don't pay for themselves, despite politicians' lies to the contrary.

2. Democrats are one of the two main parties of "borrow and spend" - witness the record deficit this year, "stimulus" bill, bailouts, etc etc.

3. Democrats have embraced no-bid contracts just as much as Republicans, as long as they go to their political allies. Or even outright grants/gifts, as in the $6 million to 2 Democratic political strategists.

4. If you want fiscal irresponsibility, look no further than the budget proposed by Barack Obama and passed by the Democratic Congress, which projects $1 trillion + deficits in perpetuity.

As you say, Republicans do the same thing when they are in power, just in a different way, so when they criticize I tend to think "you're right, they're fucking things up...but you did the same thing just a few years back when you were in power, assholes!"[/QUOTE]

Normally I would agree with you about directing it towards either party, but when you inherit a mess like Bush left it is hard to just write that off and say he should fix all the problems at once. Governments spend money when it comes to trying to avoid recessions and when they spend money at least it gets spent, unlike tax cuts to the rich when they have more incentive to save than spend.

You can't judge an administration walking into the worst recession in 70 years and say that they should have unquestioned fiscal discipline and that they are supposed to wave their magic wand and fix all the problems. If Bush got to blame everything on Clinton after he inherited a surplus, Obama should be cut some slack as a lot of this shit is Bush's fault.

And personally I think the bill for health care is fucked,but only because it doesn't go far enough. Let the government take over and just pay for it by raising taxes. It is the only sane way to drive down costs and insure that everyone is covered and that the level of service offered across the board to all individuals is decent. Doing something is better than nothing and there is no way this bill even comes close to matching how much that handout that the Republicans gave out even if it doesn't meet the projections of being a fiscally solvent bill.
 
Just because the House and Senate bills have a "plan" to pay for themselves, it doesn't mean that it will be sufficient to meet the financial needs to sustain it. After all, Social Security is running huge deficits despite initially conceived to be self-sustaining. Now it's just a huge Ponzi scheme on the brink of falling apart.

What it boils down to is that in order to provide coverage for an additional 13% of the population, the other 87% are going to have worse care or at best the same care with increased out-of-pocket costs, especially those on Medicare. I just don't think this is the most efficient or fair way to do this.

And "doing something" is definitely not better than "doing nothing" when the "something" is going to be an absolute disaster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just annoyed at the fact that each politician is so set with their party. Republican senators, the Democrats attempted compromise, but you just sat there acting like you know everything about health care and how ad the plan is, but you won't give any ideas yourself. Democratic representatives, if the Republicans don't want to play ball, then shove the law through. As long as compromise was attempted and ignored by the Republicans, then I am fine with the Democrats forcing laws through.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Just because the House and Senate bills have a "plan" to pay for themselves, it doesn't mean that it will be sufficient to meet the financial needs to sustain it.[/quote]

Like I said at the very least they tried.

It is politically painful to cut costs because it means someone would be making less money at every part of the process.

You want to get something through to actually make a rational plan start a petition to abolish the Senate.

What it boils down to is that in order to provide coverage for an additional 13% of the population, the other 87% are going to have worse care or at best the same care with increased out-of-pocket costs
Click to expand...

If only there were at least one case study we could look at.

Perhaps all of Western Europe.

I am sorry that other people getting care upsets you so much.

I feel for you.

And "doing something" is definitely not better than "doing nothing" when the "something" is going to be an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...

The system we have now is unsustainable and if there is a word phrase than "absolute disaster" it would apply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Speaking of non solutions...[/QUOTE]

How is competition a non-solution? Look at all the car insurance companies fighting for your business and tell me it would be better if there were only a few expecting your business.
 
[quote name='LaMeRz']How is competition a non-solution? Look at all the car insurance companies fighting for your business and tell me it would be better if there were only a few expecting your business.[/QUOTE]

Having private money making companies "competing" against each other is a non-solution.

Healthcare is different from any commodity and is not equivalent to car insurance in that way.

This sums up my view:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

What it means for insurance companies to compete is just another race to the bottom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Normally I would agree with you about directing it towards either party, but when you inherit a mess like Bush left it is hard to just write that off and say he should fix all the problems at once. Governments spend money when it comes to trying to avoid recessions and when they spend money at least it gets spent, unlike tax cuts to the rich when they have more incentive to save than spend.

You can't judge an administration walking into the worst recession in 70 years and say that they should have unquestioned fiscal discipline and that they are supposed to wave their magic wand and fix all the problems. If Bush got to blame everything on Clinton after he inherited a surplus, Obama should be cut some slack as a lot of this shit is Bush's fault.[/quote]

Every administration inherits shit. Obama inherited shit in some areas (economic/government more than anything) and gits in others (iraq success, despite it being unbelievably costly). Fiscal discipline is exactly what I would advise, as opposed to the failed and discredited Keynesian ideas embraced by those currently in power as a way to funnel payoffs to their political friends. I don't expect anyone to wave a magic wand, but the administration came into office calling for us to grow government bigger and bigger, while taking on more and more debt, as the solution...which was and is a recipe for making things worse (and they did get worse).

[quote name='CaseyRyback']And personally I think the bill for health care is fucked,but only because it doesn't go far enough. Let the government take over and just pay for it by raising taxes. It is the only sane way to drive down costs and insure that everyone is covered and that the level of service offered across the board to all individuals is decent. Doing something is better than nothing and there is no way this bill even comes close to matching how much that handout that the Republicans gave out even if it doesn't meet the projections of being a fiscally solvent bill.[/QUOTE]

I think I agree with you that a government takeover, as much as I oppose it, would probably be preferable to the bills passed by the House and Senate. Those bills are amazingly corrupt, full of payoffs to interest groups and key members of Congress. At least if the government just took it over we'd have to deal with only good old government corruption instead of it fiendishly being injected into every part of the health-care sector and governmental apparatus dealing with health care.

Of course, the government also could have easily accomplished the main goal (covering everybody) at a fraction of the cost, since there are only about 12 million people who are legal residents, but uninsured because they can't afford it. Makes you think that may not have been the goal after all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top