ITT: A Record of Health Care Discussion

[Nobunaga]

From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

... Don't tell me it is not relevant to the argument. It most certainly is, as this bill falls in line perfectly.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... I4ZWJkNGI=

... Is it paranoia, Greek, Neo, Player? The argument is quite compelling. (THWOP! THWOP! THWOP?)

...

[PLAYER57832]

From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

... Don't tell me it is not relevant to the argument. It most certainly is, as this bill falls in line perfectly.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... I4ZWJkNGI=

... Is it paranoia, Greek, Neo, Player? The argument is quite compelling. (THWOP! THWOP! THWOP?)

...

The government IS us.

Insurance companies are private entities, that only have to answer to stockholders and, to some extent customers. However, insurance customers are not you and I, they are large employers. Large employers are also driven primarily by profit.

So, either we give more control to you and I, or we put more money in the hands of stockholders.

[Neoteny]

Obviously I disagree with some of Mr. Hanson's value judgments in that piece, but I never claim to have any knowledge of how the economy works, how the bill will be funded (I won't touch that), or anything else of a similar vein. I will discuss smaller, concrete plans (believe it or not, the "thousand pages of health-care gibberish" [except for funding] counts there compared to anything to do with the economy), but anything that goes into the economy makes my eyes glaze over. So I can't really say anything.

[Nobunaga]

From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

... Don't tell me it is not relevant to the argument. It most certainly is, as this bill falls in line perfectly.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... I4ZWJkNGI=

... Is it paranoia, Greek, Neo, Player? The argument is quite compelling. (THWOP! THWOP! THWOP?)

...

... With more to back it up. A "more just society".

...

[PLAYER57832]

... Don't tell me it is not relevant to the argument. It most certainly is, as this bill falls in line perfectly.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... I4ZWJkNGI=

... Is it paranoia, Greek, Neo, Player? The argument is quite compelling. (THWOP! THWOP! THWOP?)

...

I see, Bush was in office 8 years. Obama a few months. Most congressmen at least 2 years. Yet, all this is Obama's fault?

When you need to put out fires, you use water even if there IS a huge drout, along with other methods. Obama was given not just 1-2, but a whole series of fires.

I don't say what he has done is perfect, but this "criticise everything to do with government" and "Obama is trying to control us" is getting pretty old. I don't know of anyone who could do well with what Bush left this administration. I do think, still think, Obama is doing at least as well as McCain ever would have.

and as to economic statistics... there are so many very intelligent, well educated people who have completely different opinions on this issue, trying to claim this person or that person is the ONE who "knows" is silly. We won't know the REAL truth for another 20-30 years. I mean, people are still debating the causes of the Great Depression! Right now, its all opinion. I say we elected Obama, let's see how things work before riding him out on a rail. So far, things have begun to turn around.