One disclaimer: This is a "trial run" for this iteration of the Round Table in this zone, so please do not hesitate to leave any comments or thoughts on the idea, formatting, etc..
With that said, let's get it on!
(1) Will a public option be a necessity for any health care reform legislature to pass, or will a public option of any sort doom the success of health care reform legislation?
Grant Muioc: No, the public option is not a necessity for any legislation to pass. I don't think the public option will be in the final bill anyway, if it even makes it that far. There are two strong possibilities: hardcore liberals like Pelosi will kill the bill because it does not have a public option, or conservatives and moderates will kill it because it still has a public option. The problem is that the public option is polarizing, but if level heads can agree that reform can happen without it we may get actual reform without heavy handed politics or more government control. I think we need some reform, but I don't like the public option from a business standpoint. I also think that the reason why so many hardcore liberal politicians want it is because it represents more power for them.
Robert Zimmer: Health care reform is in a funny Catch-22. A strong bloc of liberal Democratic congresspeople are on record as saying they will vote against legislation that does not contain some form of the public option. All Republicans currently oppose a public option. Moderate-to-conservative Democrats, who are relatively few in number, seem to be mostly leaning in favor of the public option with an opt-out provision. My belief is that Nancy Pelosi has 218 votes in the House to pass a bill with a public option with negotiated reimbursement rates. In the Senate, particularly with Joe Lieberman's threat to join Republicans in filibustering the final bill if he doesn't like it, it's anybody's guess as to whether the public option can pass with an opt-out provision. If it appears Majority Leader Reid cannot get 60 votes to stop a filibuster, then there will likely be some sort of compromise, such as Senator Olympia Snowe's trigger. Bottom line: Democrats know that failing to pass any health care reform will be worse for their re-election chances than passing reform with the public option, so the question really becomes not whether reform happens, but what manifestation of the public option it carries in the final version
J. D. Dunn: I don't think the public option is more a hindrance to passage for conservatives than it is a necessity for liberals. In the end, the left-wing of the Democratic party will likely choose *some* reform over no reform and vote for passage regardless of the presence of a public option.
Joe Rivett: No. The main reform is to get rid of the pre-existing conditions and dropping of coverage or cherry picking of coverage. The Medicaid expansion will have a far larger impact than a public option. Money is also being allocated to more clinics and other advances in the health care system.
J. Alexander Mitchell: A politician's job, at some stage, becomes getting re-elected. The votes that they make, in many instances, often cover what is needed to be re-elected. This contrasts with "what you think is best or right". There are too many Democrats in conservative areas that seek to be re-elected next year, and a vote for a public option gets in the way of that. I know this is a cynical viewpoint, but, given the circus we have seen thus far, it is easy to become cynical. We know the Republicans will filibuster this legislature if they can, which means that, functionally, adding a public option means that people that care about being re-elected would have to put what they think is right - en masse - over their own political well being. I just don't see it. As such, I have to say - sad as it is - that a public option will make it SIGNIFICANTLY harder to pass legislation.
Enrique: As a procedural matter, this is a question only congressional Democrats can answer. They control the legislative branch by a wide margin, and apparently the public option polls well. What's the downside, other than adding to our record-busting deficits?
But never mind that, I'm sure government-sponsored insurance won't distort the health care market like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac distorted the housing market, or have any dire unintended consequences. The federal government has a long record of investing public money wisely, and it always tries to be helpful. Isn't that what's most important? The Democrats have always been the "free lunch" party; this seems right up their alley.
(2) Will a public option actually result in a more efficient, lower cost system?
Grant Muioc: Absolutely not. Anyone who has had to deal with the V.A. knows that the government has no concept on how to make large organizations/programs work at a reasonable cost. The VA has been unable to issue GI bill checks since starting up a new program that only applies to about 1% of the total population. How will they manage healthcare for 50% or more of the population? Look at how much the government wastes on the mundane projects it sponsors. Billions are wasted annually on shit programs we don't need because some congressman sneaks it into a bill. I'm not saying that the public option is "shit", but we all can name bills that are earmarked with a ton of provisions that cost billions that benefit nobody other than the politicians. Any healthcare reform will be costly, confusing and the personification of wastefulness. I could accept that if the plan works, but the public option won't. It's built to fail.
Robert Zimmer: Yes. It is a mythological Republican talking point that the public option will result in wholesale takeover by the government of all health care. The public option is just that: an option among many that will exist within health insurance exchanges available to those who have no insurance. The CBO has scored the House legislation containing a public option and estimates it will save billions. The Senate has submitted its public option bill to the CBO for scoring as well, with similar expected cost savings scoring expected. Bottom line: the public option is an inherently capitalist, free-market provision, because it will increase competition in the marketplace. Health insurance monopolies will no longer be the only game in town.
J. D. Dunn: "More efficient" is kind of a dicey term because you have to factor in how many more people will be helped and how long it will take them to get help. Given the number of people who can't get medical services now because they are either uninsured or underinsured, a big boost in services will lead to diseases being treated in early stages rather than the later stages when they're more costly and time-consuming. As for costs, the CBO has scored the public option as a cost-saver more than once now, and that's significant. Moreover, it looks like the cost-curve will bend more inward as time goes on. Of course, this is all theoretical, but then *all* plans are theoretical, aren't they?
Joe Rivett: To lower the cost of the system the best way is for us to get more healthy and not rely so much on prescription drugs. It pisses me off to see people on blood pressure medications eat like crap.
J. Alexander Mitchell: I believe so.
There are two schools of thought that one could have in this instance:
(a) Governmental involvement will annihilate private business because the government can always subsidize losses, and
(b) Governmental involvement will involve too many regulations and inefficiencies to remove the private sector.
The number of private schools in my adopted city of Dallas and the frequency of "Fed-Ex Kinko's" that I've found in the city tells me that (b) is more likely to be the case. I think it would do just what it is purported to do: keep insurance companies honest. If the government can put these guys out of business then I question whether I want them controlling whether I get cancer treatment or not anyway.
Enrique: The government already offers a public option called Medicare. According to a blog post earlier this year by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, "For decades, spending on the federal government's major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy (as has health care spending in the private sector)." So I'll go out on a limb and say a new public option will fail to lower health care costs.
(3) There are many counter-proposals and addendums to health care reform proposed by opponents of a public option, such as relaxation of laws that prohibit interstate sales of insurance and tort reform packages that limit the awards for malpractice suits. How effective are these proposals, in terms of creating a similar or better effect to the current health care system.
Grant Muioc: Any healthcare reform offers dangerous pitfalls. Deregulating insurance companies could pose the same risks as deregulating energy and we all know what happened in that case (Enron). Leaders deregulated housing and loans to make them more accessible to low-income families because it was the "right" thing to do and that caused the economy to collapse. Why should deregulating insurance companies and allowing them to pick what states to compete in be any different? People have to right to sue a doctor and the people (the jury) have the right to determine what the award should be for malpractice. The public option will allow government to step in and control healthcare, but deregulating has dangerous ramifications as well. If I had to make a choice it would be for deregulation with severe legal consequences for those who abuse the system, such as what happened to Enron executives.
Robert Zimmer: I support fair tort reform that still allows reasonable lawsuits based on medical malpractice, while capping absurd awards of damages in the tens of millions of dollars that drive up medical malpractice insurance rates. The CBO estimates that tort reform could save up to $40 billion over ten years. This is one of the few good ideas the Republicans have for health care cost savings. The Democrats can and should use support for tort reform as leverage in horse-trading to get a strong public option included in the health care reform legislation.
J. D. Dunn: I should point out that there really is no law that prohibits the sale of insurance across state lines - no federal one anyway. The McCarran-Ferguson Act actually *prevents* government from getting involved in regulating the insurance industry, leaving it up to each state to regulate their own. The problem with that is that most insurance companies, in order to work and work well, must operate on a national or global scale. That leads to one or two companies dominating states and even whole regions of the country. Removing McCarran-Ferguson would provide some savings, although I'm not sure if the dollar estimate has ever been taken.
Tort reform is a little more complicated because lawsuits are handled at the state level, not the federal level, so any federal tort reform is going to have to supersede state authority (Where my Tenthers at?). Further, 46 states in the union already have their own tort reform laws. It also remains to be seen whether there will be a concrete effect as estimates range anywhere from $1-54 billion in savings. That's a huge discrepancy.
Joe Rivett: Tort reform will be nice as providers constantly fear from being sued, even if you win, it still costs money. However, interstate sales is stupid because my company doesn't have the manpower to negotiate with thousands of insurance companies and then all the companies could move to states with lax laws like credit card companies locating in Delaware.
J. Alexander Mitchell: I think many on the Democratic side discount some of the conservative ideas brought to the table. Whereas I don't think interstate sales would help (everyone simply relocates to the least regulated areas), tort reform has been shown to curb some costs. It is FAR from a panacea to the problem, but every little bit helps.
Enrique: I remain a fan of Whole Foods' CEO John Mackey's health care reform framework as outlined in his recent Wall Journal op-ed. Any of his suggestions would be preferable to government-run health insurance – removing legal obstacles to the creation of high-deductible plans and health savings accounts, eliminating state mandates on health insurance coverage that inflate costs, making individually owned health insurance tax deductible like employer-provided coverage, etc. Real competition would do more to reduce costs than the false promise of competition represented by a subsidized public option.
(4) Do we actually have "the best health care system in the world", as described by many opponents of a public option?
Grant Muioc: Of course. We have the best healthcare in the world because we have competition. It might not be the best available for those who can't afford it, but that is a different subject than do we have simply the best healthcare. We have a free market on healthcare. We need to protect that. New technology and procedures may be expensive initially but overtime they become cheaper and more accessible for everyone. A public option raises serious questions on our medial professionals to develop, purchase and use new technology. There is a reason that people from other countries come to the United States for state of the art burn, cancer, and physical deformities/disability treatments. It is the best if you can afford it. The easiest way to lower the cost of healthcare and improve it is to allow the free market to remain competitive. A public option does the opposite.
Robert Zimmer: Yes and no. We have the best health care system in the world insofar as the quality of care is generally excellent, but the cost of access to care, and the cost of the care itself, are prohibitively expensive for tens of millions of Americans, and those costs continue to rise exponentially at a pace exceeding inflation. If we can lower costs and increase access to care, we will indeed, hands-down, have the best health care system in the world.
J. D. Dunn: "Best in the world" is probably a stretch, given that even U.S. citizens rate our system lowest among queried industrialized nations. It all depends on who you ask. If you want to go by aggregate statistics, we do well. Rarely are we ever #1 in anything good, but we balance out innovation and delivery quite well. If you can afford treatment, we probably have the best system in the world. If you're Christine Turner, and you're denied coverage because you were raped, or if your baby is too fat or too thin, then you probably see a big, fundamental flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.
Joe Rivett: We don't get the most bang for our buck. It may be the best but it is inefficient and it will break our economy.
J. Alexander Mitchell: We're not close to "the best". The World Health Organization clocked us at #37, and even if you remove the areas of their grading rubric that were "unfair" (distribution of health services and distribution of financing), we still "only" rate top ten. Given that we are #1 in how much we pay, it is clear that there is an efficiency issue somewhere here.
Enrique: Hard for me to say, I haven't been to a physician in about seven years... and yet I paid for health insurance almost that whole time. This seems like a waste of money, in retrospect. If only there were some way we could just shop around for doctors and pay them directly for their services. For some reason, many of us view medical services as entitlements rather than commodities, presumably because everyone inevitably needs to pay for health care at some point. But everyone needs to eat, and we don't have insurance to cover our groceries. Somehow, private sector competition has produced a robust market for affordable comestibles, without which we would die of starvation. Why assume health care would be different? Maybe we should reexamine our assumptions about how we pay for medical services.
To answer the question in a less roundabout way – we have a health care system better than most of the world, but not better than what we could have, if only we were willing to learn from the wisdom of our experience.
(5) Will the Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress ultimately result in the passage of health care reform with a public option, in spite of any attempts by opponents of Health care reform to prevent the passage of such an option?
Grant Muioc: Hell and no. If anything the Democrats are so divided on healthcare that they may cause any reform to fail altogether. The "opponents" of healthcare reform are the Democrats. Some are so in favor of a public option that they refuse to talk any other alternatives. They have enough people in congress to make this a reality but many of them know that the public option is shit. It's not like the Democrats are standing as a unit and fighting off imaginary "opponents" of healthcare…there are not enough Democrats who support the public option to make it a reality if they really thought it was a good idea. So when you say "opponents of healthcare reform" you're talking about opponents of the public option and that includes a bunch of Democrats. I believe that the Dems will ultimately go with a plan that has a fake or partial public option. They may even call it a "public option", but there will be no tax payer funded government insurance. The government will probably partner up with several large insurance groups and fund cheap policies in states that want to participate.
Robert Zimmer: It depends on whether the Democrats can hold their caucus together. The Republicans in Congress, under the Bush administration, were whipped with an iron fist and were always able to vote together as an impossible-to-splinter bloc. If Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, can avoid turning against themselves over disagreements on the public option, they will pass some form of legislation. Ultimately, while the public option is an important policy component to reform, it is only one of many policy components, such as the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reform legislation that contains 85% of what Democrats want is better than getting no legislation at all, because the status quo is both morally wrong and economically unsustainable.
J. D. Dunn: I think the public option will be passed in some form or another, whether it's with the trigger or the opt-out clause. The opt-out being far preferable to the trigger. There aren't a lot of objections to hide behind anymore. It actually produces cost cuts. It insures more people. Theoretically, it cuts down on prices through competition. Do Republicans really want to be the ones campaigning on a record of denying healthcare to more people?
Joe Rivett: I have my doubts. If one gets passed, there may be a lot of strings attached. I think when people see how little impact the public option actually has, we will wonder what the big deal was.
J. Alexander Mitchell: Again... I find myself becoming cynical, and I hope that I am wrong, but when the rubber meets the road I think individual political aspirations will result in a public option being jettisoned.
Enrique: Since the public option has a high approval rating in public opinion polling, what's the Democrat excuse for not passing a public option? Might as well pull the troops out of Afghanistan while they're at it. After all, we need to pay for that public option somehow.
(6) Would the passing of reform with a public option guarantee a Republican resurgence in 2010?
Grant Muioc: Of course not. The economy and unemployment will almost guarantee a Republican resurgance. The only thing keeping that from being a promise is that the Republicans still don't have a vocal leader within their ranks that is nationally accepted. Passing the public option might slam the door shut on the Republicans who fought hard to keep it from happening, but that's only if the economy and unemployment are not an issue in 2010. The Republicans will take seats, not because of their opposition to the public option, but because there are plenty of Democrats who oppose it too. If the liberals who are pushing the public option fail to reach an agreement within their own party they will kill reform themselves. In other words the Democrats will cut their own throats, the Republicans will reap the rewards.. We still won't have healthcare reform and the Democrats won't have anyone to blame but themselves. Passing the public option will raise a ton of new questions. The Democrats can claim victory but still lose because the public option is unpopular, but the Republicans can't win for losing either. Compound the issue with the economy and a slow start/high cost of implementing a public option backed healthcare plan, and I bet the Republicans will probably still win seats.
Robert Zimmer: No. The 2010 election is a year away -- an eternity in politics. People will be voting on a simple question: is the economy better -- not just overall, but for me and my family? To the extent health care reform fits into this context, voters will consider it. But the mid-term election will be about jobs and it will also be a referendum on Washington's (in)ability to get things done. Given the Republican "party of no" strategy, they shouldn't be rejoicing prematurely.
J. D. Dunn: A "resurgence" is likely only by default. When you have a big, sweeping election like we did in 2006 and again in 2008, you're going to bring in a lot of bad candidates in unstable districts. It's only natural that the pendulum swing back the other way as a sort of "self-correction." With the public option enjoying a popularity rating of anywhere from 57-75 percent, it's doubtful that the voters would find fault with the Democrats for passing it. If the Democrats do suffer catastrophic losses, it will likely be because of unemployment.
J. Alexander Mitchell: I have to say "No", but that is merely because I think we'll see a natural Republican resurgence in 2010 anyway. I simply don't see being able to maintain the level of control the Democrats currently have under ANY circumstances.
Enrique: I would guess the likelihood of a Republican resurgence depends on the direction of the economy during the summer of next year. The public option won't lower anyone's health care costs, but if the overall economic picture is on the upswing, what's the point of voting Republican? Maybe the GOP can run on opposing gay marriage again, that never gets old.
Special thanks to all of the 411 Mania columnists that participated in this Round Table. Is this something you would like to see regularly on 411 Mania? Sound off below, along with ideas for topics you'd like to see debated in the 411 Politics Zone!
Political parties that hold a majority in the Senate or House very rarely if ever see major gains when they have a member of their party in the White House during midterm elections. I expect a couple of Republican pickups in the Senate, and quite a few in the House. But Democrats will more than likely still remain strong. A Republican comeback will most likely come during the midterm of Obama's (theoretical) second term, where the climate against him will be max and he will begin to enter lame duck territory.
Posted By: KSEdwards (Guest) on October 29, 2009 at 03:50 PM
JAM,
I thought that was really well done. Sort of a huge fact or fiction.
Kudos
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM
i really liked this set up you guys had you should do it more often
Posted By: MaZZacare (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 02:31 AM
All those other countries in the world with public health care are doing quite fine.
The difference between them and America is that they aren't blowing all of their money on military tomfoolery.
America can do public health care standing on it's head. There just needs to be the will to shift that money away from those sexy sexy machine guns.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 06:59 AM
I love how everyone on 411 treats every issue as though it was a "business decision" yeah... people's lives are "just business" until it's YOU on the chopping block.
Posted By: Guest#2766 (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 09:53 AM
I really liked the way article was done. More of this type would be awesome.
Posted By: Guest#8962 (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 09:54 AM
Very nice. I would love to see this format more often. Also would love to see actual 411 debates with responses from writer to write. Also I am starting to get a man crush on Enrique.
TANSTAAFL!
Posted By: E-Van (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I'm rather new to these boards, but I'm far from new in following this health care debate. In the last few weeks, for a reason I did not yet know, every time I have heard, read, or seen debate over health care reform, I could not stop thinking about our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Franklin Roosevelt. I know... you're asking "what the hell does that have to do with anything?" For a while, I couldn't answer that question because frankly I didn't know, but now? Now I do.
In 2003 when we invaded Iraq the public was split down the middle as to whether to support the measure or not. World opinion frowned upon it horribly, and al though most in Congress supported it, many of them did so in a very cautious and overly reluctant way. Without that kind of unanimous support that is usually needed when entering any armed conflict, our resolve for being in Iraq faded quicker then any of us could blink. Keep that in mind as I will get back to it in a minute, and don't worry... all the pieces of my riddle will fit soon.
From Iraq, you go to the exact opposite way of thinking which revolves around FDR. As early as 1939 Roosevelt knew that sooner or later an armed conflict with Japan would become unavoidable. In addition, the second Germany invaded Poland in September of that year, he likewise knew that the direct involvement of the United States into the war in Europe could only be prolonged to a certain point. The reason Roosevelt did not immediately enter our country into war with either Japan or the Germans was very simplistic: lack of public resolve. After World War I, most of America felt that the loss of American lives in the war was wasteful and without reason, so we adopted somewhat of an isolation style approach towards worldly affairs. Unless there was a direct threat towards American lives and unless there was American blood spilt, we wished to keep our nose out of the business of others (how far we have come from that way of thinking-lol).
With all of the above said, allow me to make my point. It seems as though those in Congress have not learned from the history of our country, most noticeably the two issues I have mentioned (Iraq/FDR). To say that the health care debate has been the cause for division, argument, and the polarizing of support would be a gross understatement. Merely one aspect of the debate alone has split the country. The "public" option has nowhere near unanimous support in either Congress of the general public. I'm not saying that it lacks more support then opposition, but I'm not saying the opposite either. If you go by the polls, the picture appears rather hazy. For instance, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the support of the public option is at 48% and opposition is at 42%. However, if you read the specifics of the poll, just under half of those polled were admitted "Democrats." In addition, if you go to Rasmussen, support for the public option is at 46% while opposition is at 52%. For every poll putting the public option ahead, there is another poll which puts it behind.
Being as objective as a person can be, I think it would be justified to say that opinion of this one issue which lies within the health care debate is split. However, that is ONLY ONE ISSUE. You must also take into account the countless other issues and divisions within the overall debate which have split the country. What about the cost to the taxpayer? How will version of the bill will impact the federal deficit, quality of care, limitation of the free market, the fabric of the Constitution, competency of our government, "death panels," federal funding for abortions, or coverage to illegal aliens? Those in favor of health reform have attempted to address these questions, but have not convinced enough Americans that the impact on any of these issues will be positive.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose the health reform proposals set forth by both the Senate and the House, I think most people (aside from those on the far far left or far far right) would agree that America is not exactly united in either its support or opposition of these proposals. It saddens me that we have not taken a deep look at the history of this country. When we have been united, the sky has been the limit in any endeavor we have undertaken. Yet, when we are split, just as we are now in this debate, or as we were in Iraq, or just as we would have been had we entered the second World War 2 years before we actually did, we are destined to fail. At this point in time, if such sweeping health care legislation is to be passed with far more questions then answers and with such deep deep division, history tells us that, despite our best intentions, we will fail. Now is not the time to defy what is al ready set in stone.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Yes. Very well done and a good idea. Like a McLaughlin Group without the shrillness.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Joe Rivett: "I have my doubts. If one gets passed, there may be a lot of strings attached. I think when people see how little impact the public option actually has, we will wonder what the big deal was."
This perfectly summarizes why I couldn't bring myself to participate here. Scrutinizing the details and political wrangling of something I'm not optimistic about anyway just felt pointless for me. The sheer chaos in nailing down just what's on the table makes it impossible to have an accurate debate about details. That's a failing of those sponsoring the bill.
Standard procedure over the last year has been to create confusion and cram major legislation through before the public can digest it and debate its merits in an informed way. That's what I see here. The number of people the public option supposedly covers went from 47 million to 30, and I don't even know what it is this week. Until legislators offer firm details and justify a final bill's composition, as a great man once said: "Whatever it is, I'm against it."
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on October 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I love how everyone on 411 treats every issue as though it was a "business decision" yeah... people's lives are "just business" until it's YOU on the chopping block.
Posted By: Guest#2766 (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 09:53 AM
I'm not going to speak for everyone...but healthcare costs money, its a business. Using tax payer money is an investment.
Throw some pennies into the wishing fountain when you start trying to change that.
It's more practical than simply "not getting it".
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Seeing how any reform made won't take effect until at LEAST 2012, I doubt there will be any sort of radical public reaction to any reform that gets passed, one way or another... I mean, not *yet* anyway. Isn't it nice that our legislators are able to duck accountability like that?
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 01:39 PM
"However, if you read the specifics of the poll, just under half of those polled were admitted "Democrats."'
Because self-identification of Republicans is near an all-time low.
"For every poll putting the public option ahead, there is another poll which puts it behind."
This is not true, at least not among legitimate pollsters. Rasmussen, which oversamples the elderly by design, is a consistently more conservative poll. Every other major poll shows the public option with at least a plurality of support.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 30, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Nice read. As close to a "good faith" discussion as I have read around here. Congrats. My only critique... length. I would prefer fewer questions, but who is counting. I guess I am. Thanks JAM, et al.
For commenters, if you cannot make your point in two at most three paragraphs, go back and think a little harder about the point you are making. If you cannot make it shorter, submit the work to Ashish for publication. I guarantee nobody reads comments that are longer than the original column.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 04:31 PM
Loved the format guys. All of you, well done.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on October 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM
If Obama gets it his way, this country is going down the crapper. Businesses being required to give their employees health care will DESTROY the economy. Many small businesses including the one I work for will end up having to go out of business because the owners are penny pinching just to keep their heads above water. Throw in these extra costs and their in the red. What happens when they're in the red? They shut their doors. Bam! the unemployment rate goes even higher! What happens then? They rely on the government. Hmmm... Sounds like socialism to me. It's been proven around the world that socialism doesn't work, yet this is what Obama seeks to start! We are all equal in rights, but we are NOT all equal in money. Passing this health reform with the public option is just the first step towards it. This is what we have to look forward to with the public option. Grant Muioc is dead on about this.
Posted By: Daniel (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 06:11 AM
An American Hero (Coward) is saying what is best for this country? Why should anyone listen to a person that chickened out because his moron of a president wasn't serving any longer?
Posted By: HA! (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 06:23 AM
An American Hero (Coward) is saying what is best for this country? Why should anyone listen to a person that chickened out because his moron of a president wasn't serving any longer?
Posted By: HA! (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 06:23 AM
Funny - the powers who decide whether comments get posted or not have clearly been leaving out more than a few of the right-wing comments lately but let moronic comments like this get through all the time.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Funny - the powers who decide whether comments get posted or not have clearly been leaving out more than a few of the right-wing comments lately but let moronic comments like this get through all the time.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 31, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Actually, moronic would be removing all of the right wing comments. Do agree with me? Someone more famous than you said it best.
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
---John Stuart Mill
Posted By: Guest#3498 (Guest) on November 01, 2009 at 01:15 AM
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
---John Stuart Mill
Yawn!! another lame quote from a self-righteous and self absorbed left winger.
I understand. Your lack of intelligence is more than offset by the lack of intelligence of another fool.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on November 01, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Yeah Dunn; show everybody that wrestling fans can be intelligent and well-learned
Posted By: Wrestling Fan (Guest) on November 01, 2009 at 12:24 PM
The Mill Quote again. Goodness. You do know Mill was a prolific writer? I mean, you may want to venture out beyond the "conservatives are stupid" quote and check-out a few of the thousands of other pages written by Mill.
You also know that to Mill, conservatives were those in society favoring government control of trade and commerce and that liberals were those favoring free-markets absent of government involvement? You know from reading Mill of course, right Guest?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 01, 2009 at 06:06 PM
Maybe I've missed it in this whole debate, but what I really would like to have the experts analyze is WHY healthcare is skyrocketing. I mean, sure, we can point to malpractice, outdated record keeping, and too many tests, but WHY is the system this way? It seems like we've totally skipped that part and want to have a solution before we address the problems inherit in the system.
I suspect that the problem really lies in insurance. Before we had insurance, we had doctors, and they tended to people. It's been that way for thousands and thousands of years. All of a sudden, we get HMOs, crazy-ass equipment that cost millions of dollars, and the idea of malpractice and everything skyrockets.
Insurance is exponentially expanding monster. A doctor might have once asked you to pay for a test to see if you need attention in an area. You could then evaluate his advice versus your wallet and decide. Now, the doctor orders a battery of test just to see how you are doing today, and you do it, no questions asked. Why? Because you have insurance! Doesn't feel like real money! People spend more on credit cards than they do with a wallet full of money because it doesn't feel real. Insurance is the same way. Hospitals don't feel bad charging people an arm and a leg because those people don't REALLY pay. It's the faceless insurance agency. Then insurance raises their rates to cover for it. Repeat for a few decades and here we are.
What we need to do is have some sort a insurance that covers catastrophic events but people should pay for regular doctor visits and we should tighten the reins on malpractice suits. We need to remember that doctors are people too who make mistakes, but their job unfortunately is the most precious one to us. That doesn't change the fact that they are human. It would be nice to see an independent review board that could screen patient complaints and evaluate the legitimate from the frivolous and give suggestions on monetary rewards if malpractice is found.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on November 02, 2009 at 03:53 PM
STAY CURRENT