Socialised Healthcare

Re: Socialism?

it sounds fair to me; pay a bit more tax for when other people are sick or injured and need to be nursed back to health to continue their job in exchange for having other people pay for your healthcare when you can't work yourself. what's the problem? the current situation with healthcare in America is atrocious. even after paying insurance premiums you're still charged insane amounts for proceedures, can be denied care for basically ad hoc reasons (the 'preexisting condition') and if you don't have a job you don't get care, even though that's when you need it most of all so you can get back on your feet and contribute to society once again. when you let healthcare be handled by for-profit ventures, it's suddenly in their best interest to help as little and charge as much as they can get away with it, and no surprise that's what happens in America in the absence of universal health care.
btw, Cuba has universal healthcare. both the USA and Cuba have the same life expectancy but Cuba spends 1/20th of the amount the USA does on healthcare. france, canada, britain etc etc have universal healthcare and they far better than the USA does in issues like this

unfortunately the healthcare reform has been emasculated so much in congress beacuse of attempts to pander to blue dogs and republicans that it basically isn't an improvement at all any more. it's even starting to be referred to as 'health insurance reform' rather than health care reform lmao. sorry America. you still need it though

edit: also, the statement that your grandfather will be killed for some drug dealer is definitely poisoning the well. it's granting a disproportionate amount of weight towards the undesirable elements of society and equating it in the mind of the reader to the tax only going towards the healthcare of these undesirable elements. be careful with statements like that. oh, and even criminals deserve human decency; criminals ARE human beings, no more or less worthy of basic rights than you or I. demonizing any man or woman forever for a crime they've commited is wrong

Re: Socialism?

The whole purpose of insurance in general is that you pay a small amount even when you don't need to, in order to ensure that you have a large amount when you do need it.

But as Patashu says, the whole basis of the for-profit american healthcare system is built around trying as hard as possible to deny as many people as much coverage as possible in all cases. There are doctors, as in, people who've sworn an oath to do no harm, who are payed solely to review insurance applications and try to find any justification to deny them. Give 'Sicko' a watch if you aren't the kind of person to just automatically dismiss Michael Moore even when he makes good points, just because he sometimes goes a little over the top.

There's some good perfectly legitimate non-michael-moore-originated footage there of a doctor who worked for a major medical insurance company testifying before congress that she was given bonuses and promotions the more people she could find a way to deny claims for.

Health-care is NOT a system that runs better in the free market, because competition for something like health insurance doesn't result in lower premiums, lower deductables and lower monthly payments to try and lure people to one provider over the other, it results in companies realising that you basically CANNOT choose to simply NOT HAVE insurance and pay for procedures out of pocket, so while there isn't a monopoly as such of providers, there is still the kind of monopoly you get when you have a service that absolutely everybody needs (Except, ironically, the very very wealthy who -can- afford to pay full-price out of pocket for their medical needs, and all of whom have -very- good insurance so they never actually have to) and so there is no real force to cause competition, just driving for greater profit margins, and greater screwing of the poor and disadvantaged.

Well, let me just say, as someone who comes from a reasonably well off family taken over time (I'd generally choose to identify as upper-middle-class currently) I've still found myself in the living situation to be going paycheck to paycheck, sharing too many bodies into too few bedrooms and worrying about getting enough food.

We certainly contributed to society, we earned our livings, we payed our taxes, but then businesses close down, and workers get laid off. What if 30 years into that 45 years of working for lincoln your grandfather's plant closed down and he was laid off? He loses his medical insurance, and then heaven forbid, the stress of possibly no longer being able to provide for his family makes him have a heart attack. Well now he's looking at 50, 60 thousand dollars in medical bills, and no insurance.

Many great men and women in the US have found themselves in similar situations, now they are crushed under debt for procedures they couldn't predict or plan for, no longer covered under the insurance that stopped the moment they lost their job and their coverage, and facing the possibility of bankruptcy.

Do you really want to tell those people that they don't deserve medical treatment? That your grandfather after decades of loyal service should be screwed over because the natural course of the company had them put him out of a job?

Who says the "working class" can't -become- "less fortunate" and who says the "less fortunate" aren't trying their damndest to improve their situation? But being unable to even go to the hospital and get potential illnesses looked at before they get worse, thus keeping them out of the workforce even longer because they can't afford it with their no job?

Re: Socialism?

I suddenly feel like my post was very childish and narrow-minded.
Keep the answers coming guys!

Would this post be considered a bump? If so, can someone please tell me so I don't do it again?

Re: Socialism?

I agree, however:

This is not true. Equality is not something which is promised by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence mentions it in the sense that "[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration of Independence is not law, and even that only says we are equal in our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about health, privacy, or even property.

In fact, the United States is BUILT on the fact that we are NOT all equal. We all enjoy certain unalienable rights, but the things people want the government to provide them are often far outside of that. We are equal as human beings but as members of the economy, we are NOT equal. That is the point of our economic system and to bely that counters the very function of capitalism. Giving money to those who haven't earned it is encouraging sloth and that is exactly the opposite of what Capitalism is about.

I'll also add that I find all insurance systems (including one as encompassing as to be referred to as simply "health care") to be HUGE ****ing scams. These are PROFITABLE, PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. This means that they are NOT going to care about service, but rather just the bottom line. In addition, since they profit from your investment, that to me means that you'd be better off SAVING YOUR MONEY TO USE YOURSELF. Insurance is basically just gambling, except the thing you're betting on is that you'll get injured or sick or something. Stupid.

I consider anyone who can't pull their weight in society to be "undesirable elements", even if they're otherwise "good people". If a person cannot do anything to be able to afford technology, they don't deserve it, even if that technology appears to be necessary for survival.

edit: dev: if a person spends their life contributing as you identify, they should know to have money set aside in case something goes wrong. To not have money set aside for such a thing is as irresponsible as never having been prepared in the first place.

Re: Socialism?

maybe they can't do anything to be able to afford the stuff they need because they can't get a job because they're sick or injured because they don't have health insurance while they're jobless

Re: Socialism?

obama's plan is creating quite a stir but is a step in the right direction.

taking in example countries like canada and france where you pay more taxes yet have a provincial medicare card which exempts you from paying anything in a hospital. anything health related minus ambulance bills which you can still be covered for with insurance. i dont like the idea of having to "copay" with companies to pay a large sum for health insurance. even that can be expensive.

the healthcare reform plan seems to be trying to get america more towards a socialist country where it has been proven to work in many other countries (communism doesnt count). upsets me to hear that people are complaining about this and refuse change to stay in their debt infested country with poverty due to medical expenses everywhere.

Re: Socialism?

Health Care has grown out of bounds is all. 2.2 Trillion dollars in 2007.. 713 billion in 1990. Its been two decades and its up three times as much? what the f*ck? Last I checked there isn't 700 million people in the US.Where is all the money being thrown around. The government stepped in on monopolization policies, but backs down on obvious price inflations? I guess that holds true thusfar. Housing markets, Oil markets.. I guess everything will have to come to a crashing stop before they are deemed neccessary to step in. I really don't support the bill proposed by Obama, but there has to be a preventative change in health care now before it really does crash and mess up our whole market. One thing I am afraid of is that if we do accept this new bill, this will be a giant beast that is created. It needs to have adaptability. Leglislation will be almost impossible once it gets up and running. Or you know, maybe there is just too many people let those who die die and the rest just go on.

What I really fear is the adaptability though. 300 million people here. Each one of us has our own cases going on. Can a government bill really support everyone as fully as it should?

I read an obviously right wing summary of the bill where they threw around the words Big Brother and Rationing. (http://www.breakdownofamerica.com/?p=380) Actually reading the bill it is almost nothing like what that website said it was line after line. Odd how I had alway imagined that the republican side was the one who favored big brother... Reversing roles is curious to me.

Re: Socialism?

If health care gets nationalized, it wouldn't be overly difficult to assign the actual mechanics of running the system to state organizations under direct federal oversight instead of trying to manage one overarching federal system. And besides, states love getting more control over things.

Re: Socialism?

Then they should have somewhere to turn in the private sector. Personal loan, friends, family, charity, etc.

There is no reason for a disabled person to be a draw on society. Let the people who care about them be the ones to pay the cost. Why should the government be a charity?

And the reason the government doesn't control the prices is because of FREE ****ING MARKET. If people pay it, it's apparently worth that much. The only way huge prices require legislative action is in the case of a monopoly or some other system whereby a person or corporation is able to singularly affect the price without regards to demand (particularly in the case of a necessary good or service... and insurance is anything but necessary; necessary would be like WATER).

This is the problem that the Bush administration created. People who don't know **** began thinking that the BAD things about government are on the right side when in reality, they're on the far left. The right is SUPPOSED to be in favor of smaller government, less power, less intrusive, and because of all of this, lower taxes are necessary. So Bush comes along with ****ing wiretapping and Big Brother bull****, and is immediately followed by Obama with lower taxes. What the **** are the Republicans thinking? They're sitting there with a finger up their butt thinking people will vote for them when they're completely ass-backwards. These days I'm leaning right, but I couldn't even bring myself to vote for McCain because I knew he would be terrible... I guess it's better to have a leftist President who is actually on the left than a dude who claims to be on the right but is really all over the ****ing board.

Re: Socialism?

if you're drawing apon your friends and family when you come upon hard times, you're burdening them as well. by spreading such burdens out over the entire population of a country you lessen their effect on any one person and greatly speed their ability to recover and be at their full ability to create useful wealth once again

the free market would only be the ultimate way to run a country if everyone was perfectly rational and had all the facts available to them, but this isn't the case. private enterprises can spend money on something which distinctively does NOT create useful wealth, advertising and lobbying and working out legal loopholes, to be able to set prices higher/sell more products without actually having more of a 'right' to do so. in addition, multiple corporations (sometimes in different sectors) can conspire to collectively jack up prices so that both of them make money; I think the current USA health insurance/medical system does something like this in that, since there isn't any universal-quality health insurance anywhere, they can collectively get away with being expensive, unreliable and ad hoc dropping claims because there's no better alternative and the working class has somehow been conditioned against rallying for change (remember 'reagan speaks out against socialized medicine'?)

and healthcare certainly is a necessity; we could go without a public water system as well, we could technically do it but it would dramatically decrease the ability of anyone to do useful work because they'd need to work harder to get their water. same with healthcare

Re: Socialism?

There are certain things which are proven to work better when there is no profit incentive. In one town in Florida, I think it was, they tried to privatize the construction of a new sewer system. They had an auction, the lowest bidder won, etc. etc. yay capitalism. And when it was all said and done it was less efficient and more expensive to the people involved then it would've been if they just accepted a slight tax increase to pay for this construction. (I'd cite this but the example came from a rental textbook which I no longer have access to.)

My point is that with a well run bureaucracy a non-profit venture is going to be more efficient and provide better services than a for profit corporation. When you take out the incentive for profit you allow doctors to provide care without worrying about cost. I agree that there should be no reason the free market shouldn't work well with healthcare since competition for customers could provide better options for everyone. The problem is the entire market is run by greedy corporate executives who have more incentive to not provide solid care. The problem is exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies who have no incentive to cure disease but have an incentive to prolong lives and make people dependent on their drugs.

One argument against universal healthcare is that you'd have to wait for the government to approve any procedure you need, but that's just not the way it would work. Since the only incentive is to provide a good service to the citizens, you don't have to be pre-approved for anything; you get the care you need and then the government pays for it afterward. Our country is brainwashed with our current system so we try to rationalize a national healthcare plan through the current system. Of course if the same people were in charge a national healthcare plan would fail miserably. I wouldn't trust the federal government to provide any service for me, because Capitol Hill is so saturated with pharmaceutical and HMO lobbying. If you take that all out, a much simpler bureaucracy would have no problem functioning. It's a basic concept: the street-level bureaucrats (doctors in this case) would be in charge of providing care, and they would have no incentive to not provide care. In Britain, doctors actually get bonuses based on how many people they help live healthier lives (such as helping them quit smoking or lower their blood pressure, etc.). How can a system whose only incentive is to provide the services people need inferior to a system that has people being paid to find any reason to deny someone's claim?

Basically, the free market has already failed at healthcare and we should learn from the example of every other developed nation. Certain things should be about efficiently providing a service instead of efficiently generating profit.

EDIT Thanks devonin, that documentary was a good watch.

Re: Socialism?

Evidently, this topic seemed to piss me off beyond belief. I had a discussion with a girl in school about this. This is more so about the problem with the health care reform, but addresses more serious problems.

And before someone talks about "resources", the radio, the tv. There you go. Eyewitness statement bitches. The internet is not reliable anymore since google is now checking what you search now.

Here was my reply to what this girl I said, I hope you all read it thoroughly
(This also addresses names given to "crazy republicans", which I take offense to because I am a republican)
-------
Heh... Took me a while but here's my reply:
First - many of the people that are currently protesting at either "tea parties" or town hall meetings do not consider themselves 'republicans" but rather consider themselves "conservatives" There are many independents that consider themselves "conservatives" that are participating in these events.

The so called "birthers" do not believe that the possibility of Obama not being a naturalized citizen as some part of a preconceived conspiracy or Manchurian Candidate situation. That is more of the leftist perception. What they do contest is that the possiblity that Obama was born in Kenya is very possible given different eye witness statements on bothsides of the argument. The evidence thus far has not proven that he is in fact a naturalized citizen which could easily be refuted if the President were to hold true to his promise of transparency (to which he has not on many accounts). The evidence thus far produced by the State of Hawaii officals have only confirmed that there was a certificate of live birth. If you actually research the statutes in Hawai you will find that the actual witness of a live birth is not required and that the certificate application need simply be requested and then submitted. This is a fact that has not been divulged (and frankly will not be due to a biased media that has failed on many accounts to vette issues as had been entrusted to them to do). Due to this the question has not been answered and many speculate that this is a tactic utilized by the White House to create the perception of "crazies" on the right in order to discount protest to other issues/policies that would be considered controversial (marxist/socialistic agendas). What is the reasoning behind the millions of dollars and 100's of attorney's to prevent this information from being released to the public as has been performed by every other candidate that has run for office. The true concern is the Constitution. Unfortunately many of the concerns of the "average" man revolve around maintaining the Constitution and that it is not perverted. The criteria of the Constitution is why many conservatives are upset. Not that he is black. The race card has been played long enough and unfortunately the left will continue to enslave the socioecomically challenged populace in order to provide the guise of help in exchange for votes. Hand outs help no one but a hand up helps all.

Next issue - tea baggers. Again, the constitutionality of taxation is what these conservative constituents are concerned with. The 10th amendment is very clear as to what the federal powers are. Why the term tax "reform". Raising taxes does not equal reform. Raising taxes to pay for special pork projects where the end result for example is a new bridge is a state 2000 miles away from your home state is not representative government and is abusive taxation. The Boston Tea Party was action against unfair taxation and specifically without representation. People are upset because the representatives are not representing the wishes of their constutients. This is on both sides of the aisle in congress. It has now expanded to many of the progressive issues that the house is trying to push through. It is very evident in the response (or non response) to the voices of "the people" that are showing up to the town halls. The stimulus plan which has not slowed the progression of unemployment as promised by the President was one of the largest driving forces behind this movement. For the President, his administration, and a largely democrat congress to come out with dialogue that basically tells the "people" to shut up and get out of the way is regrettable.

Deathers - In fact is a true issue and you need to go deeper in your research. First off the VA has not been a well run system for many years. President Bush made large attempts to improve the VA system with the largest increase of funding up to his Presidency. Apparently Obama has dropped more money which is not surprising as he has dropped more money into everything government. Also, there are some insiders that see a possible plan for the VA Hospital infrastructire as a possible first step in a national hospital system. The "deathers" as you have termed it actually refers to a book that was published just prior to Bush's administration (Clinton era) called "The Death Book" to be utilized for veterans's in the VA system. It specifically dealt with guidance and recommendations for steering veteran's toward Hospice care which ultimately reduced care to the patient and most likely a premature death if the normal medical interventions were with held. When Bush became aware of this he protested and had this stopped. Now it has reappeared with the new administration. Again, another non vetted issue. You really have to go below the surface to find the facts these days as investigative journalism is all but dead. Veteran's health care has always been less than desired. They have difficulty operating at the standard of care for services rendered. Furthermore, the beuracracy often henders the delivery of those services leading to lengthy wait times inorder to receive those services especially in comparison to the private sector.

Tricare is truly less than perfect. The military has been the longest running HMO in the history of our country. Tricare has many issues of its own and does restrict services based on cost. The biggest problem is availabilty of providers that actually accept Tricare payments. For example, Tricare currently sets the standard that a referral has to be booked (ie appointment) within 30 days of a primary care manager making the referral. In the Camp Lejeune area the average referral takes 45-60 days to book. Some 2.5-3 months (i.e endocrinology). This occurs due to lack of available Tricare network providers in the local Lejeune market. Now imagine this happening on a Nationwide scale. It will exponentially equate to greater wait times. Is is very simple to see if you understand the system. The current healthcare bills are overly aggressive and do not address the problem but infact transfer the problem under the umbrella of the government which is the only entity in our nation that can operate at a deficit. Add the layering of beuracracy to this and you have a recipe for disasterous outcomes. Because of the administrative cost to run a so called "national healthcare system" the overhead cost becomes much greater than what could occur in a free market system. If the attempt to be fiscally responsible arises this will lead to reduction in services. It is basic ecomonics and basic healthcare adminstration. This is why the language of the current bills is very frightening to many as it provides for the requirement to steer toward hospice care and end of life plans (aka "The Death Book"). The current savings with this proposed HR bill is only 2% to address a small percentage of the population. This is the backroom handshack deal (not transparent) between the President and the Pharmaceutical industry which ultmitaly benefits the pharmaceutical industry. 80 billion dollars in savings is minisucal in light of the 3.75 Trillion estimated cost (2%). Also, the abortion issue is of concern. The reform requires increases in taxes (which is not provided for under the constitution as this is a federal program). Many feel that they should not be paying for abortions via their tax dollars. For some, paying for someone's abortion goes against their religious beliefs, which is a right in this country. Then again it seems that if your a Christian these days you have no rights.

There is also a perception that this program will be free. It will not be as it does have a cost on top of taxation.

Recall the 10th Amendment below which is were most conservatives have issue with the current administration:

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The federal gov't does not have the power vested to it by the constitution to erect a national healthcare system.

Also recall that this is not a democratic government. This is a republic. A republic based on the laws established by the Constution. This is what "we the people" are upset about.

Everyone wants reform to healthcare but the government is not the solution. If we want to be honest than lets reform the insurance industry. Provide protabilty across state lines and utilize the term life insurance model and address the issue of pre-existing conditions. let's honestly look at the pharmaceutical industry and research funding. Let us address the points instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare and infringement of rights.

Yes it is true that we pay for it now in cost transferred from indigent care in ERs to the hospital consumer but the big difference is that my rights are not violated. Why would I allow the transfer of the cost to become the form of a tax that will be misutilized and at the same time have my rights violated?

Re: Socialism?

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and I am more than positive that as soon as President Obama announced his intention to run for the office of the President, that his credentials in terms of being legally allowed to retain that office were thoroughly checked. Trying to say after the fact, that the fact that he has legally valid proof of his being born in the United States, is some sort of scam or conspiracy is exactly that, crazy conspiracy theorizing. Enough people had a vested interest in making it do he could never even have attempted to run for president that if there were such proof that he wasn't eligable it would have been found.

Raising a state tax in only your state in order to pay for a project in another state entirley would be abusive taxation. Raising federal taxes in order to pay for a project anywhere in the united states is not abusive taxation. Additionally, every single person who has ever tried to point to the apparant illegality of having to pay taxes has been found at all levels of the legal system, to be dead wrong. Most of them are in prison right now.

People elected them by a majority vote. If a majority voted candidate is not representing the interests of the majority of their constituents, then those constituents need to express their dissatisfaction by NOT REELECTING THEM and making it clear that any candidate who -doesn't- represent their interests will suffer the same fate. WHat is REALLY happening is the huge numbers of people who simply don't bother voting are now upset that THEIR interests are not being represented, but too bad so sad. If you don't vote, you lose all right to complain about what elected officials do.

So wait, Bush put in more money, and this is an 'attempt to improve' the system, but when Obama puts in more money, he's just 'dropping more money into the government' with a pronounced negative connotation? Come on now. At least pretend you aren't biased.

By standardizing and nationalizing all healthcare, this would actually resolve the majority of the issues you seem to have for the VA healthcare system. It exists as an attempt to provide socialised healthcare to a certain small segment of the population while everyone else goes through the private sector. If -EVERYBODY- were part of a nationalised healthcare system, there would be no need for a seperate bureaucracy just to try and manage one small segment of the system.

Under a nationalised healthcare system, everywhere would accept everything at all times. You woudln't need to shop around for a facility that will accept the specific kind of coverage you have (And this is currently true of private healthcare for many people, in that many insurance companies will only pay for your procedures if you go to specifc hospitals [usually ones with whom they've made arrangements]) because all hospitals would all support all procedures for all people. It would actually decrease wait times because there would be -more- possible places for each patient to go and be sure of being covered.

Well it's too bad that church and state are seperate and distinct entities. Once again: You can't elect your political figures by a majority vote and then insist that they aren't representing the majority interest. The constitution allows for mechanisms to remove political representatives whose constitutants believe are not representing them. Avail yourselves of those options, or acknowledge that perhaps the majority view isn't the one you personally think it is.

The line you quoted is in fact only article 12 of the tenth amendment among many other articles, but anyway.

Article one of the US Constitution, section 8 lays out the powers and responsibilities of congress (which is a federal entity) AMong those powers is, direct quote: "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So though we haven't necessarily established that the US federally has the power to make a healthcare system, it -absolutely- has the power to tax the nation in order to pay for things for the "general welfare of the United States" As well, the supreme court has often interpreted that clause to allow the establishment of national social programs. "for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause."

Pretty sure there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about a national healthcare system or taxation to pay for it.

YOu have no actual evidence, lacking a functioning national heathcare system in the United States to point to supporting your claim that the funds will be misutilized. You do however, have a whole host of countries in which a nationalised healthcare system is already operational, and doing quite well, with populations who have no problem at all with the idea of marginally higher taxes in exchange for nationally guarenteed medical coverage at all times.

Additionally, the government appears to me and my research (Please quote me some text from the constituion that disproves the text I already quoted from the constitution that shows otherwise) to be perfectly legally allowed to engage in this project, and if the various bills and motions required to bring it into existance -pass- their majority votes in the majority democratically elected political bodies containing representatives who were democratically elected by the majority of voters in their ridings, a claim that a majority of people are -opposed- to this system shows either a) That you're simply incorrect about what the majority believe, or b) that the majority does not actually include a majority of people who voted, which is the only majority that is relevant in this case.

Re: Socialism?

No, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that we may have an ineligible president that is reforming our entire nation.

Let me point out that more than have the congress is democratic, and there are plenty of lobbyists for each and every single one of them. And no, almost no attempt was made by the democratic party to test for his illegibility.

Sure, sure, and the Democratic Congress also wants to keep illegals in the country. you want to know how illegals keep getting in our Country Devonin? A Illegal Man and a Illegal Woman come into the Country. The have a child. They are now illegal "Legals". And Money is brought out of no where to help the construction industry because these people need homes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UjY3YDlwA





HAH! You'll get a kick out of this one.


I think the people are pissed off. And I'm sure that they voted... Why do you assume they don't? I don't see proof, and quite frankly, I think most politically informed people or veterans vote.

OBAMA DIDN'T PUT MONEY! He's cutting money and he's cutting it in the wrong place! And he is dropping more money into goverment. The Goverment, mind you, is the only thing in this damn Country that can run at a deficit! But apparently the only thing that matters to obama is trying to bail out is his goverment, and he can't even do that good!

If we lived in socialized health care and my girlfriend were to get breast cancer, she wouldn't be covered and would be denied. This whole "Pre-existing" condition phenomenon where you will always be accepted is absolute bull. The reform will put you IN A PLAN THAT IS DESIGNED BY THE GOV'T. The lies that Obama spews sometime just get me. Are we really going to let the Gov't reform our health care? Is it fair that THEY themselves get a different plan designed for them? They won't go what we go through! They've said this on videos and tv! Around 5-10 million people don't have health Care. About 300 Million people do. That doesn't seem fair to knock down the 300 million people to the 5-10 million.

So that's what you getting from what evidence? Yes, Hospitals will "Accept" you, but the Doctors can't do anything for you if he's told to. Remember, the new bill addresses that the government will interfere with lined up procedures. There will be increased wait times.

Um... Yet again I'll say this. People vote. The Representatives are most likely paid to change there mind or represent another's opinion. The American people want these representatives out of office, either that or for them to actually represent their opinions. The political figures are not being removed because our congress wants what it wants. It wants the representatives to not represent the current opinion of the people and to vote for health care reform.

So your saying it's unconstitutional to erect a health care reform? Really?

They say healthcare is free, but maybe if YOU take a look into the bill, you will see that there is a cost on top of tax. So we are forced to pay for something, when somehow we are able to keep OUR own insurance.

Again, we are supposed to fix the insurance industry, not health care as a whole.

Of course I have no evidence! It's only upon speculation of radio, and the news. I don't trust the liberal wiki site, nor do I trust the Whitehouse.gov site.

Then again, you can always take a look at the ex. order by obama.



Also, when you reply devonin, I would prefer if you were to address all issues that I had posted, VERY, VERY thoroughly. That post was hard to read and seemed unfufilling.

*Edit*

Wait, You live in Canada? Don't your people come to our country for certain medical procedures? I know a lot of doctors that tell me so.. lol

*Edit2*

Also, A lot of what your saying seems to be biased as well, as you too have no evidence which is posted because a single picked amendment that will soon be going against the health care bill.