20

8/13/2009 5:31:39 PM

LaRouche

LaRouche

LaRouche is on fire.

8/13/2009 6:21:54 PM

Can we stop pretending that protesters are legitimately representative of the real concerns people have?

8/13/2009 6:49:33 PM

^ Hear, hear!

8/13/2009 6:52:59 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=1

8/13/2009 6:58:12 PM

Remember when republican congresspersons couldn't even meet with their constituents because virtually all of their public meetings were being disrupted by anarchists, gutter punks, and random-ass Asian guys afraid of aliens or something, even though that last group doesn't even fit in with the first two?

Me neither.

8/13/2009 7:04:05 PM

^ What are you babbling about? Some Democrats--the ones who aren't chicken shit--are meeting with their constituents:

Butterfield holds town hall on Obama health plan
Posted: Aug. 11, 2009

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5769391/



[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM. Reason : Who's stopping them?]

8/13/2009 7:21:51 PM

Well, it seems a bunch of groups - the Service Employees International Union, the drug lobby Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Medical Association and the Federation of American Hospitals - are planning to spend money on advertising in support of the plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care

8/13/2009 7:35:12 PM

Quote :

"Can we stop pretending that protesters are legitimately representative of the real concerns people have? "

Who's pretending?

This is how it's being reported by the media, including the nation's #1 news channel, Fox News.

8/13/2009 7:38:18 PM

Quote :

"I liked the part where burro tried to paint the doctors and insurance companies as the victims in all this. I mean really, doctors struggling to "make ends meet"? That was rich. No wonder the problem has gotten so bad when we have people who think like that."

Did you even bother to read my response to that accusation? clearly you didn't.

Quote :

"A health consultation in France costs $32 (meaning, that's what the private doctor charges for his services). Something similar here can cost upwards of $300 when all is said and done."

It's funny that you should mention that. I had a doctor's visit the other day that was billed for about 400 dollars for all the work done. I had a 20 dollar copay and my EOB shows that the insurance company paid about 44 dollars. Guess what that total is? About 64 bux, right? So, it would seem that at worse, the real "price" of the doctor's visit, including some lab work, was around 64 dollars. Yet the doctor's office asked for 400 dollars from the get-go? Do you know why? Because they knew that the insurance company was going to pay them ~10% of what they charged. So, they jacked the price up ten times in order to compensate.
Now, when you remove the lab work, guess what the amount the insurer paid was? About 20 dollars. Guess what that makes my doctor's visit come out to? About 40 bux. Guess what that sounds a lot like? The $32 dollar French doctor. This really shouldn't be a surprise. And it's not because doctors are price-gouging or "capitalism has failed and socialism won." No, it's precisely because the insurance system is broken that the sticker price is 400 bux while the actual price is around 40.

Quote :

"I have no problem paying for my own health care (I already have quite the bill that I'm paying a few hundred dollars on a month) because I obviously use the service but this "out-of-pocket" idea is such bullshit because you're not paying a fair price for what you're getting in return."

Again, the price is only so high because insurance will not reimburse the full amount. Thus, your cardiologist has to jack his sticker price up to compensate.

8/13/2009 7:58:15 PM

i think the current polls speak for themselves

[/thread]

8/13/2009 8:00:39 PM

Quote :

"No, it's precisely because the insurance system is broken that the sticker price is 400 bux while the actual price is around 40."

Exactly.

I advocate reform but Obama car is about as stupid as Ca$h for Clunker$

8/13/2009 9:54:32 PM

A sample is not a trend.

There is no doubt there has been an organized effort at derailing healthcare reform. There has been a lot of (purposeful) disinformation. Wait until the other side ramps up. Then we will see.

In my opinion, we have the worst healthcare system in the industrial world (by any number of measures). It is an embarassment. Almost anything would be better.

8/13/2009 9:55:01 PM

do tell what these "measures" you have seen that show we have a terrible healthcare system... Is it the fact that so many people come to the US for advanced treatments that are available nowhere else?

8/13/2009 9:56:58 PM

Quote :

"Remember when republican congresspersons couldn't even meet with their constituents because virtually all of their public meetings were being disrupted by anarchists, gutter punks, and random-ass Asian guys afraid of aliens or something, even though that last group doesn't even fit in with the first two? Me neither."

While I find the current batch of raving lunatics to be wrong in their actions, the exact same thing happened to Republican townhalls in the early part of this decade when they were discussing Social Security reform. It was wrong then and it is wrong now, but don't pretend that liberals haven't engaged in the same tactics as the conservatives are now.

8/13/2009 10:30:29 PM

DON'T TASE ME BRO

8/13/2009 10:33:52 PM

Quote :

"Is it the fact that so many people come to the US for advanced treatments that are available nowhere else"

And how does that help mortality rates? Is it even at the margin?

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 10:42:21 PM

more like...

DON'T TASTE ME BRO!!!


[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ``]

8/13/2009 10:42:36 PM

Is it also the fact that americans go to other countries to get reasonably-priced procedures?

8/13/2009 10:43:47 PM

HI, DR. NICK!

8/13/2009 10:45:28 PM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"do tell what these "measures" you have seen that show we have a terrible healthcare system"

It doesn't take a lot of googling to find how we measure up with other industrialized countries. Here's one study from the University of Maine:

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

I don't necessarily think the sole measure of a healthcare system should be where the richest people go to have things done. That does cover the top 2% though.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 10:55 PM. Reason : *~<]Bob]

8/13/2009 10:53:42 PM

Quote :

"Is it the fact that so many people come to the US for advanced treatments that are available nowhere else?"

What's the income level of the average person doing this?

Quote :

"Is it also the fact that americans go to other countries to get reasonably-priced procedures?"

I was surprised when I met some people in Thailand doing this. And it wasn't for a sex-change operation

8/13/2009 10:56:02 PM

Senate drops end-of-life consultations

http://tinyurl.com/ognak6

If there was nothing improper with these consultatations and they were deemed so damned important, why'd the Senate drop them like a hot potato? Curious.

8/14/2009 5:02:59 AM

If people are too stupid or too diluted by lies to comprehend the benefit then they shouldn't receive it. Would this be the same provision that encouraged living wills? The same living wills that were once championed by the right yet now draw such ire from them. . . Curious. Actually, revolting would be more apt.

8/14/2009 6:30:59 AM

Quote :

" In my opinion, we have the worst healthcare system in the industrial world (by any number of measures). "

Measuring the quality of a country’s health-delivery system is extremely difficult. Using infant-mortality and life-expectancy rates as a proxy is wrought with errors given the unrelated effects of lifestyle, demographics, ect. For an indepth review of life expectancies among countries, see:

Quote :

" Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system. "

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

In the above, note:

Quote :

" Based upon period survival data for 2000-02 from 47 European cancer registries, 5-year survival rates were found to be higher in the U.S. than in a European composite for cancer at all major sites (see table above, click to enlarge). For men (all sites combined), 47.3% of Europeans survived 5 years, compared to 66.3% of Americans. For women, the contrast was 55.8% vs. 62.9%. The male survival difference was much greater than the female primarily because of the very large difference in survival rates from prostate cancer. Thus, the US appears to screen more vigorously for cancer than Europe and people in the US who are diagnosed with cancer have higher 5-year survival probabilities. "

This is consistent with other measures showing the US system to be more robust at providing timely diagnoses that allow earlier treatment. I recommend the sources to the following facts:

Quote :

" Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. Conclusion: Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries. "

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

8/14/2009 7:28:55 AM

My mom works in medicine. She said she went for a semester in college to the UK. Back then, she said they were 30 years behind the US.

8/14/2009 8:26:58 AM

Man, the only thing those pictures tell me is that liberals are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more creative with their protests than conservatives.

8/14/2009 9:16:14 AM

I didn't base my opinion of the US healthcare system on life expectance (which your first link hopes to debunk). I based it on the cost, the amount of the population without access to healthcare services, and what I see as insurance companies penchant for finding ways to not pay for care - i.e. pre-existing conditions, loopholes, etc. I don't belive that profit margin is the most effective driver for a national healthcare system.

There is no doubt that we do well with cancers, and are more effective than others at early detection. But, as far as satisfaction goes, both studys can't be right. These quotes are from the National Center for Policy Analysis (your second link):

Quote :

"Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9] Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]"

The University of Maine study says the the US is near the bottom with satisfaction with the healthcare system - US:40% satisfied, Canada:46%, UK:57%. I couldn't cut and paste from the study, but look for yourself.

It looks like there might be some cherry-picking of data. Are there any axes to grind? Who are these guys at the NCAP anyway? Well, the board of directors page shows that they are pretty much businessmen that want less government interferance. The website is pretty explicit about their goals:

Quote :

"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."

The point is, don't expect to rely on one website as a "trump". Get a broad cross-section of data. Do meta-analysis. The US is the only OECD country except South Africa that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens. Shameful.

8/14/2009 9:25:58 AM

Quote :

"If there was nothing improper with these consultatations and they were deemed so damned important, why'd the Senate drop them like a hot potato? Curious."

Because people are so far beyond apeshit fucking crazy that, in order to satisfy them, congress is willing to remove something that is a standard part of many people's health insurance already. It's fucking pathetic.

8/14/2009 9:44:14 AM

Yeah, if Britons are so dissatisfied with their health care system, why have they come out in full support of it in response to the attacks coming from here?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6018227/Barack-Obama-health-plan-British-experts-defend-NHS-against-US-Right-wing-attacks.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/britain.america.nhs/

Also, beyond just an example of UHC in action, why do we keep talking about Canada and the UK's health care system so much? The reforms being proposed aren't the same as Canada's single payer system. Nor is it anything close to the government run NHS in the UK, where doctors are actually government employees. I know I sound like a broken record, but it's far far closer to the French health care system, which uses a mix of a universal "Medicare" plan and employer based coverage to guarantee health care for everyone. How about you show me why that system is so bad and why it wouldn't work for us.

8/14/2009 9:53:54 AM

Quote :

"The point is, don't expect to rely on one website as a "trump"."

Exactly why I wrote this:

Quote :

"I recommend the sources to the following facts"

The sources of the two facts you do not agree with are Health Affairs, one of the most well-respected health journals, and the National Bureau of Economic Analysis (NBER), one of the most well-respected economic research organization.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2009 10:09:40 AM

Quote :

"How about you show me why that system is so bad and why it wouldn't work for us."

France is just as much a failure. They have done nothing to tackle exponentially-rising costs.

Quote :

"France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

8/14/2009 10:23:05 AM

Quote :

"I didn't base my opinion of the US healthcare system on life expectance (which your first link hopes to debunk). I based it on the cost, the amount of the population without access to healthcare services, and what I see as insurance companies penchant for finding ways to not pay for care - i.e. pre-existing conditions, loopholes, etc. I don't belive that profit margin is the most effective driver for a national healthcare system."

Cost: This is precisely because of the broken health-insurance system
Amount of population lacking healthcare: primarily due to cost, but also overblown. The "47 million" number has been thoroughly debunked, as it includes tens of millions of people who either are illegal aliens, are on Medicare (ie, they fucking have health insurance), qualify for gov't services but don't take them, or just don't want health insurance. Second, don't equate "health insurance" with "access to health care."
Evil insurance companies: The gov't denies more claims than insurance companies. As well, this, again, is a problem with the broken insurance system.

And, remember, the reason the insurance system is so broken is because of gov't meddling

8/14/2009 10:35:58 AM

^^Are you trying to make a joke? 10% over budget means it's failed? If our health care costs were only 10% more than our estimates, that would be considered a resounding success.

Instead, we pay nearly twice as much more as percentage of our GDP, and leave a significant portion of our population out in the cold. Our costs are also rising faster than anywhere else, nearly twice the rate of inflation. That is failure. I swear to god, you people won't realize how big of a problem this is until the whole system crashes under it's own weight. Health care is a problem in almost every country in the world, but here, it's a goddamn catastrophe.

8/14/2009 10:43:44 AM

I don't see many people here denying that we have a problem.

As well, who is being "left out in the cold?" Is it illegal aliens, who have no legal right to be here in the first place? Maybe it's people on Medicare who already have insurance. Wait, is it the people who don't take advantage of the services they already qualify for? Maybe it's the people who just don't feel like they need insurance, right?

8/14/2009 10:47:24 AM

^ yeah, gee, there's probably nobody who lost their job and don't qualify for medicaid, or have preexisting conditions and can't get on a plan, or are self-employed but are priced out of the premiums.

Nah, nobody like that at all. And if there are, i don't know, a few people like that? Eh, fuck 'em

8/14/2009 10:50:23 AM

oh, of course those people exist. But they absolutely are not a "significant portion of the population," as was claimed

8/14/2009 10:52:54 AM

Then what are you complaining about? If the number of legitimately uninsured are so few, then it won't cost that much more to cover them. You should be applauding this news. You realize that to start out, the Exchange that includes the public option (if there even is one) will only be available to poor people who are either uninsured and individuals that are on plans that don't meet certain requirements. People on group plans (ie. employer plans), won't even have access to it.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with your downplaying of the number of uninsured since there is quite literally no reliable source that can confirm your claims. But, even operating under the assumption that the problem is overblown, why does that mean it should be ignored?

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason : :]

8/14/2009 11:01:31 AM

ok, how about blue collar workers, retail workers, food industry workers, Walmart employees (over a million there already), and generally anyone on wages and not salary who don't get medical benefits from their employers, make enough to live out of poverty, but still can't afford premiums for themselves or their families?

8/14/2009 11:04:08 AM

Quote :

"Instead, we pay nearly twice as much more as percentage of our GDP, and leave a significant portion of our population out in the cold. Our costs are also rising faster than anywhere else, nearly twice the rate of inflation. That is failure. I swear to god, you people won't realize how big of a problem this is until the whole system crashes under it's own weight. Health care is a problem in almost every country in the world, but here, it's a goddamn catastrophe."

I agree that we have it even worse. But then again, we do not resort to fiat rationing and price controls and thus tend to have greater utilization of advanced health technologies. This can be good if medical technologies offered value commensurate with costs. This is not always the case given the aforementioned lack of cost/benefit analysis in the entire value chain. Far too often we end up adopting new technologies that add only incremental benefits, but substantial costs. The incentives are not aligned to produce and adopt technologies that offer high value relative to costs as they are in other sectors where the end consumer is responsible for his/her own costs.

8/14/2009 11:08:20 AM

Quote :

"Instead, we pay nearly twice as much more as percentage of our GDP, and leave a significant portion of our population out in the cold."

Who is left out in the cold???

Illegal mexicans, welfare queens, and people who choose not to work. These people end up getting "free" healthcare much of the time anyway at the cost of everyone else

8/14/2009 11:09:59 AM

Quote :

"Then what are you complaining about? If the number of legitimately uninsured are so few, then it won't cost that much more to cover them."

In my opinion, the most efficient means of achieving our ends, assisting the few who cannot afford insurance, is to provide direct subsidies while at the same time reforming the system so that the necessary incentive structure is in place to actually do something about the underlying problem that is health-care costs. A public option is an extremely inefficient means that does not even touch on the cost factor, thus leaving us even more vulnerable in the process.

8/14/2009 11:16:30 AM

These protests are mild compared to this shit:



Democracy is messy, we should encourage active, energetic, participation in the democratic process . . . especially if it makes us uncomfortable.

8/14/2009 11:26:45 AM

Quote :

"In my opinion, the most efficient means of achieving our ends, assisting the few who cannot afford insurance, is to provide direct subsidies while at the same time reforming the system so that the necessary incentive structure is in place to actually do something about the underlying problem that is health-care costs. A public option is an extremely inefficient means that does not even touch on the cost factor, thus leaving us even more vulnerable in the process."

You know, you're right, the plans being considered probably don't do enough to control costs, at least not initially. But, on the flip side of that, none of them really cost all that much either, at least not compared to what we're already spending on health care. $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next 10 years, compared to the $2.4 trillion we spent last year alone. So for that we get:

-(near) universal coverage and caps on out pocket expenses that will prevent bankruptcies
-force , either directly by new regulations or indirectly via pressure from the public option, better behavior from the insurance companies
-finally doing something to bust the status quo and lay the groundwork for further reform

It's not perfect, but we've ignored this problem for so long, that there is no such thing as a "perfect plan" (well there is, but this country would never accept it). The whole thing may very well go bust in 20 years, but that's going to happen anyway if we don't do anything. Reform is going to come eventually, either now with some preventative measures that carry little monetary risk, or 10-20 years from now when our hands are forced by the whole system collapsing and taking the rest of the economy with it. Those are our choices.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : :]

8/14/2009 11:50:23 AM

HUR:

Quote :

"Who is left out in the cold??? ... Illegal mexicans, welfare queens, and people who choose not to work. These people end up getting "free" healthcare much of the time anyway at the cost of everyone else"

Mercy, no wonder there are so many ingnorant protester at these town hall meetings. I don't doubt these people are angry. Most bigots are.

8/14/2009 12:23:39 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion, we have the worst healthcare insurance system in the industrial world (by any number of measures). It is an embarassment. Almost anything would be better."

Our healthcare is great. Our insurance system is f*cked.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM. Reason : j]

8/14/2009 1:15:34 PM

Quote :

"Because people are so far beyond apeshit fucking crazy that, in order to satisfy them, congress is willing to remove something that is a standard part of many people's health insurance already. It's fucking pathetic."

No shit. Hooksaw, is that a fucking joke?

Quote :

"Illegal mexicans, welfare queens, and people who choose not to work. These people end up getting "free" healthcare much of the time anyway at the cost of everyone else"

Try reading the damn bill. Page 148:
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Quote :

"3 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED 4 ALIENS. 5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments 6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are 7 not lawfully present in the United States."

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2009 1:34:23 PM

^ He wasn't talking about the bill being proposed, he was talking about now.

Quote :

"You know, you're right, the plans being considered probably don't do enough to control costs, at least not initially. But, on the flip side of that, none of them really cost all that much either, at least not compared to what we're already spending on health care. $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next 10 years, compared to the $2.4 trillion we spent last year alone. So for that we get:"

And the Iraq war was only going to last 2 years and cost a few billion, we see how well that worked out. Snark aside, I really have trouble believing that somehow we're going to magically overhaul our system so that in 10 years we will have spent less than 1 year worth of current spending and add another 47 million people into the system. I mean really you're talking about cutting yearly spending to less than 10% of our current spending adding more services, more coverage and more people consuming the services. I just don't see it happening. More likely I see us spending an additional 600 billion to 1 trillion per year, on top of what we spend already.

Quote :

"The whole thing may very well go bust in 20 years, but that's going to happen anyway if we don't do anything. Reform is going to come eventually, either now with some preventative measures that carry little monetary risk, or 10-20 years from now when our hands are forced by the whole system collapsing and taking the rest of the economy with it. Those are our choices."

No, they aren't our choices. Our choices are never do nothing and die or do something, anything, no matter how bad it is. Whenever someone is telling you we must do something right now and I have something right here, never mind what it is, just do it, they're trying to sell you something.

Surely we're not stupid enough to fall for this trick. Surely we as a country wouldn't be collectively stupid enough to walk in to a bank, ask for a mortgage and blindly sign every paper the bank manager puts in front of us without even bothering to check to make sure of what we're signing, all because the manager is sitting there saying "If you don't sign now, the interest rates will quadruple tomorrow and then you'll be stuck with higher rates, oh and also I had 3 other guys in here today prequalifying for that same house." Surely we wouldn't be so stupid, right? Oh shit...

8/14/2009 2:03:24 PM

So then what do you think is going to happen? Do you not agree that the current rate of increase in medical spending is unsustainable? It's already double inflation and accelerating every year. See, despite all my bickering in this thread, I really don't care if Obama passes this bill or not because we're already headed for a UK style of socialized medicine whether we like it or not. I would still like to see it passed so we can go ahead and take care of all those uninsured as well as stop insurance companies from screwing people, but that's about it.

It's already likely that regardless of what we do now, medical spending is going to reach critical mass and the industry is going to face a crisis just like we saw with the credit industry. Hospitals, insurance companies and doctor's offices are going to go bankrupt. Big pharma will survive since it can still sell to the rest of the world, but everyone else is screwed. What do you think will happen then? Same thing that happened with AIG, GM, and all those banks. The Fed is going to buy them all up and we'll have NHS in the US. It's going to happen, and all this opposition to health care reform is only going to speed up the arrival of the thing you guys fear the most. The next couple decades are going to be fun to watch.

8/14/2009 3:47:37 PM

Quote :

"Keep in mind, I don't agree with your downplaying of the number of uninsured since there is quite literally no reliable source that can confirm your claims."

Bullshit. It's already been shown that the number thrown about includes illegal aliens. And we all know how large that number is.

Quote :

"But, on the flip side of that, none of them really cost all that much either, at least not compared to what we're already spending on health care. $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next 10 years, compared to the $2.4 trillion we spent last year alone."

Bull. Fucking. Shit. The projected cost is 1trillion for the gov't plan alone. Jesus, don't try and throw that bullshit in here.

Quote :

"It's not perfect, but we've ignored this problem for so long"

No we haven't. We've kept dicking with the system until we are where we are today.

Quote :

"So then what do you think is going to happen? Do you not agree that the current rate of increase in medical spending is unsustainable? It's already double inflation and accelerating every year. See, despite all my bickering in this thread, I really don't care if Obama passes this bill or not because we're already headed for a UK style of socialized medicine whether we like it or not. I would still like to see it passed so we can go ahead and take care of all those uninsured as well as stop insurance companies from screwing people, but that's about it. "

His point isn't that there isn't a problem. His point is that there are solutions other than this 1000 page monstrosity that simply perpetuates the problem. Contrary to your fucked-up logic, it is possible to do something and make the situation even worse. That is what he is saying.

8/14/2009 4:21:40 PM