Poll: Majority In U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform By Wide Margin

[CPA]

okay mathmaticians, help me out here. Something doesn't seem to add up with this statement:

a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans.

If 79% of Ds want it and 23% of Rs want it, making almost exactly 100% or half of the polled population, then it would seem that 21% of Ds don't want it and 77% of Rs don't want it or half of the polled population not wanting it. Discounting a small percentage of folks that don't know either way, and knowing that this country is almost split down the center in ratio between Ds and Rs, how the heck did they get a 23% difference between those who favor and those who don't. The only explanation I can think of is that they polled way more Ds than Rs.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are you going to move out of the US when this health care reform bill passes in the fall?

The AMA supports the House health care bill. BigJelly doesn't. Who should I trust?

My question is if you want it so bad, why haven't you moved out? There are plenty of options. Why do you libs suck so much on the Euro teet?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: CPA
okay mathmaticians, help me out here. Something doesn't seem to add up with this statement:

a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans.

If 79% of Ds want it and 23% of Rs want it, making almost exactly 100% or half of the polled population, then it would seem that 21% of Ds don't want it and 77% of Rs don't want it or half of the polled population not wanting it. Discounting a small percentage of folks that don't know either way, and knowing that this country is almost split down the center in ratio between Ds and Rs, how the heck did they get a 23% difference between those who favor and those who don't. The only explanation I can think of is that they polled way more Ds than Rs.

You've got it backwards, it would actually suggest they polled more Rs ...

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CPA
okay mathmaticians, help me out here. Something doesn't seem to add up with this statement:

a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans.

If 79% of Ds want it and 23% of Rs want it, making almost exactly 100% or half of the polled population, then it would seem that 21% of Ds don't want it and 77% of Rs don't want it or half of the polled population not wanting it. Discounting a small percentage of folks that don't know either way, and knowing that this country is almost split down the center in ratio between Ds and Rs, how the heck did they get a 23% difference between those who favor and those who don't. The only explanation I can think of is that they polled way more Ds than Rs.

In many cases they say they poll Democrats, Moderates, and Republicans.

My conclusion would say that Democrats + Moderates favor it, while Republicans tend not to.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are you going to move out of the US when this health care reform bill passes in the fall?

The AMA supports the House health care bill. BigJelly doesn't. Who should I trust?

My question is if you want it so bad, why haven't you moved out? There are plenty of options. Why do you libs suck so much on the Euro teet?

Why move when we generate change?

Also..family + jobs + other ties keep many people where they are.

Not to add the people affected most by serious ailments are some of those least likely to be able to pick up and run to another country.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

Britain is not a model by which you are going to convince anyone to adopt more government control of anything. Huge income taxes plus incredibly high VAT, cameras everywhere, tight gun control, the list goes on. That's not what America is about. America is about freedom and you don't have that in Europe. Freedom to make the right choices and live well and freedom to make the wrong choices and run into problems. You need a stable government to give limited support in times of trouble but some want the government to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be free to move. But America was not founded for those people.

You don't have to fashion you're whole Society after them if all you want is their HealthCare.

However, isn't the healthcare model a reflection of the society? I think if you move to a UHC model, then that is a fundamental change in American society. It would involve more acceptance of government than ever before. And by bringing in UHC, you will be forced to bring along higher taxes, whether through a huge increase in income taxes or a national sales tax, and it will pave the way for more "reform" in other areas of life. I'm not going to be a conspiracy theorist but let's face it, life is better for the most part when government is not involved. There is too much corruption and there are far too many special interest groups. Like I said earlier, Obama and Congress could bring forth legislation that would work to cut through malpractice costs, greatly reducing the cost of care. But he can't/won't do that because he has to give interest groups what they want - not what is best for the people.

If you consider our insurance now a tax, we will actually be paying a much lower tax. I pay about 10-17k in health costs a year on a 50-70k salary... that is a pretty huge tax. Especially considering we pay DOUBLE what ever other first world country pays.

Our society only cares about one person-one's self. It would be a radical change to the idea of actually being proud that not only will our 50 million uninsured be covered, but the 10s of millions who are excluded via "pre-existing conditions", would now be covered.


"life is better for the most part when government is not involved."

Ever hear of emancipation, eliminating "separate but equal" facilities, oil and steel barons without regulation, financial markets without regulation?

Health insurances make a fortune by denying care and denying insurance. Government intervention is needed so that more people won't be denied cancer saving treatment because they didn't mention that they once had acne.

That's mighty nice of you to select me and other Americans to help offset your high medical bills. Gee.... thanks. I was wondering what I should do with all the extra money I have.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are you going to move out of the US when this health care reform bill passes in the fall?

The AMA supports the House health care bill. BigJelly doesn't. Who should I trust?

My question is if you want it so bad, why haven't you moved out? There are plenty of options. Why do you libs suck so much on the Euro teet?

Because having others help pay your way is tons more fun than working for what you get.

The sad thing is the government has wasted so much of our money and we are going to turn over more of it to them.

 

[sportage]

Simply criminal
(from the huffington post)

Senators Call for Health Care Delay, Receive Big Campaign Contributions

Six senators called for a seventy day hold on voting on health care reform legislation today, according to the Huffington Post. The senators involved include three Democrats, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Ron Wyden, two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and one Independent, Joe Lieberman. Each these senators has raised at least $1 million from the health and insurance sectors combined over the course of their respective careers. What could seventy days do for their campaign coffers?

(Some of these senators are not in cycle right now and are not raising much money right now, but, hypothetically, this is the money they could be raising considering the amounts they have raised over the course of their career.)

Sen. Susan Collins raised $1,559,446 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $341 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $23,870.

Sen. Mary Landrieu raised $1,676,353 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $366.50 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $25,655.

Sen. Joe Lieberman raised $3,593,771 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 1989. In total, he has served 7,136 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $504 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $35,280.

Sen. Ben Nelson raised $2,257,165 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 2001. In total, he has served 3,118 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $724 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $50,680.

Sen. Olympia Snowe raised $1,147,630 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 4, 1995. In total, she has served 5,309 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $216 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $15,120.

Sen. Ron Wyden raised $1,414,911 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was February 6, 1996. In total, he has served 4,911 days as a United States Senator. This works out to $288 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $20,160.

Factor in lobbying into these seventy days and the amount of spending around this bill could skyrocket. If we go by the numbers presented by the Washington Post, that the health sector is spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying, then we'll find another seventy days would allow the industry to spend another $98 million.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: sportage
THis may be the last fight. Chance.
People need to contact their reps in congress to resist lobbyist efforts to derail UHC.

Btw, its not looking too good.
(from) the Washington Post)

Drug Makers Score Early Wins as Plan Takes Shape

WASHINGTON -- The pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to "take on" during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.

Legislation expected soon in the powerful Senate Finance Committee will leave out cost-cutting steps as part of an agreement with the industry and the White House, according to Congressional aides, industry lobbyists and others involved in the talks.

The missing items include two planks of Mr. Obama's campaign platform: allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and giving the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Meanwhile, a separate Senate committee voted this week as part of its health bill to give branded biotechnology drugs at least 12 years of market exclusivity, a defeat for makers of cheaper copycat medicines. "This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.

If UHC, and I mean realistic UHC is not passed. And if things remain as they are today as to American healthcare, I predict by the year 2015 70% of all American's will have NO healthcare in any form. Employed or not.

And the few 30% that will have some type of healthcare, will only qualify for coverage as long as they never actually use it. And if they should need it, they will be forced out by adjusting costs, and thus soon join the 70% uncovered American's.

Obama care shaped after broken medicaid? We all know how good the government is at running things... I predict if we get Obamacare and cannot pay for it THERE WILL BE RATIONING.

We cannot afford it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BigJelly
as others have said:
THE MAJORITY MAY WANT REFORM BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WANT UHC!!!

The majority wants reform, and they want a public option.

Also, name one thing that the government has EVER taken over from the private sector where they reduced costs and/or increased quality.

They aren't taking over anything. Private health insurance will still exist. We already have socialized medicine in the US; it's called the VA and Medicare.

Yet you people believe they can do both with UHC???

This argument is moot; people who can't afford private insurance (or adequate private insurance) will always be more satisfied with the public option vs. no option.

Medicare is insurance. Medicare isn't a hospital or a doctor. You can get covered for treatment by Medicare in Wasilla, AK, or at the Mayo Clinic.

Okay lets destroy your arguments.
1. The majority wants reform, and they want a public option.
The public wants a working option. As I have stated and many others have stated if you think that government can provide a better and less costly option you are either a moron or a big moron. Look at what government runs: amtrak--losing money, post office--losing money, DVM--long ass lines, SS--ponzi scheme that will fail, CA--the states going bankrupt, etc...

2. They aren't taking over anything. Private health insurance will still exist. We already have socialized medicine in the US; it's called the VA and Medicare.
Answer these questions:
Does your employer pay more than $750 per year on your health costs?
If yes, then do you think your employer will try to save money by stopping your healthcare and pay the $750 fine and save thousands by not covering you?
If yes, then you are stuck with government health care.
If you answered no to either of those questions you either don't have a job with a health plan and/or are a moron--either way you will be stuck with UHC.
So this will be the death of employee healthcare and everyone will get dumped into the shithole that will be UHC.

3. This argument is moot; people who can't afford private insurance (or adequate private insurance) will always be more satisfied with the public option vs. no option.
As I stated in point 2, almost all companies will condem their workers to UHC.

I wouldn't give a shit if they had UHC and I didn't have to pay for it according to obama (as I wouldn't--according to him). I'm pissed off because I'm not a dumbass and realize that my company along with 99.9999% of companies would drop our coverage and force us to suffer in the diaster that UHC will be.

WAKE THE FVCK UP PEOPLE, YOUR EMPLOYERS WILL DROP YOU THE SECOND THAT UHC PASSES.

Except that its illegal to do that, and you obviously have no read even part of this bill.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sportage
THis may be the last fight. Chance.
People need to contact their reps in congress to resist lobbyist efforts to derail UHC.

Btw, its not looking too good.
(from) the Washington Post)

Drug Makers Score Early Wins as Plan Takes Shape

WASHINGTON -- The pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to "take on" during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.

Legislation expected soon in the powerful Senate Finance Committee will leave out cost-cutting steps as part of an agreement with the industry and the White House, according to Congressional aides, industry lobbyists and others involved in the talks.

The missing items include two planks of Mr. Obama's campaign platform: allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and giving the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Meanwhile, a separate Senate committee voted this week as part of its health bill to give branded biotechnology drugs at least 12 years of market exclusivity, a defeat for makers of cheaper copycat medicines. "This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.

If UHC, and I mean realistic UHC is not passed. And if things remain as they are today as to American healthcare, I predict by the year 2015 70% of all American's will have NO healthcare in any form. Employed or not.

And the few 30% that will have some type of healthcare, will only qualify for coverage as long as they never actually use it. And if they should need it, they will be forced out by adjusting costs, and thus soon join the 70% uncovered American's.

Obama care shaped after broken medicaid? We all know how good the government is at running things... I predict if we get Obamacare and cannot pay for it THERE WILL BE RATIONING.

We cannot afford it.

There already is rationing.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sportage
THis may be the last fight. Chance.
People need to contact their reps in congress to resist lobbyist efforts to derail UHC.

Btw, its not looking too good.
(from) the Washington Post)

Drug Makers Score Early Wins as Plan Takes Shape

WASHINGTON -- The pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to "take on" during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.

Legislation expected soon in the powerful Senate Finance Committee will leave out cost-cutting steps as part of an agreement with the industry and the White House, according to Congressional aides, industry lobbyists and others involved in the talks.

The missing items include two planks of Mr. Obama's campaign platform: allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and giving the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Meanwhile, a separate Senate committee voted this week as part of its health bill to give branded biotechnology drugs at least 12 years of market exclusivity, a defeat for makers of cheaper copycat medicines. "This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.

If UHC, and I mean realistic UHC is not passed. And if things remain as they are today as to American healthcare, I predict by the year 2015 70% of all American's will have NO healthcare in any form. Employed or not.

And the few 30% that will have some type of healthcare, will only qualify for coverage as long as they never actually use it. And if they should need it, they will be forced out by adjusting costs, and thus soon join the 70% uncovered American's.

Obama care shaped after broken medicaid? We all know how good the government is at running things... I predict if we get Obamacare and cannot pay for it THERE WILL BE RATIONING.

We cannot afford it.

There already is rationing.

There is currently an 8 month wait to visit dermatologists in my area.

It must be because UHI is about to pass

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: sportage
Simply criminal
(from the huffington post)

Senators Call for Health Care Delay, Receive Big Campaign Contributions

Six senators called for a seventy day hold on voting on health care reform legislation today, according to the Huffington Post. The senators involved include three Democrats, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Ron Wyden, two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and one Independent, Joe Lieberman. Each these senators has raised at least $1 million from the health and insurance sectors combined over the course of their respective careers. What could seventy days do for their campaign coffers?

(Some of these senators are not in cycle right now and are not raising much money right now, but, hypothetically, this is the money they could be raising considering the amounts they have raised over the course of their career.)

Sen. Susan Collins raised $1,559,446 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $341 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $23,870.

Sen. Mary Landrieu raised $1,676,353 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $366.50 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $25,655.

Sen. Joe Lieberman raised $3,593,771 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 1989. In total, he has served 7,136 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $504 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $35,280.

Sen. Ben Nelson raised $2,257,165 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 2001. In total, he has served 3,118 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $724 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $50,680.

Sen. Olympia Snowe raised $1,147,630 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 4, 1995. In total, she has served 5,309 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $216 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $15,120.

Sen. Ron Wyden raised $1,414,911 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was February 6, 1996. In total, he has served 4,911 days as a United States Senator. This works out to $288 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $20,160.

Factor in lobbying into these seventy days and the amount of spending around this bill could skyrocket. If we go by the numbers presented by the Washington Post, that the health sector is spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying, then we'll find another seventy days would allow the industry to spend another $98 million.

Those people will be heros if they can slow this down. Congress needs a lot more time to get this right. Not 1 of the democratic plans will save any money but instead cost even more.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Britain's NHS is brilliant. I wish we had that kind of universal health care here.

Britain is not a model by which you are going to convince anyone to adopt more government control of anything. Huge income taxes plus incredibly high VAT, cameras everywhere, tight gun control, the list goes on. That's not what America is about. America is about freedom and you don't have that in Europe. Freedom to make the right choices and live well and freedom to make the wrong choices and run into problems. You need a stable government to give limited support in times of trouble but some want the government to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be free to move. But America was not founded for those people.

You don't have to fashion you're whole Society after them if all you want is their HealthCare.

However, isn't the healthcare model a reflection of the society? I think if you move to a UHC model, then that is a fundamental change in American society. It would involve more acceptance of government than ever before. And by bringing in UHC, you will be forced to bring along higher taxes, whether through a huge increase in income taxes or a national sales tax, and it will pave the way for more "reform" in other areas of life. I'm not going to be a conspiracy theorist but let's face it, life is better for the most part when government is not involved. There is too much corruption and there are far too many special interest groups. Like I said earlier, Obama and Congress could bring forth legislation that would work to cut through malpractice costs, greatly reducing the cost of care. But he can't/won't do that because he has to give interest groups what they want - not what is best for the people.

If you consider our insurance now a tax, we will actually be paying a much lower tax. I pay about 10-17k in health costs a year on a 50-70k salary... that is a pretty huge tax. Especially considering we pay DOUBLE what ever other first world country pays.

Our society only cares about one person-one's self. It would be a radical change to the idea of actually being proud that not only will our 50 million uninsured be covered, but the 10s of millions who are excluded via "pre-existing conditions", would now be covered.


"life is better for the most part when government is not involved."

Ever hear of emancipation, eliminating "separate but equal" facilities, oil and steel barons without regulation, financial markets without regulation?

Health insurances make a fortune by denying care and denying insurance. Government intervention is needed so that more people won't be denied cancer saving treatment because they didn't mention that they once had acne.

That's mighty nice of you to select me and other Americans to help offset your high medical bills. Gee.... thanks. I was wondering what I should do with all the extra money I have.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with insurance and their millions upon millions in profit at my expense. Oh and it also happened to be about how government is needed so that our people aren't screwed. Also about how we already pay a tax.. straight to corporations whose job is to kill us for profit. But good job making it about you.

Do you have brain damage?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is currently an 8 month wait to visit dermatologists in my area.

It must be because UHI is about to pass

I'm a 3 hour ride away from you (assuming your profile is accurate), my dermatologist will see me within 2 days tops if he's really busy. Shall I pick out a random Chicagoland dermatologist and attempt to schedule an appointment and put that 8 month claim to the test?

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sportage
THis may be the last fight. Chance.
People need to contact their reps in congress to resist lobbyist efforts to derail UHC.

Btw, its not looking too good.
(from) the Washington Post)

Drug Makers Score Early Wins as Plan Takes Shape

WASHINGTON -- The pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to "take on" during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.

Legislation expected soon in the powerful Senate Finance Committee will leave out cost-cutting steps as part of an agreement with the industry and the White House, according to Congressional aides, industry lobbyists and others involved in the talks.

The missing items include two planks of Mr. Obama's campaign platform: allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and giving the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Meanwhile, a separate Senate committee voted this week as part of its health bill to give branded biotechnology drugs at least 12 years of market exclusivity, a defeat for makers of cheaper copycat medicines. "This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.

If UHC, and I mean realistic UHC is not passed. And if things remain as they are today as to American healthcare, I predict by the year 2015 70% of all American's will have NO healthcare in any form. Employed or not.

And the few 30% that will have some type of healthcare, will only qualify for coverage as long as they never actually use it. And if they should need it, they will be forced out by adjusting costs, and thus soon join the 70% uncovered American's.

Obama care shaped after broken medicaid? We all know how good the government is at running things... I predict if we get Obamacare and cannot pay for it THERE WILL BE RATIONING.

We cannot afford it.

There already is rationing.

There is currently an 8 month wait to visit dermatologists in my area.

It must be because UHI is about to pass

This is not what we physicians mean by rationing. I work in a rural area and we certainly don't have enough of certain specialties, but this is because of the lack of desire for physicians to move to some underserved areas. Some specialties simply cannot exist without tertiary centers, some simply cannot practice as solo practicioners.
Also what sandorski fails to realize is that currently most insurance companies refuse to pay for expensive studies unless certain criteria are met, and this does not include most standard studies, I have only had a handfull of patients refused MRI in the past ten years, and never any CT's. And only pending Orthopedist evaluation. This is nowhere near what occurs in other countries. I myself have had patients visiting from Canada willing to pay cash for studies sooner than they would get it there.

 

[senseamp]

There might be rationing in the public plan to contain costs. Still better than having no coverage for uninsured at all. Want all the bells an whistles, get a private or supplemental plan.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Rationing of the public plan? that's just disgusting. Why don't we ration gas too? If you think the private plan or a supplemental plan has the bells and whistles, yet you call it ineffective, and inferior to the other UHC plans in the world, why is it now the bells and whistles plan? If our bells and whistles offers us the quality of health care that Cuba has then our public plan is supposed to offer what? Somalia-like healthcare? Come on. And now rationing is a reasonable option to you?

 

[Red Dawn]

What is the Party of No's solution for health care reform?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Rationing of the public plan? that's just disgusting. Why don't we ration gas too? If you think the private plan or a supplemental plan has the bells and whistles, yet you call it ineffective, and inferior to the other UHC plans in the world, why is it now the bells and whistles plan?
If our bells and whistles offers us the quality of health care that Cuba has then our public plan is supposed to offer what? Somalia-like healthcare? Come on. And now rationing is a reasonable option to you?

Confusing a health plan with a health system? What is quality of care for the uninsured now, aside from that mandated by the government?
Yes, a baseline public plan to cover everyone with preventative and established cost effective treatments. If you want latest most expensive experimental treatments not covered in basic plan, get extended private coverage.