What am I supposed to learn from that article? All I read was a reinforcement of my belief that the insurance companies are merciless. You want to call the mercy charity, that's fine by me, it's just semantics and doesn't contradict what I said at all.

You are an extremist though. The vast majority of people who are opposing health care reform right now are doing so because they believe the system DOES  protect anyone who isn't so obstinate that they refuse to help themslves. They're Christians who don't want to see people suffer. You have a much more fatalistic and callous approach. The official party line of the republicans is not "fuck em, we can't afford it." The official line is a lost of posturing about how we can get insurance to the people who don't have it and no plan on how to get us there.

Honestly find me a respectable authority on the matter then, because everywhere I've looked I've only found numbers on preventable deaths, infant mortality, percentage of population insured, frequency of preventitive care, etc. and we're nowhere near the top.

I trust free markets more than politicians.

You want to jail prosecutors and judges when defendants are declared innocent? What hope would you have of a fair trial if you were falsely accused and if you were acquitted the judge and prosecutors could have their asses thrown in jail?So if a cop botches an investigation or spoils a crime scene because he's new or because he's been doing his job for 15 years and made a mistake he should go to jail? Go ask some police officers what they think of that kind of logic.

You do know what a felony is right? There already is a law against planting evidence so we don't have to tack it onto a reverse sentence punishing people whenever someone is set free, who would have guessed?

Did you? You act like you didn't realize there was already a law against planting evidence and as though it's a good idea to send judges to jail when people are sent free? You do realize from time to time innocent people stand trial, right?

Trust it to do what?  Give a shit about you? You might be surprised.

 

This is very true... the government has a huge list of departments with longterm histories of being poorly managed and should not take on a new MAJOR responsibility.  If you have a student in college earning below average grades you don't go signing him up with more classes!   

Obscenitor, you have absolutely no sense of humor.  You fail at life.  Welcome to the club.

 

 

Are you saying politicians give a shit about us?  I kinda think Bush Jr. actually did and was just too fucking stupid for the job in the end, but I really doubt we've had a president since Reagan that didn't have self interests first and foremost when going for the job, and he'd be questionable at best.  I'd have to go back to Lincoln to be relatively sure of myself, and the founders to stake my name on it.  I'm damned certain the ratio is even worse in congress, and local politics are nearly as bad as federal.

 

I trust the companies that survive mutual competition to play to my self interests in meeting my expectations on a product by as much as I can hope for.  It's in their best interests to keep their customers instead of losing them to someone else.  The government doesn't have any competition, and we don't have an honest media to keep track of them, never have.

Don't pull a Carlos Mencia on me. Make a funny joke before you evaluate my sense of humor.The kicker on your closing line is that our media is owned by massive corporations. Competition with each other hasn't produced better news, it's only gotten worse as those corporations have been further deregulated. Corporations by their very nature have no interest in public well being and need sunlight just as badly as the government.

 

Very simple.

The right and the obstructionists are motivated by money/greed/selfishness.

The left is motivated by the sense that healthcare is a right and should not be distributed based on a persons class or that people should be placed in classes to begin with.

The US is the Great Whore. We have the best whore doctors in the world, the best whore research scientists, the best whore corporations, the best whore CEO's. No one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves. If people die because they don't have enough money then it's just too fucking bad.

Very simple.

I personally would like to see a government run system in the United States for several reasons:

 

1) It is the government's job to provide health care. In article I, section 8 of the constitution, it states that congress has the power to provide for the "general welfare" (welfare as defined as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" when the constitution was written). The fact of the matter is that the federal government already does do this, but to a lesser extent via Medicare, SCHIP, and the VA. Of those, the VA affects me the most personally because they actually payed for a private flight all the way accross the country to his home for my grandfather (84) after getting a bad stroke.

 

2) A government run system would not be for-profit. One of the main problems with the current system is that workers at health insurance companies get a larger paycheck based upon how many people they deny coverage. Contrast that with NHS in Britian which gives doctors pay raises based upon how many people they get to quit smoking, lose weight, etc. A not-for-profit system would also streamline the administrative costs. I think that in the current system, they're around 16%, whereas in other countries they're around 6%.

 

3) Health care for everyone means higher quality health for you. Take any disease as an example. If everyone was doing regular checkups, which people tend not to do now due to having a copay) people would be receiving feedback more often on how healthy they are, getting suggestions from the doctor, etc. If said person became healthier, they would be less likely to contract a disease. So if he was sitting next to you on the bus, you in turn would be less likely to contract the disease, clearly making you healthier.

 

Personally, I would like to see a creation of a government beaurocracy that would be like an HMO, but anyone could apply and be accepted. In this system, a customer would only pay his or her monthly bill, and everything health-related would subsidized. In turn, people would go to the doctor more often, guiding them closer to a healthier lifestyle (of course limits would be placed on such regular check ups)

As this kind of system grows based on a percentage of the American population, it would begin to raise taxes slightly while reducing the premiums for the customers. This would eventually result in a gradual phase-in of such a system where the system would start off with competition right off the bat, and as it became better, more people would switch over, making it more firmly rooted.

In addition, a payment constraint could be put on its growth -- say once 20% of the population uses it, it starts taking 25% of the total payments from taxes and then a bill goes out to congress as whether to leave it as is, or continue it's augmentation of funding via taxes.

I feel that in the end taxpayers should be the primary supporters for the system (once most people start using it) because taxes and government spending are a "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" method wheras insurance premiums aren't.

I'm sorry, but you still don't make sense. Maybe deliberatly or because you never thought this through. And you also don't provide an answer regarding the topic.

Yes, it matters what you control. Even as a rhetoric question this comes over eminently stupid, sorry. And no, your response wasn't complicated. But you apparently think you stated some self-evident truth, which you didn't.

Why would the government want control over something that is essentially a burden? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm asking after the motives. In the past the government relinquished control over the financial market because it believed the private sector would do better without government interference (and maybe some other motives).

So, come on, why would - In your opinion - the government want control over the health care sector?

---

Note to certain others: This is no town hall meeting.

Stop derailing the thread with pointless off-topic rants.

---

 

What I don't get......why is there a left and right on the issue of "healthcare for one and all" in the first place?  

 

It seems to me, that political allegiances shouldn't be able to come between even the desire to (as a Nation) be able to provide basic healthcare for one and all.  I find it strange that people can't seem to unite over such a desire.

Obviously plans on how such a system could be implemented might differ largely, but the desire to see such a system should be the driving motivation in all involved.  In Canada's case, we do obviously also have differing opinions thrown at us from the various political parties, but I do think it is evident that although the parties are each prepared to suggest modifications to the existing healthcare system, no party/person would ever suggest to cease providing (at least) basic healthcare to all citizens. 

 

the Monk

Because they made it so.

If the left succeeds in the health care reform then it gains political credit in the eyes of the people, which equals a decline in power for the american right. So they have to oppose the left on that issues, no matter how many corpses they'll leave in their wake.

It's a strategic decision.

Arrodo you might want to hold on to your neutrality.

 

 

@luhy. All train companies are kept afloat by the goverment. All of them. Also you only pointed out how other goverment run companies failed not how the healthcare one is better right now than the private ones.

How is the Government inefficient? And your Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it.

 

Some lunatics even brought guns to a recent demonstration against Obama in Pheonix.

How is our government inefficient? Just count the ways.

 

"Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it"

With how much of our earnings, and to how many generations?

Government being broke IS!!!!!! the issue!

Get a CLUE!!!!