|
On January 26 2011 06:36 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it. Why not?
Read the sentence before it: $$$
|
Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
|
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote:
Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
|
On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument merely by stating that is is "dumb" just does not work. Your opinion about what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
|
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote:
Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
I find it to be a very elegant way of summarizing the incredibly complex issue of regulating health care, which includes, but is not limited to, determining relative access to health care, costs to the insured, reimbursement to providers, and care rationing. Again, the reason why we can't just write a law that says "everyone in the US will have coverage for every medical treatment that they desire" is money.
|
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
I have no idea what you're talking about and I am tempted to say you just haven't been reading the thread. I haven't really heard many talking points at all from the people really participating. It's not like that Scruffy guy is here, and quite frankly the conversation has been pretty damn civil until you came along.
Your post shows naivete and simplicity. Do you know what a ponzi scheme is? As someone who is in favor of health care reform, I ask you not to make the rest of us look bad.
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
|
On January 26 2011 06:47 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote:
Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong? Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
Well, this is a problem. But a necessary feature of a problem is the existance of a solution.
Why not implement a system where the state covers as much healthcare for everyone as possible given s certain budget (e.g. 10-15% of the GDP). You can, then, encourage startegies to maximize the "as possible" level, for example by reducing treatment costs, encouraging (and rewarding) healthy behavior etc. And you can always incorporate add-ons, that is, extra insurance of rthose who are able/willing to pay for services that are not covered by the state.
|
On January 26 2011 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:34 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it. What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true? Because it's not true and demonstrates a laughable ignorance on the matter?
Saying it's not true would be demonstrating a laughable understanding of the history of the bill's arguments against before it was passed. A large portion of the country was uninsured, the insurance industry is out to make profits with the bottom tier of the triangle actually running into problems receiving what they paid for. It's quite obvious that people in the business for profit are not going to be completely honest if they can get away with screwing people out of it.
You're also trying to refute the fact that people will do anything to protect their AMURICAN way of life as if it were superior(AKA arguments against Canadian, French, British healthcare). American exceptionalism? I think so. Americans are too ignorant to understand our system has its flaws and that a universal system would not be American or socialist or anything else they can show that has a negative connotation in the states.
I have to say this: Watch some news, bro.
|
On January 26 2011 06:47 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote:
Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong? Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
I know that the there is a CBO report which is a bipartisan group which says the health-care reform will reduce the defecit by a hundred billion I think so this would seem to show it is more affordable than the previous medicaid scheme. I have never heard of the term 'health rationing'; is that like you can only use insurance for certain conditions?
|
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
|
On January 26 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong. LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out? Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
Closed doors.
As if the final bill wasn't posted before voting and you can't understand the reasoning behind why things are in the bill.
Oh wait.
Actually, now that I think of it, you're probable unable to comprehend it given your inability to read what I posted earlier without rambling about something irrelevant.
|
Bill won't pass through anyway, the senate will shut it down. All the huss and fuss about this is pointless. It's nice to see the Republicans actually doing what they said they were gonna do if they got elected, but as has been brought up many times already, they aren't really. It won't pass through Senate, and there's no chance in hell Obama is gonna let it go through. The reform will come, no matter how much people don't want it to, because just as many if not more US citizens do want it.
I consider myself moderate btw.
|
On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
The budget is nothing more than a skirt to hide behind. If any of you cared about the budget, you'd be hounding congress to fix social security and medicare. Americans simply have this idea that "it's mine and fuck you if you want some too". This became blazingly obvious when the tea party rolled in, with their signs about "get your government hands off my medicare". Or michelle bachmanns farm subsidies, or any of the other hypocrisies that "conservatives" like to brush under the carpet. It's fine if WE (the chosen few, the deserving) get some sort of government aid, but to hell with those other guys who want it. That's what the right has turned into. It's been a long fall from grace since the eisenhower days.
|
On January 26 2011 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:36 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it. Why not? Read the sentence before it: $$$
Could you give me a non biased source which shows a complete (both cost and gain)price analysis of the healthcare reform?
And could you compare it to the costs of the wars in iraq/aghanistan.
|
On January 26 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong. LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
Sorry. This was not specifically directed towards you, I could have taken any other post that contains a form of "you are stupid" but yours was closest to the end of the thread. I may agree with your conclusion but I prefer if an opinion i backed up by rational arguments. And once people start insulting each other over irreconcilable ideologies it is hard to turn back.
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
A good point. However, this is an empiricial question. I assume that answering this would require not to temper with the current system for some time and evaluating the consequences then (always keeping in mind that correlation is not neccessarily causal).
|
On January 26 2011 05:53 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:41 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 05:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore. You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies. Dear Monkey, how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate. In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on. So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant? My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it. This is what psychologists call a classical projection. Is there the possibility that you merely subsrcibe to another sort of propaganda? Just saying because your arguments are in no way new or extraordinary to me but merely based on a fundamentally different ideology. With regards to understanding them, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the internal consistency of your arguments (i.e. understanding them logically) and understanding why you hold those views (lets call that a moral or socio-emotionjal level). Show nested quote +
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
Well, sorry to hear that people in the US enjoy not paying their bills at the cost of doctors and ultimately the patients. On the other hand, that does not limit the validity of my point in any way.
Yeah, anything is possible, and of course they are not new to you. Why would they be? I hold my "views" because they are true, anyone who does not, does not understand, and does not see.
Oh and it's not individuals not paying their bills that creates the big risk for doctors, the risk comes from insurance companies looking for technicalities to not pay for claims. Dealing with insurance claims is basically a game. Individual payments are a tiny fraction of how a doctor gets paid.
|
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote:
Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
That's because they'll be making 100x more money if it's privatized. They can, will, and still do deny healthcare to people, even if they are insured. "Sorry, your healthcare plan doesn't cover that". I had to go in for a surgery, I know. Now I'm paying it out of my own pockets.
|
On January 26 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:35 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again. Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them. WRU critical thinking? Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
You think you know who the government spies on?
|
On January 26 2011 06:58 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong. LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out? On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now. Closed doors. As if the final bill wasn't posted before voting and you can't understand the reasoning behind why things are in the bill. Oh wait. Actually, now that I think of it, you're probable unable to comprehend it given your inability to read what I posted earlier without rambling about something irrelevant.
No, actually I noticed that you completely ducked the rather difficult and highly relevant issue of whether the individual mandate is constitutional stating, amusingly, "I don't care."
For the record, I seem to recall the final bill being drafted exclusively by Democrats behind closed doors, which was then posted, in its 2000+ pages of glory, approximately 2-3 days before it was voted upon. I may be off a little bit on the numbers, but it's close enough to get the point across. I actually have read the bill, and I assure you that it's not possible to understand it enough to vote on it with only a few days notice. In fact, that was the running joke at the time it was voted on....
|
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
