Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually heard someone on the radio the other day proclaim that they should just pass the bills and "see what happens"..
If the thought is we'd have massive debts, pass the bill and see if they are correct.. If people proclaim there will be rational care, pass the bill, see if its true. These liberals are crazy...
Yeah crazy, they want affordable health care. What is wrong with them. Silly people.
I think we can all agree that reform is necessary, but is it justified to let the government take over 1/6th of our economy? Who in their right mind thinks the government running your HC will make the problems disappear?
Where are the examples of well run government "business". Please, don't list USPS (in the red for billions), Medicare/Medicaid (in the red for Trillions), SS (in the red for tens of Trillions).
Medicare/Medicaid/SS have unfunded liabilities of $50 TRILLION.
We all know now that the ultimate goal is single payer and the first step to get there is a public option.
85% of people are satisfied with their HC - why are the dems/libs hell bent on overhauling the whole system? One answer - single payer.
Meanwhile, there are things that can be done in an incremental fashion that would garner bipartisan support.
WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_analysis - broken link)
I don't know what you liberals are whining about. You have commanding majorities in both houses. Pass what you want. Oh, wait. Max Baucus said the votes aren't there for a public option. Sounds to me like the problem is not with the Republicans but with the Dems themselves. Just keep stamping your foot and screech that 'We won the election and we should get what we want!' Maybe that'll work for you.
The change I wanted and for which I voted WAS NOT for government bail out of banks and walls street. It was NOT for a stimulous package that, by the time it actually got through congress and the senate, did very little to produce actual jobs. These things cost trillions and my taxes will help for them just as they have for so many other things in the many decades I've worked. Things that were of no benefit to me or anyone else I know. The change I voted for was HEALTH CARE REFORM. And the cost of that would be but a dip in the bucket of all the trillions the government has spent for things that I did NOT want.
I feel sorry for you and your vote. The spigot has run dry from the things you did not vote for, which I am in agreement with you. It is too bad the trillions were wasted before health care reform reached the radar.
It doesn't take much for some people to justify tossing all their freedoms and liberties out the widow, just to get a warm government blanket to snuggle up with.
Yeah crazy, they want affordable health care. What is wrong with them. Silly people.
Available healthcare..who said it would be affordable ?
Look at Mass. - they've increase their premiums each of the three years..one year at 12% and they are still in the red and will now be dropping people.
This is simply not true. States do not stop insurance companies from selling insurance in their state. They state the rules for which insurance companies must abide by. The insurance companies have a choice to follow the state's rules or not do business in that state. This is no different than any other corporation choosing to do business in a state. The state can set the rules. This myth is perpetuated by the insurance companies in an effort to not abide by state insurance rules. Without state regulation of insurance companies there would be no regulation.
On the one hand you have all of the states rights people complaining about the fed being involved in states business, but when it is inconvenient you want the fed involved. Shorebaby, I thought you were better than this arguement.
Ok lets try this. Suppose I want to sell corn flakes in the US I would only have to deal with one regulatory body the FDA. Now suppose there were 50 different versions of the FDA to comply with? One for each state. What do you suppose would happen to the cost of corn flakes? As things stand there are 50 different sets of insurance rules which results in reduced competition (because of the hassel factor) and increased expense.
Ok lets try this. Suppose I want to sell corn flakes in the US I would only have to deal with one regulatory body the FDA. Now suppose there were 50 different versions of the FDA to comply with? One for each state. What do you suppose would happen to the cost of corn flakes? As things stand there are 50 different sets of insurance rules which results in reduced competition (because of the hassel factor) and increased expense.
So what you are advocating is that we take control away from the states. States have historically had control over regulating industry doing business in their state. So you are in favor of big government and not states rights. Well don't stop with one law. Lets make a single payer system where everything falls under the fed then we don't have to worry about 50 states with 50 different regulations. Problem solved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.