sorry about the smart ass remark, it wasn't meant in a mean way..I just feel like you are sticking to a circular argument...you expect particulars on a fishing website that can't even be provided by elected officials and the administration...the bill is not intended to curb rising costs which is why that is not effectively addressed in your opinion...between the house and senate version there's nearly 2000 pages of vague legal muck, so mucky that I can cite the specific part of the bill and you can say, "it doesn't say that" in virtually every case, this was done intentionally...the intention is clearly government take over of the American healthcare system...which is why it needs to be opposed...show me any place in the nearly 2000 pages where government is limited? and I want the names of those 50 million uninsured people without healthcare.....prove that they actually exist:uhuh:

Sifting through that a bit, you're at my point.

The initial declaration for the need of Health Care Reform was to curb the exponentially increasing costs for health care. In many cases, the current administration and Congress has done a relatively good job identifying problems. My issue with the above mentioned politicians is their execution of the solution to the problems they effectively identify.

Health Care Reform has evolved from something necessary to curb costs into a plan so that all citizens have health care.

That would be a good start, because again #s have been thrown around
from 5, 12, 23, 27, to 50 million. Once the true # is proven, the next step should be what are the costs and how will we pay for it.

Essential marketing questions.

I think you have that reversed.

Were it not for progressive reformists and the ideal of a single payer system, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-spence

"progressive reformists"...now there's an oxymoron for ya JD..

and you should substitute fallacy for ideal (of a single payer system)..too many examples of utter failure around the world to be considered an ideal in any sense of the word...like socialism and communism :)

Oxymoron? Oy...

-spence

Having read portions of the bill, it is CLEAR to me that it is purposely written to hide what is really going on. If the plan is simple and well designed it can be written in way less than 1018 pages of doublespeak. An intelligent person should be able to write the legislation in clear language that can be understood and implemented by anyone. Look a the Great Documents of history, they are all simple and to the point.

Healtcare needs fixing, no doubt- There are 15 million who need and can't afford healthcare, not 50, once you remove those who choose not to have coverage and non-citizens.

1) Tort Reform-the major factor(s) causing increases, unnecessary testing and malpractice insurance--Never happen because virtually all lawmakers are lawyers...

2) Transportability and elimination of pre-existing conditions, when you change insurers you should not have to have a waiting period greater than the tiem it takes for preexisting conditions to lose thier coverage.

3) Allow us to go out into the marketplace and buy insurance like we buy car insurance. Also allow individuals access to the network not only employers. In RI we have BCBS and United, why not let there be some competition...

4) Expand medicare to cover the 15 million who truly can't afford or don't have access to healthcare, then reform medicare to eliminate the rampant fraud... example-a third party bought medical equipment on my relative's medicare account and had them shipped to my relative's home when they were away for the summer and picked them up when the carrier dropped them there.... Imagine what we would find if we turned over a few more stones...

5) Low cost catistrophic coverage so those who choose not to have coverage can get coverage in the event they are in an accident.

An individual who couldn't afford the coverage would get an offset credit, so no, the same people who couldn't afford it wouldn't be asked to pay more...assuming of course the credit actually covers the entire cost of a plan.

A lot of this would ultimately be funded by those who could afford it, through higher taxes on higher income earners.

-spence

If Nancy is saying that there will be a single payer system, then she is really saying that there will be no government health plan, the dem senators are afraid that they will not be re-elected in 2010 if they vote for it.

I can't wait for Sara in 2012 :jump1: Imagine she could be the house whip, WOW! I just :drool: over her.