Mar 24, 2010
I do get the hypocrisy, in fact, I think I can put it in a nutshell. The right wingers can\'t see that Bush through his decisions, killed thousands, from both sides, and spent billions doing it, but want to impeach Obama, for trying to save thousands, while hoping to save billions doing it.
Fee Fee, I understand that no hospital can refuse to treat anyone, but the invoice that you get at the end will cripple you financially.
It should be simple, if this will save lives, then it should be done, even if it costs money. But it looks like it will save money, so what\'s the problem.
Maybe too many of the people who will be saved are the wrong color.
You might be fortunate enough to live in a state that is passing legislation to exempt citizens from prosecution if they refuse to take up insurance...
Ironically FeeFee, I mostly agree with you, in a sense.
I don\'t think the government should make people buy health insurance. The government should be providing health care, as the private sector has demonstrated time and again it cannot do with a shred of morality. For proof, just look to the congressional hearings where the heads of the biggest insurers refused to pledge NOT to drop people for loophole pre-existing conditions. That\'s not conjecture, that\'s what they said.
To your second point, that\'s a bit disingenuous. If you mandate that people carry insurance AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE (THAT SECOND PART IS NECESSARY), people will get preventative care, they\'ll get regular check-ups, which lowers cost for everyone else. If the prices remain as they are, people will avoid paying co-pays or being branded with pre-existing conditions until they are so ill that the cost to treat is enormous. I\'ll be doing a companion 5 to this in the coming week to illustrate what I\'m talking about. To summarize, what we have done with health care is what we as Americans now specialize in: putting fear and ignorance before morality and good sense.
Nothing new there, sadly.
I respect what you\'re saying, but I disagree.
My problem with the second part of your argument is the government controlling costs. I tend to subscribe to the invisible hand theory, and the government telling businesses what they can and can\'t charge will only kill competition, which will slow down advancements in our medicine. As far as morality goes, I don\'t think the government is exactly the city upon a hill.
It\'s theatre, pure and simple. The whole knockabout back and forth is a polarisation device. As long as you think it\'s Rep Vs Dem you\'ll be forever distracted from the real issue: them Vs us.
The U.K. is in an election cycle right now and we had our budget today. It\'s bollocks. I had to turn off the radio, sick of listening to the, \"they are bad, we are better\" B.S.
I\'ve gotta put up with this until the 2nd week of May (IMO) as well.
I was going to let this go, but as a resident right winger, I thought I\'d weigh in.
The argument for the health care bill being unconstitutional is based on the government forcing everyone to purchase health insurance. The government doesn\'t have the authority to force anyone to buy anything.
The bill doesn\'t extend health care to anyone. The bill isn\'t and never was about health care. It\'s about health insurance, and who pays for it. And, to my knowledge, there\'s not a hospital in the US that can turn anyone down.
Dave, I agree with you completely. It is a \"them Vs. us\" issue. In my fantasy, we throw all of the career politicians out, and start over.
Twin Engines Of Destruction: Gentle Arts Of Conversation Punctuated With Bloody Power Tools
Having trouble logging in?