quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackBBW

The question is, what do we have now?  I here the word "socialist" health care sputtered a lot lately.  What does that actually mean?  Because the way I see it, we currently have "socialist" health care.  The amount of care, the cost and who is eligible to receive health care, is currently controlled by one entity.  So what is wrong is wrong with competition?  Having a public option will "truely" force insurance companies to compete.  Right now they are competing against one another.  How has that benefited the consumers?  Have you seen lower prices on premiums, doctor's vists or prescriptions?  I think not.  They set the price.  What is that called in the world of business?  Can you say monoply?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Here's the truth behind "the public option" in Barney Frank's own words - the hope is, it will lead to totally government-run healthcare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

That's socialism.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama  is on a well publicized misinformation tour, saying pay no attention to that hand - watch this other hand over here: “Nobody is talking about some government takeover of healthcare,” he said. “Under reform, if you like your doctor, you keep them. If you like your plan, you keep it.”

The OP was absolutely correct to ask, "Is This What America Voted For In Voting Obama As President?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No surprise that the repubs are going to fuck the american people by torpedoing the health care bill

quote:

Hmm. How could the Republicans possibly do that, when they're powerless to stop anything Democrats want to do - they don't have the votes!

quote:

Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf told the House Energy and Commerce Committee in March that creating a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field against private coverage would be extremely difficult. In April, the Lewin Group health care consultant firm found that premiums for the public option plan would be 30 to 40 percent lower than private plans.

With this in mind, nine Republican senators told President Obama in a letter that Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition. The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

The House plan will inevitably produce rationing of care like that in England, Canada and other countries with socialized medicine, where patients wait months for procedures and to see a doctor. The critical ill and elderly are expected to suffer or just die because the best treatments are too expensive or not cost effective for someone their age.

quote:

The U.S. Census Bureau tells us that in 2007, the last year for which it has data, the number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million, and the number without health insurance dropped to 45.7 million, or 15.3 percent. Given the current economic situation, more people now don't have insurance.

However, consider that among those without coverage 9.2 million are in households earning $75,000 or more, 9.7 million are illegal aliens and non-citizens, and many don't have coverage for three months a year, or less. At worst, the number is closer to 30 million, about 10 percent of the actual citizen population. The United States government should not concern itself with whether people who are not citizens have health insurance, nor be concerned whether citizens with the means to purchase insurance decide not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

now thats just wrong. and, personally, i remember the argument over euthanasia... honestly, many would love that option, and im speaking of terminally ill patients, not elderly. the scare tactics are just pathetic.

quote:

'Blue Dog' Dems reach health care deal, but Utah's Matheson still balking
Updated: 07/30/2009 07:21:05 AM MDT

Washington » Health reform has a heartbeat in the House again after conservative Democrats struck a deal with party leaders Wednesday that would lower costs and ease requirements on small businesses.

But Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, remains unsatisfied and, unless more changes are adopted, he plans to buck his party and vote against the bill this week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"My most significant concerns," Matheson said, "have not been addressed by the deal."

His list of objections is similar to many Republican concerns. He said the proposal gives the federal government too much power and does too little to reform medical-malpractice claims.

Matheson is a member of the Blue Dog Democrats, a coalition of fiscal conservatives who have threatened to team with Republicans to kill the wide-ranging proposal.

Seven Blue Dogs sit on the commerce committee and four agreed to Wednesday's deal, enough to secure passage out of the panel. A full House vote won't take place until September at the earliest.

President Barack Obama welcomed the news, especially since his signature domestic issue has hit repeated roadblocks recently.

"I'm especially grateful," he said in a statement, "that so many members, including some Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, are working so hard to find common ground."

The accord was reached after House leaders and


White House officials participated in marathon negotiating sessions with members of the Blue Dog coalition. Matheson and others met with Obama at the White House last week.

As part of the deal, House leaders vowed to trim $100 billion from the price tag of the roughly $1 trillion plan. They agreed to allow doctors to negotiate the rates they would be paid by any government-created health-insurance plan instead of tagging the amounts to the lower-paying Medicaid schedule. And they agreed to make it easier for small businesses to avoid penalties if they do not offer health insurance to employees.