forgottenliberty.com

I’m smelling victory too, but I’m still a little nervous. I wouldn’t put anything past Pelosi.

I think they will drop most of it but still try and stick it to insurance comapnies as a way to tout “reform.”

They are deceptive and corrupt and have shown by actions and deeds that they are not trustworthy representatives of the people.

I am hoping that it is finished, but then again, you know how resilient a cockroach is. Same thing with the Democrats.

Just out of curiosity what would be acceptable to you lot. Considering that there is no real chance for anything other than the Senate version to go forward, with no public option, and nothing to it really other than some at best middling protections for people, with the reducing of denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and an individual mandate that will require people to buy insurance, what exactly in the hell do you all want? Do you have an alternative in mind? One that makes it possible for people to afford coverage, and for that coverage not to turn into vapor care the first time they actually go to use it? Or shall we all just die quietly of our diseases or go beg on the steps of our local church for succor?

Seriously. I’m pissed off but I am still listening. So come on, people are sick, and dying, and being bankrupted to afford medical care. So are you all okay with that? Or do you have some actual constructive suggestions that might actually help people?

Two big things to change would be tort reform and increasing competition among insurers by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. Both of these options would significantly reduce costs but neither were included by the Democrats because they receive a lot of campaign money from trial lawyers and drug companies.

Another option would be to reduce government involvement in health care. As medicaid and medicare coverage has grown, medical costs have grown along with them. Why do you think so many doctors are refusing to accept new medicaid and medicare patients? It’s because the government doesn’t reimburse them for the full costs of their labor, so they have to charge the rest of us more to make up the difference. This means higher insurance premiums and costs.

We should also make health insurance portable so it is not tied to one’s employer. That way people are more free to switch jobs without fear of losing their insurance.

Something else I would like to see is medical/health savings accounts. All of these options are far superior to what the Democrats wanted as far as reducing health care costs and wouldn’t cost the tax payers a cent.

The only thing I would to add to Liberty’s comment is the ability to purchase insurance outside of your own individual state. Mr. Tottie, while you are clearly an impassioned individual, you should not infer that a position of opposition inherently lacks a substantive refutation. By all means let us have a health care debate, but it should be done out in the open and with clarity of mind. We have seen neither.

Those are good suggestions, and I can’t say I disagree with them, aside from Tort reform which frankly is more of a smokescreen than a real issue. Multiple studies have found that the increase to care costs is negligible, and other studies have shown that in many cases if the errant party were to admit to wrong doing, most people would be satisfied with that, and reasonable restitution. It’s fear mongering by some lawyers and insurers that has done more to exacerbate problems.

So now answer me this, why is it that politicians insist on all or nothing solutions? Why the fear of using blended solutions from all vectors? Also why do so many Conservatives believe that Corporations without any regulation or over sight are somehow incapable of doing harm either accidental or deliberate, and Government no matter how carefully managed or small is somehow incapable of doing anything good? Frankly in my experience giant Bureaucracies tend to behave the same regardless of whether they are public or private.

“By all means let us have a health care debate, but it should be done out in the open and with clarity of mind. We have seen neither.”

On that we can agree. And if you follow any kind of Progressive news we have not been any better pleased by the locked door shenanigans than genuine non corporatist Conservatives.

Sadly the truth is that both Republicans and Democrats perpetuate the arrogance that was inherent in the world view of some of our Founders. Basically believe that there were those who were fit to lead and those fit only to be led.

I have to say that I totally disagree with your view of tort reform. If I remember correctly, you are from Texas. Texas reformed their tort laws and it has been greatly beneficial to the health care industry and businesses in general. If you would like to read a report on the effects of the Texas tort reforms, click here –> http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf

In case you don’t want to read the report here are some of the highlights;
$51.2 billion increase in annual output – goods and services produced in Texas,
$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue,
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation,
499,000 permanent jobs,
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms.

I agree with you about openness. I would love to see the President follow through with his promise of an open debate on how to make our health care system better. Unfortunately the only thing that has happened so far is that the Democrats have said, “this is the plan” and when the Republicans said, “there is a lot in there that we don’t like” they were accused of being partisan and wanting people to die quickly.

I also have to disagree with you on your view of government and businesses. Communistic, Fascistic, and “Progressive” governments are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the last hundred years. How many deaths were caused by free markets in that same time period?

Look up the progressive policies in Ukraine that caused the starvation of millions of people. People were starving to death not because there was a lack of food, but because the government controlled the farming industry and chose to export food for money rather than give it to their own people. If they had a free market society, farmers would have been able to sell their food to the local population instead of having the government confiscating it. Millions of lives would have been saved if there had been less government and more freedom.

I challenge you to find me examples of where less government and more freedom (Conservative principles) has had anywhere near the negative effect of more government and less freedom (Progressive principles). The Progressive movement has a long list of victims from the last 100+ years and I would advise you to do some research before calling yourself a Progressive. It is akin to those ignorant college kids who wear T-shirts with a picture of Che on them. They have no idea they are wearing a picture of a racist killer.

By the way, I wrote a health care post a little while ago that you may like, —->The Real Reason Democrats Want to Pass Health Care Reform