garland

yeah, how come the rest of the first world doesn't know what we mean by medical financial bankruptcy, or pre-existing conditions, or denied care?

What's wrong with them that they're too good for the American way of doing things?

dstark

Well Xiggi. I'm self-employed. Welcome to the real world.

The Pelosi plan is not going to be the plan. We'll have to wait to see what the plan is.


Or we can watch Sean Hannity make stuff up. That's fun to watch. The paranoid get to feed on the paranoia. What more can the paranoid want? Paranoia heaven. And the paranoids can watch it and it's not in color. Or black and white. It's all white.

parent2noles

Hi Garland,

Long time no write.

garland

Mr. Payne--you have no idea how much money I have and how I give it.

ONe person's charities are nice but change little. I would be glad to support a government which mandated healthcare, food, housing, warmth, education, and safety for everyone. Because that is what's right. And I'd be more than happy to lose what I would need to to make that happen.

Don't throw the hypocrite word around lightly.

garland

HI, parent2! I normally know better than to partipate here.

vicariousparent

Some of the people on here make this guy look sane.

File:ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dstark

Hmmm. Maybe we can cook those without health care. Save on the food costs too.

xiggi

If the issue were to help people who do not have health care obtain some from the government, the debate would have ended when Lady Clinton was the helm.

Is it really needed to overhaul a system that works for 90% of the population to save 10%? Would it not be simpler to evaluate the problem and measure the cost of solving that problem? How hard would it be to compute the exact cost of offering the same plan our friends in Congress have to every un- and underinsured American?

Unfortunately, "getting everyone coverage" has little to nothing to do with helping the destitute. It has everything to do with a branch of the government seeking to take control of one of the largest sectors in the economy. As George Will said, it only takes an industrious person to count the number of "SHALL" in the wording of the proposed bills to understand the true intent of the current health plan.

If this administration truly wanted to address the issue of the uninsured, it could do so easily. The same is true for the previous administrations, going as far as one can remember. The efforts to overhaul the health sector have nothing to do with the 10 to 15% of people who suffer from lack of resources. It has everything to do with DIRECTLY controlling a population that does not want nor need to be controlled.

Liberalism or socialism, the moniker is hardly relevant. The result is the same. For some we cannot have a system with have and with have-nots. We prefer a system that fails everyone. This is what our country faces in education. Health care is simply the next tool.

dstark

Xiggi, the health care system does not work for 90% of the people. And its going to get worse because the health care systems as it is set up, is not economicaly viable...just like the financial system in the US.

The health care system really needs a drastic overhaul, but there are too many interests that don't want that.

And the education system works the way it is supposed to work. To maintain the status quo.

Mr Payne

I know you can always give more, hypocrite.

It's way more effective to spend other people's monies, no doubt. Massive redistribution of other people's monies is always more effective for hypocrites than actually giving up their own money willingly.

I'm not. I'm calling you a hypocrite straight up.

Pizzagirl

Lady Clinton? How odd. Between you and Bulletandpima's I'madinnerjacket, how old are we? Isn't it possible to reference public figures by their given names? I'm not a Bush fan, but amazingly I manage to refer to him as former Pres Bush, or George W. Bush, or maybe GWB.

It's not "overhauling the system." It's providing a public insurance option.
Besides, I think it's hysterical when the Republican-we're-all-about-the-family-values-holier-than-thou-because-we-go-to-church crowd really doesn't seem to GAS about fellow human beings.

xiggi

Oh please, PG. How old are we?

I could have left it at Clinton for short. I'll make sure that in the future, and in your honor, I watch my titles carefully and stick to Miss or Mrs.

After all, I should take good note that a former First Lady should not be called Lady. Oddly hilarious.

Oh well!

vicariousparent

1) It doesn't work.
2) It is a modest, incremental reform.

We will still have private doctors, private hospitals, private insurance companies, private drug companies, private pharmacies, private everything else. The only difference is that more people will get coverage, insurance policies will be standardized so that consumers will be able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. And there will be a few more options to choose from, including a public option.

An overhaul would be national health service, or the elimination of tax deductibility of employer provided health insurance.

garland

It's more effective. Period.

DocT

Its always greener on the other side of the fence. We can all be relieved that whatever we get will be better than what we have. Isn't that the way it always works?