No, that wasa exactly the point. You claim that Hussien care will lower medical costs. The CBO says there is nothing in that bill that will lower costs. Frankly,I think I'll put my faith in the CBO evaluation over a far left wing crank on the internet.

They are using a debating technique--
First "Its to lower costs"
Then " Its to cover ALL Americans"
Whichever one you debate, they switch to the other "reason"

I think it would be difficult to accurately forecast such things at any rate. If the horror stories I've read of regarding pre-existing conditions or canceling of policy based on some trivial peripheral issue can be avoided, looks like that would be an increase in efficiency of a profound sort. That is, someone gets crucial care in a timely fashion such that they continue to remain alive long enough to continue contributing to the nation's wealth and tax base.

The nonsense about rationing care is unbelievable. Just as it would be impossible for every citizen to own a 20,000 sq. ft. house, a Bentley, a Ferrari, and several MBs, it will be impossible for every citizen to get $1 million per year in medical care for the last several years of their life.

I suppose we can just insist that all who want a heart, liver, kidney, or lung transplant should be given one right away -- to hell with rationing!!

But scarcity, or at least limits on, resources is pretty obvious in this case: there aren't enough organs available to satisfy demand.

Likewise, it is impossible for each person to have a small army at their disposal whenever they wish. We have people now getting all sorts of marginally useful extreme measures, surgery, etc. while children or people in their prime go w/o basic care. Not efficient. Welcome to second rate international economic status.

Utter insanity. I'm sure insurance execs salivate at this idea, a mandate that they become further enriched at the taxpayer's expense. The powerful lobbies own and control our nation. It will be difficult to overcome.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. I said no such thing. The article you quoted mentioned the CBO saying a recent change in the bill would not make the bill cheaper by much. The CBO wasn't talking about whether the health care bill as a whole would lower costs in the long run, at least not in that article from what I saw. That's a separate and debatable issue. But the fact is we spend much more per person on health care than any other country, and our health outcomes are far from the greatest. And each of those other countries has some sort of universal health care plan.

Sadly that's true. I think paying the poor to purchase private insurance and requiring everyone to purchase it was one way to get the insurance companies to agree to stop rejecting people based on pre-exisiting conditions. Without a decent public health insurance plan to provide some real competition and bargaining power I have little doubt that the private insurance companies will be among the biggest beneficiaries of any health care reform.

Two debates going on here.

1. Should everyone be covered?

2. If the answer is yes to the 1st question, what
is the best way to do this.

I would say:

1. Yes, everyone should be covered and everyone should contribute to the system rather than waiting until they get sick before seeking insurance.

2. Have a public insurance plan that every legal resident can use, offers good benefits and is taxpayer paid. Limit medical liability. Provide incentives for doctors to go into general medicine where demand will increase. Provide incentives for preventive care and patient well-being.

How is one to enforce who is a legal resident? Can't be done, just ask California.

Sure it can be done. Whether it will be done is another issue. I'm thinking with the national/public insurance system everyone who's legal here would get an insurance card from the govt. If the system works properly, then illegals wouldn't get the card, and wouldn't get any treatment, aside from maybe minimal ER treatment if necessary on the way to the deportation center.