Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Something like that. Either these guys are really clueless or think they think we are. Maybe some of both.

---

The whole point of ramming this down our throats quickly without giving us a chance to look into it was so that we would remain clueless. That's been Obama's MO from day one.

Now that the process has been slowed down, the more we check into it, the more it smells like rotten fish. He and the Dems had been hoping we wouldn't get a whiff, and that he could hide the rot under a mask.

But the mask is off and the smell is pretty strong. And instead of getting some fresher fish to sell, Obama is still trying to sell us the rot.

Elliot

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.

But--it's because I'm selfish.

I worked very hard to get where I am financially. I'm not rich, but I no longer live paycheck to paycheck. I held off having kids until I could afford them. I paid off my debt, and got rid of my cell phone, cable, and got a library card.

Yes, there should be medical programs to help those who have fallen on hard luck through no fault of their own.

BUT---I can't feel sorry for people who can't go to the doctor to get a pregnancy test because they can't afford it because they already have 4 kids. I can't feel sorry for people who are homeless, doing drugs, and detiorating their OWN health.

Yet---I'm in the highest tax bracket for my income range. Until this year, we didn't have a house to write off. We still don't have kids to write off. Why should I have to wait longer to see a doctor (like it is in countries with social health care) because everyone ELSE has a complaint too? Why should I PAY to have to wait longer to see the doctor?

Screw that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.Why should I PAY to have to wait longer to see the doctor?

---

Hello Syn:

I can't believe it either... But, don't let them fool you anymore... You know how your insurance company writes a check to the doctor?? That's how the government will do it. I don't think you'll have to wait any longer... That's what the RIGHTY'S say, but they have NO evidence to back it up - NONE - they ain't got DIDDLY!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.

---

I knew there was someone in there somewhere that didn't always have to disagree with me ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Syn:

I can't believe it either.... But, don't let them fool you anymore.... You know how your insurance company writes a check to the doctor??? That's how the government will do it. I don't think you'll have to wait any longer... That's what the RIGHTY'S say, but they have NO evidence to back it up - NONE - they ain't got DIDDLY!

excon

---

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.

---

Hello again, Synn:

That IS the question, of course... I don't know if the government WILL be able to manage the health care budget, or not. I DO know that it's a DOABLE job. To wit. We spend twice as much as any other western nation in the world, and we're not TWICE as healthy. As a matter of fact, we're FAR from the healthiest...

So, is there waste in the system that can be cleared out?? Duh!! Will the billions earned by the health insurance companies help? Sure. Do I KNOW that that's what will happen?

NO - primarily, because there's no bill on the table, and there doesn't look like there's even going to be one. So, the info I provided above would be for an excon's WISH health care system.

What I DO know, is that if we don't fix it, it will BANKRUPT us.

excon

The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.

I grew up poor, I was poor in my 20s, and now I'm solidly middle class in my 30s.

If *I* can do it, so can other people. It's just how much they're willing to work and sacrifice to do so---and many are willing to work, but few are willing to sacrifice.

I am not a good person, though. I have absolutely no problem with people living on the streets, starving, whatever. People should go to their FAMILIES first. Then they should go to their CHURCH. The government should be the LAST place they go, and seriously? It SHOULD be shameful to pay with food stamps or medical vouchers or whatever else the government hands out.

Essentially I'm saying this: If the mom in front of me at the grocery store who is paying for food with food stamps, but is wearing all designer clothing gets the SAME benefits I do, without the sacrifice---what the hell is the point of trying to get ahead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.

---

Hello again, Synn:

It's got NOTHING to do with that... We don't accuse people of asking the government to "help them out" when they drive on the highway, or flip on a light switch, do we? Of course not.

This debate has to do with pooling our resources for the best possible outcome. We let the government take responsibility for our roads, our fire and police protection... We pool our power needs, water, snow removal and dog catching responsibilities... Health care, as a matter of fact, is just another utility to be shared by all of us.

excon

I don't see MY health care as something that can be better managed by the government.

We're talking about whether I live or die here, not whether I can drive to work, or take a bus, or have electricity to talk to you here on my computer.

I just have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the government can get us out of this problem. How about LESS government interference, and see if THAT works? MORE government interference has simply gotten us to the place we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I don't see MY health care as something that can be better managed by the government. We're talking about whether I live or die here,

---

Hello again, Synn:

Nahhh, we're not. Does the government tell you which road to take?? No it doesn't. It just gives you the roads. What we're talking about here, is who's going to write the check's.

Whether you live or die is STILL going to be between you, your doctor and your maker.

excon

Amazing!

Here I agree (somewhat) with Synnen AND Ex!

That is, if Ex is talking about REAL Co-ops run by private not-for-profit groups.

NOT RUN BY GOVERNMENT.

It has worked for over 100 years for real estate insurance, and the premiums are significantly lower than other insurance companies charge.

Is there any reason why this method would not work for health insurance? Or any other insurance, for that matter.

You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right? So it obviously works for others (like us here). But I agree with you, there's something about the american mentality that probably can't allow this to pass.

Gal ;even the Heritage Foundation favors private co-ops . It's the Schmucky Shumer's gvt run co-op that is a difference without a distinction to the "public option" .

Quote:

---

You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right

---

And what is Medicare and Medicaid ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and what is Medicare and Medicaid ?

---

For all citizens. All.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But I agree with you, there's something about the american mentality that probably can't allow this to pass.

---

Yeah, we kind of like being different, leading instead of following others over the cliff.

All citizens do not need public assistance . Are you saying all citizens in Canada need public assistance ? Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

all citizens do not need public assistance . are you saying all citizens in Canada need public assistance ? pathetic.

---

Silly immature word games tom. It's universal healthcare for all. One less worry in our lives and a healthier population. Works for us, as pathetic as we are. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.

---

Let's do the math, Synnen.

The stated goal of this legislation is to

1) Add 46 million people not currently covered by insurance
2) Eliminate any limitations in health care due to pre-existing conditions

At the same time, based on 60 years of information and data from Medicare, we know that the cost of health care is increasing 35% faster for Medicare than it is for private insurance.

We also know that the government is less efficient than private businesses. The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan arm of Congress) has determined that the administrative costs of running healthcare would be as much as 300% higher than the administrative costs of running the system through private insurance companies. (The Heritage Foundation estimates it at 500%, but let's assume 300% for a low-ball estimate.)

Please explain how we can add tens of millions more people to the system, eliminate any blockages to access currently in the system for pre-existing cconditions, increase operating costs per patient by 35% and increase administrative expenses overall by 300% and expect to pay LESS than we do now?

Even if you plugged the profits that insurance companies take back into the equation, you are only talking about 3.4% profits. That 3.4% plugged back into the system does not offset the 35% increase in operating expenses or the 300% increase in administrative expenses.

I'll admit that the stated goal of the program --- increased access to all, regardless of pre-existing condition or financial condition --- sounds laudible. But it is incompatible with the OTHER stated goal of the program, which is to lower prices. You cannot lower costs when you increase spending, and adding 46 million people will DEFINITELY increase spending. So will putting the administration of the system into the hands of the same inefficient government that runs the postal system, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Simply put, your instinct on this is correct. It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the government-run health insurance program that has been proposed in Congress to cost LESS than private health insurance.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Silly immature word games tom. It's universal healthcare for all. One less worry in our lives and a healthier population. Works for us, as pathetic as we are. :)

---

No, it works for YOU. Nearly 70% of your fellow Canadians say that it DOESN'T work for them.