Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?

[Wavex]

Also, where are you getting the 50 million people number? It is incorrect, this bill does not cover the 16 million illegal immigrants nor does it cover 100% of those without insurance. It won't cover anyone until 2013. No one is saying this is armeggeddon, just that it is a terrible bill, a job killer that will hurt our already heavily damaged economy, it will increase the cost when it's stated goal is to decrease the cost, and that it will be unsustainably expensive. Glad you aren't disputing this. That was my point, the stated goals and reasoning from the left are a lie, they do not seem to care about the fact that this bill does nothing to solve the cost issue or that it is an unsustainable expense, they just want everyone to have coverage no matter the cost. Let's be honest.

I don't know how much it will cost and I don't think anyone really knows how much such a massive reform will cost exactly, but we all agree it has to happen. No matter what bill is presented, there will ALWAYS be ppl against it... there will always be ppl saying it costs to much, or it doesn't do this or that... it's never going to be perfect!!! and if you keep waiting until EVERYBODY is happy with it, it will never get finished... Cuba, I am sure you alone could prepare a better bill which would fix the system and cost less for everybody, but the problem is you're not part of the task team working on this bill! You're sitting there behind your computer debating about this on a motorcycle forum with a French guy, so let the people who actually are directly involved with it deal with it! We elected ppl in office and now we have to trust them to a certain extend or else nothing will ever change/move...

 

[Cuba]

I don't know how much it will cost and I don't think anyone really knows how much such a massive reform will cost exactly, but we all agree it has to happen. No matter what bill is presented, there will ALWAYS be ppl against it... there will always be ppl saying it costs to much, or it doesn't do this or that... it's never going to be perfect!!! and if you keep waiting until EVERYBODY is happy with it, it will never get finished... Cuba, I am sure you alone could prepare a better bill which would fix the system and cost less for everybody, but the problem is you're not part of the task team working on this bill! You're sitting there behind your computer debating about this on a motorcycle forum with a French guy, so let the people who actually are directly involved with it deal with it! We elected ppl in office and now we have to trust them to a certain extend or else nothing will ever change/move...

I agree that they don't understand the costs, that there are always those that will oppose reform for one reason or another, that it will never be perfect, that you can't please everyone, and that I could write a much more effective bill than anything we have seen from congress thus far. I will strongly disagree on your sentiment that as citizens of this country we should shut our eyes and our mouths and simply hope for the best when we see things happenning that we disagree with. That is a horrible statement to make, it is grossly undemocratic, unamerican, and in direct opposition to the very principles of Obama's hope and change movement. You are saying we shouldn't make our voices heard.

This is America, not France. We live in a representative democracy founded on the principals of debate, dissent, and elected officials that represent the will of their constituents. Our voices are heard and they effect change. What you are saying is both ignorant and disturbing. By your logic would you have opposedthe civil rights movement as well, a time when the people spoke out in dissent of what our government was doing? I am amazed that you feel we should simply ignore the actions of our elected officials (like you did for Bush?) and not speak out about this. You tried to silence our debates multiple times because you disagreed with what was being said, this is more of the same. Are these the values you would teach your children? Electing someone into office is step one in our society, your responsibility as a citizen BEGINS there, it doesn't end.

My point remains:

1. Obama believes that our health care system is crippling our economy and unsustainable. (I agree. So do you, if I'm not mistaken)

2. Obama's stated purpose, the crisis that he spoke of so many times as the reason for this reform, is to curb the cost of our health care system while at the same time making affordable coverage available for all. (I agree. So do you, if I'm not mistaken)

3. The Pelosi bill does not contain measures to decrease the cost. It is expected to, best case, dramatically increase the cost. It is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of the needed health care reform.

So my question remains, why would someone support this? It isn't single payer. It doesn't decrease the cost. It adds a massive increased burden to a system universally known to be unsustainable. So are we in a Twilight Zone episode here or does this not quite add up? Effective reform happens when you have a clear and defined goal. We had one, now we are ignoring it for some reason. Rational thought has gone out the door here, what exactly is the goal of the Pelosi bill?

 

[Wavex]

Yep, that's exactly what I said, no-one should voice their opinions on this topic, and everyone but Obama should shut up... that's exactly what I said!

1. ok
2. I agree, that's one of the things he stated (and the only one you seem to remember)... I think him using the "cost" was more to rally the troops, when in reality, the main purpose was not to cut cost, but to give better coverage to American ppl... especially poor American ppl... sounds logical to me, but opponents as usual will take something and run with it ignoring everything else that may have been said...
3. Does Obama and Pelosi and their team admit today that the new system will cost much much more than the old one? If they do, then OK, if they don't, then it's your word against theirs and sorry, but you're just nobody...

I support this because I believe the main goal of this reform is not to save money... the main goal is to provide better coverage for the American ppl... whether it be a little cheaper or more expensive than the current crappy system when it's all said and done doesn't matter to me... I am ready to pay a bit more tax if it's going to guarantee that all Americans will have proper healthcare for themselves and their families... I know obviously this is not one of your concern, but some ppl actually care about other ppl you know!

 

[Wavex]

Let me ask you something else, since your only issue is cost, and the fact that Obama apparently lied when he said it was going to cost less.

Imagine Obama comes out and says, OK the current system is crap, and costs us 1 billion/year, and I admit we made an error, and the new system will cost more at 1.2 billion/year, but the difference is that EVERYBODY will be covered under the new system. All Americans will have a basic healthcare right in this country.

Would you vote yes to the bill? Or will you vote YES ONLY if it is cheaper? at the cost of keeping the current broken system for another 25 years?

I am trying to understand what your priorities are in this debate... $$ or your own ppl?

 

[wrightme43]

David there was no name calling.

There is quites simply the fact that YOU personally had a fit about this section. Then worked actively to get it banned from the site ONLY BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS! Then you post in the section. You consistently instigate problems then go "who me??"

I have lost all respect for you.

 

[wrightme43]

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

And just a quick dispute of what you posted David.

US. have the longest life expectancy in the world.
CARPE DIEM: US vs. Europe: Life Expectancy and Cancer Survival

 

[wrightme43]

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Your conclusion is way off.
Concurence does not equal cause

The US pays for 95% of all new medical research. We the people pay for it. Nothing is allowed to be reimported after being sold for pennies on the dollar overseas because of governmental price controls in the single payer systems that will collapse if we stop paying for it. It will still be on the US to pay for it. Nothing is changed with this bill.

 

[Wavex]

I still think this section has no place on a motorcycle forum, my mind hasn't changed about that.

I worked to get it banned because I think it has no place on an international motorcycle forum, and after receiving countless pms from ppl supporting me on this, I kept fighting against it. And for the record, I was perfectly happy when it was removed from the "new post" search, which was what I was asking for from the very beginning.

Another reason why I thought it had no place here was that you and Cuba were (and still are) doing 90% of the posting in here, meaning that 90% of the threads in here were far right -down right scary most of the time- and the image of the forum was starting to be impacted by that (again, I refer to the wide support I received by pm).

Also, look at SBN... is this what you wanted the FZ6 forum to become? There are more political than motorcycle related threads on SBN today! and of course like in ALL internet political or religious discussions, things quickly get out of hand... look at our discussions here... I only give my opinion without attacking anyone and you jump on me!

And sorry, but when was the last time I instigated problems in here? This is my thread isn't it? Can I post in it so that Oscar is not the only level headed person in this sub-forum??

 

[wrightme43]

Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

Just out of curiosity did you even read this?

Its going to be like a magical disney land of medical care with no lines. Really?

 

[Wavex]

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

And just a quick dispute of what you posted David.

US. have the longest life expectancy in the world.
CARPE DIEM: US vs. Europe: Life Expectancy and Cancer Survival

Are you seriously responding to my post using someone's gribbled numbers on his CARPE DIEM blog? LOL awesome :rof:

here are some real numbers for you: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/sort.php

 

[Cuba]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggVSAPt-HY]YouTube - President Obama's Three Principles for Real Health Care Reform[/ame]

Three basic principles:

First- the rising cost of health care must be brought down.

The Pelosi bill will cost $1.2T, best case, over a ten year period, the first three years will provide no coverage but will include massive tax increases. So we are already shorting the estimate by at least 30%. The structure is such that you are including three full years of revenue without expense, and calling this the 10 year run rate. This is inaccurate. The actual run rate, using their own numbers, is $1.7T, best case, over a 10 year period and assuming the effect on jobs, the economy at large, and thus the tax revenues required to run this will be unchanged. This is inaccurate. The costs are paid for by raiding medicare, how we don't know, by raiding doctors salaries, by raiding businesses large and small to the tune of a full 10%, plus forcing them to pay 72.6% of employees health care, and by forcing the millions of voluntarily uninsured to buy coverage they don't want. These factors have the effect of raising the cost, by expanding the burden of a crippled and unsustainable health care system that, according to your own statements, is garbage.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0XGQfgDtbQ]YouTube - Obama: Healthcare Is The 'New Foundation For Our Economy'; 'No Excuses, The Stars Are Aligned.'[/ame]

"As I've said before, and as all Americans know: our health care system is broken. It's unsustainable for families, for businesses, it is unsustainable for the federal government and state governments... the fact of the matter is the most significant driver by far of our long term debt and our long term deficits is ever escalating health care costs... businesses are using money to pay their rising health care costs that should be going to innovation and growth and new hiring."

I agree with him there, the problem is the Pelosi plan does precisely the opposite of his stated reasons for the reform. It increases the cost, it takes the capital from businesses that "should be going to innovation and growth and new hiring", and as such will have a negative effect on the economy. If it were to pass as is companies would immediately reduce salaries to pay the mandatory 72.6% subsidy, or reduce headcount. By taking an additional 10% in taxes, which is a MASSIVE number, we are drastically reducing the capital necessary to grow businesses and hire additional employees, pay down debt, and stay globally competitive. This is not a complex equation, it is basic economics. I'm not making it up, I'm personally tasked with preparing for it should it pass. Employers simply wont have a choice, you cannot incur that much additional expense and that much of a reduction in profit without cutting other expenses and investments, and in most cases that means jobs.

What I find very interesting is that there has been no word whatsoever as to how much the individual premiums will cost as a result of this plan. There has not been one word saying we estimate this will curb the growth of health care premium expenses by xx% a year, or the public option will cost the individual $xxx a month. The CBO has somehow estimated this, but why hasn't anyone brought this up? Seems odd since if this plan actually decreased the cost, the dems would be screaming it from the hilltops and it would pass easily.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfusHgrXpRw]YouTube - Health Care And Fiscal Responsibility[/ame]

"We have a responsibility to act and to act now. That's why I'm working with congress to pass reform that lowers costs... we can't keep shifting the burden to future generations.... Real reform will mean reductions in our long term budget... If doctors have incentives to provide the best care and not just more care we can help americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments, and tests that drive up costs... the only changes you will see are lower costs and better health care."

Mr. President your Pelosi bill does not reduce the long term budget, it does NOTHING to provide incentives for doctors to reduce defensive overperscription that is the driver for increased unnecessary spending (if anything it increases the incentive to overperscribe by lowering their income, keeping it tied to proceedures, and ignoring the tort reform issue that is a root cause of overperscription in the first place), it does not protect the consumer from being forced to change plans and/or doctors (in fact it specifically states that the federal government will decide what coverage is required and make it universal, meaning if your plan doesn't mirror theirs, you can't keep it), and bottom line it does not provide lower costs, it shifts and greatly increases the burden to the employers and health care providers that WILL pass this cost on to the individual in the form of lower wages, layoffs, reduced economic growth, and according to the insurance industry themselves, higher premiums:

Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans:

"The promise of health care reform has been that if you like your current coverage, you can keep it. We are concerned that this proposal will break this promise by increasing health care costs for families and employers across the country and significantly disrupting the quality coverage on which millions of Americans rely today.

The lack of system-wide cost containment is a missed opportunity. Without a greater focus on health care costs, families and employers will not be able to afford coverage and health care costs will rise at a rate much faster than the overall economy is able to sustain.

We share the concerns that doctors, hospitals, employers, and patients have all raised about the significant disruption a new government-run plan would have on the current health care system. A new government-run plan would bankrupt hospitals, dismantle employer coverage, exacerbate cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid, and ultimately increase the federal deficit.

Estimates show that a government-run plan would cause millions of people to lose their current coverage. Moreover, massive Medicare Advantage cuts would cause millions of seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage altogether, while millions more would face benefit cuts and higher out-of-pocket costs.

Health plans strongly support comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform and have proposed sweeping insurance market reforms and new consumer protections to ensure that every American has guaranteed access to affordable health care coverage. Experience in the states has shown that insurance market reforms must be paired with an effective personal coverage requirement for these reforms to work. While this legislation recognizes the key linkage of market reforms and a personal coverage requirement, more needs to be done to ensure coverage is affordable and our health care system is sustainable.

As the process progresses, health plans will continue to work to advance bipartisan legislation this year that will cover all Americans, make coverage more affordable, and improve quality."


I agree with you that Obama's real reasons are not what he has said they were, he lied. His plan is to get 30+million people reliant on his handouts in exchange for votes. The trouble is that he has been VERY clear on the requirements of this bill, it's goals, the crisis we are all facing, but has come out with something that will only exacerbate these issues. Reducing unemployment and having a broad economic recovery are being thrown under the bus here, and the system they are attempting to set up, while very nice for some, will not be sustainable. He said so himself, and yet expects us to believe that by adding 30+ million to the "broken, unsustainable" system without also taking the necessary steps to curb the cost it will somehow come out in the wash. Scary stuff. Time will tell.

 

[Wavex]

You convinced me. Obama is a horrible person. Him and Pelosi clearly have 3 goals in mind: 1) lie to Americans, 2) destroy the US, and 3) make sure to run the US economy to the ground ASAP.

Just like your earlier predictions about the bail out package (that every occidental/industrialized country did as well btw)... it made the crisis worth and the world economy is in a worse shape today than before the bail out... and it should never have been done... right?

 

[Wavex]

It says a whole lot about your charecter, and personality, none of it good.

You have actually made me not like you.

I have lost all respect for you.

BTW Steve, even if we have different political views, I still respect you

:BLAA:

 

[Cuba]

You convinced me. Obama is a horrible person. Him and Pelosi clearly have 3 goals in mind: 1) lie to Americans, 2) destroy the US, and 3) make sure to run the US economy to the ground ASAP.

Just like your earlier predictions about the bail out package (that every occidental/industrialized country did as well btw)... it made the crisis worth and the world economy is in a worse shape today than before the bail out... and it should never have been done... right?

I think Obama is a very inexperienced leader who is too caught up in the rhetoric rather than the reality. Much like Bush and the war in Iraq he sees it as the right thing to do and is ignoring the negative consequences. You said it yourself- his real focus is on expanding coverage not reducing cost. I agree, but his clearly stated #1 reason was cost reduction and he has abandoned it. He doesn't want to destroy the US, he just wants to level the playing field both at home and abroad- the problem being someone loses. The focus is on shifting, not increasing, the well being. The US economy has already run aground, which is why this is the worst time to further increase the tax burden and expand the entitlement programs that by his own admission are already unsustainable. The bail out was necessary but poorly thought out and poorly executed. A stimulus was also necessary but it was grossly mismanaged and has provided only a sugar high in the auto and real estate industries that is also unsustainable while providing us with fictious job "saved" numbers while we have watched the unemployment numbers top 10.2%. According to their own estimates if we HAD NOT had a stimulus program we would not yet have reached 8%. He means well, but when you are governing a country it isn't the thought that counts.

 

[Cuba]

Update on what the senate is up to, more dems speak out against the Pelosi bill, vowing to vote it down.

In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl chats with Sen. Ben Nelson on the Capitol Hill subway."Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is "absolutely" too high.

Full article:

Subway Series: Senator Ben Nelson on Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill - ABC News

Here's the best part:

"What I heard him say is that you don't have to let the desire for perfection get in the way of the good," Nelson said. "And that makes a great deal of sense. But I would add the caveat that we have to be sure it is not a bad bill, that it doesn't add to the deficit, that it doesn't increase taxes, and that does, in fact, control the growth in costs."

 

[Wavex]

An interesting article from the UK Guardian... gives a outside perspective of what's happening... I follow the French news quite a lot as well and they more or less have the same message on what's happening over here...


Sahil Kapur
Monday 9 November 2009 16.30 GMT


The United States took a historic leap toward universal healthcare on Saturday, when the House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of legislation in half a century. The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, a sweeping overhaul of the current system, succeeded in a torturously close vote of 220-215. All but 39 Democrats voted for it, while all Republicans but one voted against it. Saturday's debate was ablaze with fury and anxiety on both sides, and if words could kill the House floor would have been laden with dead bodies.

The bill isn't perfect, but it's a winner. If signed into law, it would considerably ease the burden on those fraught by healthcare system. The Congressional Budget Office declares it will drive down premiums through cost-containment mechanisms, extend coverage to 96% of legal American residents, ban insurance companies from denying care to sick patients and reduce the federal deficit. It would also create a public insurance option, a critical provision that expands choice and competition in the marketplace. Getting this done in such a hostile climate was a political masterstroke by Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Barack Obama.

Tensions ran high on a day filled with drama and mayhem, which began with Democrats confidently forecasting success. Obama offered some 11th-hour wisdom to his party members, which some admitted was pivotal in securing their vote. Republicans mounted a vicious assault during the lengthy floor session, many of them explicitly saying that the bill will bring about the downfall of freedom in America. They interrupted and shouted down Democrats and forced a vote on their own meek bill, which went down in flames.

The main Republican indictments against the Democratic bill were quite curious. They said it'll bankrupt America, but the CBO has deemed it will lower costs and slash the deficit. They said it will harm the elderly, but the American Association of Retired Persons, the mighty seniors group, has endorsed it. They said it will disrupt the doctor-patient relationship, but the American Medical Association, the powerful doctors group, has endorsed it. They said it will ruin the fabric of American civilisation, but amnesia can be quite convenient, because they once said the same of Medicare, and how'd that work out?

So, it's clear that the ferocious Republican opposition to this bill isn't really about principles or healthcare. If it were, they'd have addressed the issue while controlling the White House for 20 of the last 28 years and Congress for 12 of the last 14. Their real fear is that this bill will be a landmark accomplishment for Democrats, deflating Republican electoral prospects for many years to come. It won't be easy for Republicans to justify their obstructionist role when the bill improves the lives of progressives and conservatives alike. Nor will it be easy to defend their core philosophy that government can't do anything right.

The divisive issue of abortion came close to derailing the whole effort. Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan introduced a controversial anti-abortion amendment in the evening, which passed minutes before the final vote, thereby banning abortion coverage in the bill's healthcare exchanges. Although the amendment placated conservative Democrats representing fervently anti-abortion constituencies, it was a huge blow to reproductive justice for women, making the victory bittersweet. But given how close the tally was, it's quite plausible the bill would have failed without this provision.

The bill now faces its grand milestone: the Senate. While it's not likely to fail there, a huge point of contention will be whether the public option survives, and if it does, in what form. One of a few scenarios will play out. Harry Reid, the majority leader, might wrangle his way to 60 votes for cloture, in which case the bill would pass. If that fails, he can push it through with reconciliation and 51 votes. Alternatively, Democrats can debilitate the public option by accepting the trigger or the substitute co-ops, which would make it easier to snag the 60th vote. Whatever happens, Democrats would be foolish not to fight doggedly for the public option, as it would by all estimates drastically help achieve their goal of quality, affordable and universal healthcare.

Republicans predictably panicked on Sunday. Senator Lindsey Graham claimed the bill was "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Others warned about its ominous "government takeover" of healthcare, and one pledged he'll "continue to fight it tooth and nail at every turn". Sarah Palin yet again repeated her drivel about "death panels". Frank Luntz, the hatchet man instrumental in the Republican effort to kill healthcare reform, alleged populist outrage against the House vote. And, limelight-craving senator Joe Lieberman reiterated his stance that he'd filibuster the public option. It's now up to the Democratic leadership to keep the heat on and make the Senate bill as strong as possible.

One way or another, this is history in the making. The battle for universal healthcare began a century ago with Teddy Roosevelt and has since been fought unsuccessfully by Presidents Truman, Nixon, Carter and Clinton – a testament to how politically vexing the cause is. Although victory is yet to be seen, the House of Representatives is a critical front that so far only Obama has conquered. If he wins, the freedom and comfort afforded to millions of Americans will be a cornerstone of his legacy.

After Saturday's storm of controversy over the real meaning of the word "freedom" settled, it was the Democratic notion – the freedom to live with one's basic health needs secure – which trumped the apparent Republican notion – the freedom to remain uninsured, get sick, go bankrupt and die.

The passage of the bill was a major defeat for Republicans, and with so much to lose as a party they'll use every conceivable gambit in the final stage to try and kill it. But don't bet against Obama now, because the prospect of universal healthcare in America suddenly looks stronger than ever.

 

[Cuba]

A very partisan opinion piece indeed, and the opinion of someone removed from the immediate consequences. I disagree with the opinion here, it is one sided, gerneralized, and prejudiced, grouping every republican together as if they all shared a brain. Republicans are against the current far left plan, just as dems would be totally against a far right plan if roles were reversed, this isn't news. If you were a fiscal conservative and my plan was to commit to spend trillions more than we have by borrowing and downright printing of funny money, at a time when our economy is failing, revenues falling, and joblessness at historic highs and continuing to grow, without a clear goal or steps to reach that goal, I don't see it as some conspiracy to derail a political party if you vote against my plan. To believe what this person is saying would mean you are assuming that republicans actually think this plan is a great idea and will exceed expectations- they don't. Neither do many democrats, neither do the majority of Americans. The real news is when democrats voice the exact same concerns about what they see as a bad bill that does not solve the problems it set out to. Why is it that you can look at a situation like this, analyze it from many angles, see glaring problems with it, but get attacked for raising your concern? That isn't the process for a successful solution. These are basic, obvious, honest concerns that are not being answered, they are simply steamrolling. Historically speaking, that is not a good sign.

 

[Wavex]

Cuba, let's be real... you and I both know that even if the bill was changed and someone proved to you that it will be cheaper than the current system, you and your peers would find other things to bitch about... I am convinced that no matter what is done to that bill, you will ALWAYS be against it unless endorsed by the extreme right ppl you listen to, which we all know will NEVER happen!!! Far right ppl have one goal and one goal only: kill this bill and never let any other bill see the light of day (like it's been done for decades)...

Am I wrong?

At the end of the day, I know you probably think British/European politicians/journalists/experts/analysts are clueless (in general) compared to their American peers (most Americans think the US is the World, and everywhere else is 3rd world country), and particularly so concerning this specific topic (since they were already stupid enough to let communism take over a long time ago and they are all Marxists/Nazi countries that are doomed for the rest of time for having Universal Healthcare), but they're all pretty much relating the same msg as above... maybe it's a sign? last time Europeans gave advise to the US, the US would be better off today if they had listened

It seems Obama is the only one wise enough and open minded enough to listen to others before pulling the guns and start shooting... (not only on that topic btw)...

 

[Cuba]

Cuba, let's be real... you and I both know that even if the bill was changed and someone proved to you that it will be cheaper than the current system, you and your peers would find other things to bitch about... I am convinced that no matter what is done to that bill, you will ALWAYS be against it unless endorsed by the extreme right ppl you listen to, which we all know will NEVER happen!!! Far right ppl have one goal and one goal only: kill this bill and never let any other bill see the light of day (like it's been done for decades)...

Am I wrong?

At the end of the day, I know you probably think British/European politicians/journalists/experts/analysts are clueless (in general) compared to their American peers (most Americans think the US is the World, and everywhere else is 3rd world country), and particularly so concerning this specific topic (since they were already stupid enough to let communism take over a long time ago and they are all Marxists/Nazi countries that are doomed for the rest of time for having Universal Healthcare), but they're all pretty much relating the same msg as above... maybe it's a sign? last time Europeans gave advise to the US, the US would be better off today if they had listened

It seems Obama is the only one wise enough and open minded enough to listen to others before pulling the guns and start shooting... (not only on that topic btw)...

Yes, you are wrong. I am not discussing Eurpoe or the effects of their socialist governments. I am discussing the very real concerns I have about the current bill, it's failure to curb costs, and citing specific examples, facts, opinions, and statements from democrats that agree with my concerns. If this bill contained meaningful tort reform, interstate competition, or specifics on the waste in the system that is going to be revised and made more efficient then I would feel much more comfortable. So would the republicans, so would the moderate democrats who are increasing opposed to this plan. I am not a far right extremeist by any means, drawing that conclusion based on my statements would show an incredible lack of understanding of politics in general. I want reform, I just want it to be sustainable, curb costs, and not harm the economy.

You have not disputed my concerns, you have provided no evidence to the contrary, you have simply used the same tactics that the far left have shown, to paint anyone that disagrees as some sort of conspirator. Do you honestly believe that I want my health care costs to continue to skyrocket? Do you think I want the cost to employ people to become more than we are willing to accept? Do you think I want to lay off my coworkers or reduce their pay? If this bill made sense I would support it. I have no stake in the profits of insurance companies, I have no stake in the success of some politician that happens to belong to the opposition party. I have a massive stake in the real results of what our government is doing, we all do, and to say that I shouldn't be concerned is absurd.

Since you are so certain as to the value of this current bill perhaps you can enlighten us as to what specific provisions are included to ensure the reduction in cost that has been promissed, explain specifically what cuts to medicare are included and explain how they will not reduce the well being of those reliant on medicare, and prove to us that this bill will actually improve our lives. I'm serious, I really want to know why you feel this will work, why you think it will be sustainable, and why you think it will not harm the economy and increase unemployment.

 

[Cuba]

The other thing to consider is that if we go my route of careful consideration, debate, and research into the specific effects of the bill to the point where our concerns and questions can be answered, and it turns out I have been totally wrong and the current bill is some insanely counterintuitive stroke of genius that makes complete sense as is when fully understood (no one understands its effects currently, there has not been nearly enough time to analyze a 2000 pages of whereas and subsection 201.2.3's), then it can still go into effect on schedule... in 2013.

On the other hand if we go your route of passing it as is without consideration for the obvious concerns, and you are totally wrong, we are royally screwed.

Clearly you believe that any delay is a conspiracy to kill the bill, and I believe that passing something like this without extensive discussion and research is grossly irresponsible and dangerous. In some cases you are right, there are always some politicians bent on obstruction on both sides of the aisle for a variety of reasons, but in this case every republican in congress can vote against it and it would still pass. It is the dems that have honest concerns (that happen to mirror my own) that you should be focussing on. Transparency, honest debate, bipartisanship, time to read and understand the bills. This is what we were promissed, this is what we were told are the principals of our president, and this is what I am asking for. There are glaring inconsistancies in this bill relating to cost containment that have not been answered, and you are not disputing that. Call me crazy, but I think we need a better understanding before we sign on to a massively life altering contract that will effect not only us but the generations that follow.