Yeah that's a pretty good roundup of the problems with the bill. I think we can all agree that some work needs to be done on the health care system but the Democrats are not offering the solution.

And if this bill fails… it will be the American people who reject it, not just Conservatives. And if you believe the polls, they already do. The only question is if congress will listen or ignore them again, like they did on TARP, the "stimulus" package, and cash for clunkers.

And meanwhile, the actual crisis people are worried about, the one we're experiencing now – the recession – is being completely ignored by President Obama and the Democrats in congress.. oh, and their supporters.

The impulse is based on a lie to begin with Mr. Miller.

Posted by AlexinCT

2009-09-23 21:11:46

I don't think so. This issue has been brewing for quite a while…it's only now coming to a head.

"Healthcare is only in crisis now, because the very people that created and exacerbated the problems we have now in the first place, are using the mess they created as an excuse to take over 1/6th of the economy."

Not true…the health care issue has been brewing for decades.

The very people that created and exacerbated the problems have refused to deal with the issue, and the reason one sixth of the economy might be taken over is because the issue was ignored.

"The obvious end goal is to expand their power by owning both the money and the decision making tied to healthcare in this country. This is the most drastic expansion of government power and loss of freedom of the citizens ever."

Only one interpretation. Another is that the goal is to end an expansion of power and money by the insurance and medical industry. After all, they already own 15% of the economy…how much more do they want?

I don't necessarily equate gov't power with loss of freedom.

The Patriot Act is a good example. As are many of the rules and regs that I have to follow mandated by the gov't.

I don't see why this is so drastic, or such a loss.

"Reform the tort system tied to healthcare, and remove government regulations allowing insurance companies to do what they do today – like deny people with pre-existing conditions coverage or collude amongst each other to carve out territories to protect their own interests – and you fix most of what is wrong with healthcare today."

OK…that's fair. There are differences about how to fix health care in the US. I don't have a problem with what you just proposed. Though I don't understand why you think the gov't is enforcing insurance companies to enforce denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

In the end, reform will happen. It would be nice if the market worked itself out that way….but it seems only political pressure will ensure reform.

"That’s the honest discussion you will never get."

Posted by AlexinCT

2009-09-23 21:11:46

The honest discussion I will never get is the one that states that private markets have taken a public good and squeezed as much out of it as they can and are now protesting when the public fights back.

How else does one explain the fact that American citizens spend twice as much on health care and yet run in the middle of the pack when it comes to health statistics?

All conservatives in the media and all GOP Senators need to be asked come out strongly against the Individual Mandate provision now – this is the most onerous and unconstitutional part of this “Obamacare” scheme. The are the common thread that in all the various Obamacare and Obamacare lite plans. The force everyone in the country to participate involuntarily and under the government’s term and provide billions in tax revenues.

This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on – Wyden/Bennett and the Bacus bill are prime examples of this.

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped:

(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

The essential components that needs to be targeted now need to be focused on are the Individual and Employer Mandates. These Mandates are the glue that holds Obamacare together – without them the whole plan falls apart. These Mandates force everyone in the country into insurance plans that are designed by the Federal Government thus giving them control over everyone's choices. Mandates also fund the whole plan since they force young and healthy citizens to buy expensive policies that really don’t need and won’t likely use and employers to pay huge taxes. Finally, the Mandates are the stick that keeps the insurance industry on board with the scheme since they give them millions and millions of new customers – it is basically another big industry bailout (big Health Insurance companies are in great financial distress since they lost heavily in last year’s market collapse and have a disproportionate number of aging “babyboomer” customers who are getting older and sicker thus more costly – 80 million of their 135 million customers are between the ages of 50-65 years old).

Obamacare is a corrupt barging that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young. All American should be opposed to this corruption!

Senators and Represenatives need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the “government options” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Many can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was)!

Obamacare can survive the loss of a public option but it cant survive without individual mandates!

I don't think so. This issue has been brewing for quite a while…it's only now coming to a head.

Go back and reread what I posted Mr. Miller. The crisis we are being told exists in healthcare was manufactured, on purpose, by legislation and actions with the intent of then using the crisis to have the sheep allow these crooks to take over healthcare. By the very people screaming “crisis” and demanding the chance to fix it, without any supervision or other input, before anyone can actually figure out what, and the consequences of what, they are doing. (Does this sound familiar? It should, because the same was done with the economy and the current recession we experienced. Remember the stimulus patronage bill?). And their fervor to “fix” healthcare is not because these people think they will improve anything healthcare related, but because they see it as the perfect vehicle to make an act that would be seen as an otherwise unacceptable expansion of government and loss of personal freedom palatable to the masses.

The honest discussion I will never get is the one that states that private markets have taken a public good and squeezed as much out of it as they can and are now protesting when the public fights back.

Public good? These vilified private markets offer a service, and nothing else. Are you basically saying that because healthcare is such an important thing to us today, fraught with possibilities with serious repercussions, that it somehow makes it different for those that provide healthcare services or insurance, from, let’s say, a garbage collection service, and hence should be treated differently? If you do not like the service, then don’t use it. Nobody is forcing you to do that. That’s part & parcel of the whole debate.

How else does one explain the fact that American citizens spend twice as much on health care and yet run in the middle of the pack when it comes to health statistics?

Well for one, those statistics are usually heavily skewed with idiotic collectivist drivel that favors countries with government owned and run care. A real heavy emphasis and weighting is also placed on the spurious claim that universal coverage somehow increases the quality of care and the statistics tied to it. And, what practically never gets mentioned, is that the US uses much more rigid and realistic criteria – for example look at how we report infant mortality numbers compared to the Europeans who score higher than we do – to come up with its numbers. Finally, our system is replete with waste and government mandated crap that drastically drives up price, allows people to opt out of coverage, but never refuses those that opt out and burden the system with care anyway, is where most innovation comes from because those other countries with better numbers on paper simply discourage that, and when objectively measured, provides the best quality of care bar none.

At least you where honest enough not to pretend that anything being passed of as reform right now will have any kind of reductive impact on our cost, even if it might eventually lead to a meaningless positive statistical jump on paper but an actual drastic reduction in access, quality, and effectiveness of medical care like the shysters pushing for the government takeover continue to.

Mr. Miller, you also might want to acquaint yourself with how life expectancy or longevity for various nations changes with the age of individuals living in that nation. If you look at life expectancy tables you'll quickly see that Americans have lower life expectancy figures than some other nations at birth through middle age, but as they age, Americans life expectancy rises to the top of the heap world-wide.

You can find a decent discussion of this fact at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier….

One of the interesting conclusions about longevity is that our health system is probably instrumental in ensuring that seniors life longer and enjoy better overall health than those in other OECD nations. Of course, in place like Canada and Britain, there are well-documented reports of how seniors are systematically and programmatically denied care which would extend their lives. So though those Brits may have a longer statistical longevity at birth, by the time they're 60, all bets are off and their longevity is shorter than an American of the same age.