You think the new your times is a far left source ?

Would you rather I not support my posts with relevant information. ?

Yes, I do want the government to provide for the citizens of this country.
That is what they are supposed to do.
That is why we elect them, to do their jobs.

We pay taxes to pay for the schools, pave the roads, keep the VA and the military running.

What is it exactly you want ?
Do you want to end our government ?

Well this says a lot about how you think.

Apparently promoting a high performing health care system that achieves better access and improved quality, greater efficiency, particularly for the most vulnerable, low income, uninsured, minority, children, and elderly is a partisan issue.

What is partisan about it ?
Do only democrats care about health care for these people ?

You have said a lot about your true character.

You claim yourself to be a christian, why don't you read up in your book and see what your god would do.

I think you may be surprised to see that he supported the same cause.

And while your at it can you explain why there is such a dissonance between what you claim as your religion and the actions you take.

WASHINGTON -- Nine House Democrats indicated in an Associated Press survey Monday they have not ruled out switching their "no" votes to "yes" on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, brightening the party's hopes in the face of unyielding Republican opposition.
With four House seats now vacant, Pelosi would need 216 votes to approve the Senate-passed version, which replaces the jettisoned House bill. That's exactly the number she has now if no other members switch their votes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030102834_2.html

Well said. It's one thing to proclaim you believe, it's another thing to practice what you preach.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

High performance health care. From our government??!

Thats like getting a honda with a large muffler extension and thinking its a race car !! LMAO !!

Oh -oh here comes the religious part of the thread !! I guess the political side was starting to peter out.

__________________


Experience : what you receive 3 seconds after you really needed it !!



86 300SDL 387,000? Motor committed suicide
81 300SD 214,000 "new" 132,000 motor
83 300SD 212,000 parts car
83 300SD 147,000

91 F700 5.9 cummins 5spd eaton 298,000
66 AMC rambler American 2dr auto 108,000
95 Chevy 3/4 ton auto 160,000
03 Toyota 4runner 180,000 wifes

No, health care from the physician of your choice. Talk to the 40 million Americans on Medicare and ask them how it works out for them. Most will tell you it works just fine, especially if you have gap coverage for the 20% medicare doesn't cover.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Your analogy is somewhat misleading, since for millions of Americans, they don't have a "honda", their healthcare situations is more akin to hitchhiking and being on foot, limping. A honda would be a substantial upgrade, with or without the aftermarket muffler.

I guess we should shut the VA and Medicare down in the US ?

Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care


You have a long lists of governments to inform that their health care is only a honda with a large muffler.

Please let me know when you break the news to them.

• • 2.1.1 Brazil
  • 2.1.2 Canada
  • 2.1.3 Colombia
  • 2.1.4 Greenland
  • 2.1.5 Mexico
  • 2.1.6 Peru
  • 2.1.7 Trinidad and Tobago
  • 2.1.8 United States
• 2.2 Asia
  • 2.2.1 Bhutan
  • 2.2.2 People's Republic of China
  • 2.2.3 Hong Kong
  • 2.2.4 India
  • 2.2.5 Israel
  • 2.2.6 Singapore
  • 2.2.7 Taiwan (ROC)
  • 2.2.8 Thailand
• 2.3 Europe
  • 2.3.1 Denmark
  • 2.3.2 Finland
  • 2.3.3 Germany
  • 2.3.4 Ireland
  • 2.3.5 Italy
  • 2.3.6 Netherlands
  • 2.3.7 United Kingdom
    • 2.3.7.1 England
    • 2.3.7.2 Northern Ireland
    • 2.3.7.3 Scotland
    • 2.3.7.4 Wales
• 2.4 Oceania
  • 2.4.1 Australia
  • 2.4.2 New Zealand

The argument keeps switching--are we arguing about health care, or the cost of health care? Maybe the analogy is trading in the Honda for a Crosley. I'd like to be sure its an improvement, and that it actually will cost less/ save money. Governments at all levels have a rather poor record of prooviding services at a budgeted cost. The true cost is often ( not always) multiples of the original estimate.
If its such a great plan, why do they have to buy so many votes?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

If it is such a bad plan why so many Insurance lobbyists? According to some right wing reports rates would go up..so why would insurance companys spend so much to "kill the bill'?

How are the two disconnected? Or another way, how can you discuss one without the other?

There are measurable benefits, both economic and non-economic, for increasing the availablity of affordable healthcare to more Americans. I believe we should all agree with that notion. Lower mortality rates, increased productivity, early detection of diseases all have direct and indirect benefits socially and economically.

So, how to we get there?

Actually, if these people who can't pay their own way live longer, that's an economic drain. And from what I've seen, people who go to the doctor all the time don't really live that long, and obviously, aren't very healthy.

I'd support removing all (State-imposed) restrictions on competition between the insurance companies. Let every company offer policies in every state. I think I'd like to see them use a single pool of all members rather than so many groups for policies--but I can be swayed on that. Using a single pool would seem to make the rates a lot more transparent--we collected this much--we paid out this much, and our executives, investors and sales staff got this much.

I think I'd like to see some sort of two-tier coverage where individuals would pay, out-of-pocket for routine vists, ( maybe with a tax credit below a certain income), and then catastrophic coverage for the big expenses. Again, I am willing to listen to arguments on both sides of this.

There is nothing wrong with medical savings accounts where employers pay a % of income into a fund, and whatever the employee doesn't spend, they get to keep. You'd have to structure it so that people would not be tempted to ignore legitimate HC expenses so that they might get the cash back.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Aside from the complaints of "states rights" and "federalism" from an economic model of insurance, that would make sense by "spreading the risk" of the cost of claims over a larger population of premium payers. On the other hand, the risk in a national private, for profit, insurance system might be for people in states with less attractive markets, either due to either population or health/age demographics. Who would insure them and at what price?

If the insurance companies were required to use a single pool for all their clients, wouldn't that possible disparity even out?
These sorts of details do need expert opinions; not mine.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags