Do you think health care reform will pass?

[Baculus]

LOL, it's a video, you know, with pictures and sound. You should try it sometimes it's really kool. As I and many suspected your interested in only your partisan point of view. Sobeit.

Everyone cannot watch a video at all times. Maybe you can, but I cannot.

I mean, for real, is this the ONLY article you have supporting your view on this issue?

[Baculus]

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that the large majority of people in this Country don't want this Bill. You can say that it's Far Left, or whatever, the fact remains that they don't want it. If this were single payer, I'd imagine that the numbers would probably be about the same but instead of progressives being pissed, it would be those who are against single payer.

The people don't want this. At the end of the day, that's where we are at.

As I said in another thread, people don't trust this bill. That is the problem. Partially due to the Democrats mis-communicating, and partially due to the anti-reform GOP and their corporate allies, including Fox News, going on an all out, "death panels," "government takeover" fear-mongering blitz.

it is the same tactics used the GOP when they defeated reform fifteen years ago, when health care costs were a third of what it is right now.

Basically, it's people who are against reform, for their own reasoning, speaking for everyone else. And speaking for the half of the country who voted for Democrats on a health care reform platform.

Meanwhile, the Republicans use taxpayer's money for their government health care plans at laugh at all the general public.

[aREDSKIN]

Everyone cannot watch a video at all times. Maybe you can, but I cannot.

I mean, for real, is this the ONLY article you have supporting your view on this issue?

If your this obtuse then we'll call it a day and just see what happens in the next 2 weeks.

[TheLongshot]

I have not seen any time table confirmed on this. I've only heard Pelosi say that they would move on it when they were ready to do so.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34335.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members Friday to brace themselves for a climactic health care vote as early as next week, warning them to clear their schedules for next weekend and promising to stay in session until the landmark vote, people present at the meeting said afterward.

It sure looks like she's targeting Mar 19th-21st for the vote, particularly since she's getting a lot of pressure from the White House to wrap it up before Obama leaves.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Probably not the same level of care, but they will participate in a similiar system, using an exchange (which is something I discussed yesterday).

Very well, please show me the language that outlines whatever "Similar" is.

But you are totally deviating from the point, and probably with reason. I will ask again: Is it hypocritical for members of Congress to attack government regulated or managed health care as "socialistic" when they themselves use such a system? Because, over and over again, the GOP have told us that such a system is communism, but they themselves use it.

I did not bring up this subject. You did. As for hypocritical, government is hypocritical on both sides. The problem here is that I don't trust the government to manage Health Care and apparently you do. Of course, that would be hypocritical but it happens on both sides all the time. Is it Hypocritical to propose this health care bill as what the people want when every poll in American says differently? Is it Hypocritical to say that the GOP is stopping this thing when you have all the votes you need, with 38 to spare, and you still can't get this passed? Is it hypocritical to try and pass this Bill by voting on a rule and never ever taking a vote on the actual Bill?

Of course it's hypocritical. They are politicians. Is it hypocritical to ask us to believe in them and trust them when you know they are hypocritical?

No one ever suggested the notion of providing Cadillac-level care for everyone. This is distorting the argument at hand.

Cadillac level care is what Congressman and women receive. It was you who suggested that we would be getting that type of coverage or a level of coverage close to it. You have only yourself to blame for any distorting of the argument.

Here is one of the issues: Many people use emergency room resources for general care. This is expensive. Terribly expensive. It would be much more cost effective if these people could visit a primary care physician for lesser ailments instead of a hospital ER visit.

This is not a reason for sending us over the top on Health Care. The cost associated with this type of treatment is not compensatory with the cost that are incurred by Insurance Premiums and insurance Increases. Those are things that could be managed by simply introducing competition into the market place and setting caps on increases.

Of course, this issue is never addressed by anti-reformers.

Never or addressed or is it that you just never listen?

Ask the CBO.

You are the one leaning on the CBO report. I'm asking you why you are leaning on that report when you know that there are pieces of the financial picture that are not included in the CBOs reporting model.

If you come up with the answer, I will take a look at it.

"Of course, this issue is never addressed by anti-reformers"

What a shocker.

BTW, aren't we glad the GOP were as fiscally concerned about spending as the Democrats are on this bill? Oh wait. They weren't.

Again, they are all politicians. Wake up and smell the coffee burning bud.

[ABQCOWBOY]

As I said in another thread, people don't trust this bill. That is the problem. Partially due to the Democrats mis-communicating, and partially due to the anti-reform GOP and their corporate allies, including Fox News, going on an all out, "death panels," "government takeover" fear-mongering blitz.

it is the same tactics used the GOP when they defeated reform fifteen years ago, when health care costs were a third of what it is right now.

Basically, it's people who are against reform, for their own reasoning, speaking for everyone else. And speaking for the half of the country who voted for Democrats on a health care reform platform.

Meanwhile, the Republicans use taxpayer's money for their government health care plans at laugh at all the general public.

This same argument can easily be turned and used as reasoning for why President Obama was elected and why the Dems gained control of the House and Senate. I mean, what difference? The people do not like the Bill. It's as simple as that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34335.html

It sure looks like she's targeting Mar 19th-21st for the vote, particularly since she's getting a lot of pressure from the White House to wrap it up before Obama leaves.

Well, if they are actually putting this to a vote on the actual Bill, then this is probably a good thing. I guess we'll see if it actually happens.

[helptheSKINS]

You know, it's funny how, when the CBO has any negative statements about the health care bill, these numbers are waved by the anti-reformers. But when the CBO has any positive numbers, these figures are dismissed, in the same (Fox News-like) manner as helptheSKINS.

Yes, no one knows how much the bill will exactly cost, but at least the CBO has a projection, unlike the false numbers ("It will cost two trillion) that the GOP have pushed in the past. I mean, really, to the Republicans, it really doesn't matter because they will distort the numbers: That is why some people think this bill will cost a trillion dollars a year.

Is that what you believe?

Let me ask you this: When was the last time any GOP legislation was dissected in the same fiscal manner as this bill? Where were the demands for fiscal solvency for the War on Terror? Didn't the Bush administration tell us it would cost us only a $100 billion dollars, but it has now cost over a trillion? What about the $1.2 trillion dollar Bush tax cut that was merely added to the debt? Where were the fiscal hawks (outside of Ron Paul)?

It's just amazing how the GOP intelligentsia shrugs their shoulders when trilliosn are added to the debt via wars and tax cuts for the rich. But when the Democrats actually try to manage a bill over a ten year period, even attempting to not only make it deficit neutral, but reduce the deficit, it is attacked in a manner that few Republicans ever attacked their own spending at the time.

This bill is slated to cost around a $100 billion a year. That is a lot of money. It is also the same amount we have been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. As it is, we spend $500 billion a year on the DOD alone.

Apparently the health of the American public is the last order in line. Hell, even the Iraqis have a universal health care system, courtesy of the US government, vis-a-vis the US public's money. Even the Germans and the Japanese have universal systems, rebuilt after World War Two.

What's good enough for them ain't good enough for us.

Oh brother. That argument. Sorry, but the "government screws up everything" argument has been made before.

OK, so we shouldn't trust the government, but we surely should trust the private insurers who have increased rates, right? Oh, just like Anthem Blue Cross in California, which wanted to increase rates by 39%?

You want us to trust them?

Sorry, but you gung-ho corporate types make me laugh. Yeah, when someone has no insurance and little access to health care, we should tell them, "Relax. The hidden hand of the market will ease your pain and heal your wounds." Right? I guess we have to wait for Supply Side Jesus to mend the sick.

The next time you fly, or drive on pubic roads, or have your needs met by public safety, or eat food or consume drugs that have been inspected, please tell us how much the government sucks. Heck, go to Somalia, and please tell us how much we suck, OK?

1: You have got to stop the fox news comments. You seem to think if you don't agree with the HC bill it's because of fox news. I'm guessing you wouldn't like it if I said you are just spewing "MSNBC points".

2: Stop going back to Bush. This is about this HC bill.

3: The CBO projection is a guess.

4: The CBO projection consists of 10 years of taxes and 6 years of spending. I notice you avoided directly answering that.

5: Nobody here say's they trust the insurers either. The point I don't think this bill will solve the problem, I actually believe it will make it worse.

6: The govt has a purpose, I don't believe further involvement in HC is one of them.

[helptheSKINS]

Our nation is successful because our government is successful.

Did you use GPS as you drove on the highway to get to a computer and use Internet to post your message? How do you feel about the 40 hour work week? Do you appreciate not being exposed to dangerous chemicals in your work environment? Do you like not getting poisoned by the food you eat, water you drink, air you breeze, medicines you take? How do you you feel about building codes?

Your position is laughable. Get a grip, buddy.

As a side note, there is a debate to be had whether it's better to have a government-run health care or corporation-run health care.

I need to get a grip because I don't agree that the govt should get even more involved with health care?

I'll be sure send my congressman a thank you for inventing the internet.

I'm waiting to hear why my position is laughable. Please let me know why it's laughable to think 10 years of taxes for 6 years of spending makes sense. You answered exactly as I expected.

[The_Godfather]

Our nation is successful because our government is successful.

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” - Ronald Reagan

[helptheSKINS]

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” - Ronald Reagan

But I've been told the Govt is awesome because they invented the internet and my food isn't poisoned.

[Baculus]

But I've been told the Govt is awesome because they invented the internet and my food isn't poisoned.

Ya, because food poisoning is such a ha-ha subject! Oh, what a belly laugh! Mad Cow disease: a liberal invention, I say! And the Internet is so magical, it invented itself!

[Baculus]

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” - Ronald Reagan

Which is why Reagan increased the scale of government, increased spending, and increased the debt.

That Reagan? Oh, yeah.

Government was such a problem that he ran for it. There's sticking it to 'em, Gipper!

[Baculus]

1: You have got to stop the fox news comments. You seem to think if you don't agree with the HC bill it's because of fox news. I'm guessing you wouldn't like it if I said you are just spewing "MSNBC points".

1. Why would I stop the Fox News comments when people opposing health care reform won't stop using Fox News comments. I mean, seriously: If people don't use their talking points, generated from the GOP, then I won't say anything about Fox News.

It is well known that Fox is determined to stop reform. They have even said it themselves, as evident by their daily drumming of the anti-reform messages on their network.

To say otherwise is to be completely oblivious.

2: Stop going back to Bush. This is about this HC bill

Oh yeah, because Bush's spending was, like, a million years ago, right? Because we surely don't have his five to seven trillion spending on our national debt. Right?

Ignoring history and hypocrisy is so convenient, ain't it? Yeah, let's forget about the seventy years of Republican efforts to defeat reform. Let's forget about the spending during this last decade.

No wonder right-wingers want to rewrite history books: Historical truth is too unwieldy and awkward to support their arguments.

3: The CBO projection is a guess.

A projection is a projection. It is taking factors into consideration and producing an answer.

It is funny, though, how the CBO becomes untrustworthy as soon as the numbers favor the Democrats.

4: The CBO projection consists of 10 years of taxes and 6 years of spending. I notice you avoided directly answering that.

I didn't 'directly "avoid" answer anything, because I never dissected all of the CBO numbers. Also, the CBO only projects for a certain period of time.

5: Nobody here say's they trust the insurers either. The point I don't think this bill will solve the problem, I actually believe it will make it worse.

Make it worse? Do you realize how bad it already has gotten? In ten years, the average cost has doubled, to over $10,000 per GDP. We have tens of millions without coverage, an estimated 45,000 Americans die from a lack of access or care, and we have some of the worst outcomes in the Western world. But yet, you are claiming that things are going to get worse, as if things are spiffy and wonderful?

For "not trusting" the insurers, you sure are doing a lot of work for them. Heck, look at all the people on this thread mouthing their talking points, pushed through members of Congress, Fox, and TV ads.

Unconscious shilling is good business for them.

6: The govt has a purpose, I don't believe further involvement in HC is one of them.

We disagree on this issue.

[Baculus]

This same argument can easily be turned and used as reasoning for why President Obama was elected and why the Dems gained control of the House and Senate. I mean, what difference? The people do not like the Bill. It's as simple as that.

Your statement makes no sense at all. Are you saying that Obama was voted due to fear mongering about health care?

The people want reform. It is simple as that. They don't deserve to be manipulated by the GOP and the corporate health care lobby. They don't need people like Frank Luntz and Dick Armey pulling their strings.

They deserve better.

[Baculus]

If your this obtuse then we'll call it a day and just see what happens in the next 2 weeks.

You are apparently incapable of providing me with anything else.

[Baculus]

Very well, please show me the language that outlines whatever "Similar" is.

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress

This is the Federal program (of which we discussed yesterday as well):

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

I did not bring up this subject. You did.

Of COURSE I brought it up. It's a question, for God's sake.

What an odd reply.

As for hypocritical, government is hypocritical on both sides.

So you are not going to answer the question, are you?

The Democrats support health care reform. Some of them have even said, "Hey, let's expand the (above referenced) Federal health care sysrtem to everyone! Why can't they, the People, use the same system as we members Congress?"

It isn't the Democrats who are being hypocritical in this matter.

The problem here is that I don't trust the government to manage Health Care and apparently you do.

That has NOTHING to do with my question. You are avoiding a "Yes or No" answer. Apparently you are incapable pr producing a reply, even if it undermines your POV.

Also, it is the Republicans who mouth your same argument, and yet, they continue to use government health care.

That is the whole point of my inquiry.

Of course, that would be hypocritical but it happens on both sides all the time. Is it Hypocritical to propose this health care bill as what the people want when every poll in American says differently?

When polled on separate parts of the bill, they support it. When polled on the notion that the government is going to "take over" health care, they reject it.

Is it Hypocritical to say that the GOP is stopping this thing when you have all the votes you need, with 38 to spare, and you still can't get this passed? Is it hypocritical to try and pass this Bill by voting on a rule and never ever taking a vote on the actual Bill?

What? TWO BILLS HAVE BEEN PASSED. What are you talking about?

Of course it's hypocritical. They are politicians. Is it hypocritical to ask us to believe in them and trust them when you know they are hypocritical?

Oh brother. All of this because you are incapable of answering a simple yes and no question. The amount of pretzel-like contortions you just went through is rather absurd.

I will ask you AGAIN: Is it hypocritical for Republican members of Congress to have government health care when they so vigorously oppose it? Don't give me some twisting, long avoidance on this issue. Just a straight answer.

Cadillac level care is what Congressman and women receive. It was you who suggested that we would be getting that type of coverage or a level of coverage close to it. You have only yourself to blame for any distorting of the argument.

Rubbish. I never said such a thing -- I ever said as much in my last post. Apparently you are incapable of sticking to the argument without resorting to pathetic tactics.

This is not a reason for sending us over the top on Health Care. The cost associated with this type of treatment is not compensatory with the cost that are incurred by Insurance Premiums and insurance Increases. Those are things that could be managed by simply introducing competition into the market place and setting caps on increases.

You are going on a tangent that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Why is that?

BTW, the Democrat's bill INTRODUCES competition, via the insurance exchange. Of course, you don't know this because you don't seem to know the 101-basics of the bill.

You are the one leaning on the CBO report. I'm asking you why you are leaning on that report when you know that there are pieces of the financial picture that are not included in the CBOs reporting model.

I am not "leaning" on the CBO report, but you, and other anti-reformers, are doing everything you can to discount it.

This is a wholly manufactured question. Show me WHERE I am "leaning" on this report. I challenge you to do so.

By "leaning," you are implying that my argument lives and dies on the CBO; show me where this is true.

Again, they are all politicians. Wake up and smell the coffee burning bud.

Oh brother.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your statement makes no sense at all. Are you saying that Obama was voted due to fear mongering about health care?

The people want reform. It is simple as that. They don't deserve to be manipulated by the GOP and the corporate health care lobby. They don't need people like Frank Luntz and Dick Armey pulling their strings.

They deserve better.

I'm saying that you could easily make the argument that President Obama and the Dems were swept into office because people didn't understand all the fact behind Change.

Yes, people do want reform but clearly, the kind of reform that is being proposed is not the kind of reform the majority will support. It could not be more obviouse.

So yeah, obviously they need people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at the strings right?

Seriously, this is not a productive use of time. Your arguing talking points. The facts are that people are not in support of the legislation. There is no but this or if that. The people don't support it. That is really what all of this boils down to.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress

This is the Federal program (of which we discussed yesterday as well):

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

Of COURSE I brought it up. It's a question, for God's sake.

What an odd reply.

So you are not going to answer the question, are you?

The Democrats support health care reform. Some of them have even said, "Hey, let's expand the (above referenced) Federal health care sysrtem to everyone! Why can't they, the People, use the same system as we members Congress?"

It isn't the Democrats who are being hypocritical in this matter.

That has NOTHING to do with my question. You are avoiding a "Yes or No" answer. Apparently you are incapable pr producing a reply, even if it undermines your POV.

Also, it is the Republicans who mouth your same argument, and yet, they continue to use government health care.

That is the whole point of my inquiry.

When polled on separate parts of the bill, they support it. When polled on the notion that the government is going to "take over" health care, they reject it.

What? TWO BILLS HAVE BEEN PASSED. What are you talking about?

Oh brother. All of this because you are incapable of answering a simple yes and no question. The amount of pretzel-like contortions you just went through is rather absurd.

I will ask you AGAIN: Is it hypocritical for Republican members of Congress to have government health care when they so vigorously oppose it? Don't give me some twisting, long avoidance on this issue. Just a straight answer.

Rubbish. I never said such a thing -- I ever said as much in my last post. Apparently you are incapable of sticking to the argument without resorting to pathetic tactics.

You are going on a tangent that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Why is that?

BTW, the Democrat's bill INTRODUCES competition, via the insurance exchange. Of course, you don't know this because you don't seem to know the 101-basics of the bill.

I am not "leaning" on the CBO report, but you, and other anti-reformers, are doing everything you can to discount it.

This is a wholly manufactured question. Show me WHERE I am "leaning" on this report. I challenge you to do so.

By "leaning," you are implying that my argument lives and dies on the CBO; show me where this is true.

Oh brother.

I'm sorry. It does not seem as if we can have a conversation and keep it intellectually honest. No sense in beating my head against the wall here.

You have the votes. Just vote it in and let the chips fall where they may.

[Baculus]

I'm sorry. It does not seem as if we can have a conversation and keep it intellectually honest. No sense in beating my head against the wall here.

You have the votes. Just vote it in and let the chips fall where they may.

So you cannot answer a simple yes or no question?

Amazing. I guess you can't undermine your own POV and those who support it, eh?

[aREDSKIN]

You are apparently incapable of providing me with anything else.

R.I.F. it's all there your mind is just closed.

[Baculus]

I'm saying that you could easily make the argument that President Obama and the Dems were swept into office because people didn't understand all the fact behind Change.

I don't see how people could have misunderstand Obama's political policies -- he said he wanted to reform the health care industry. Unless, of course, you are going to trot out the "Obama is a socialist and trying to "change" the country via progressive politics" argument.

Yes, people do want reform but clearly, the kind of reform that is being proposed is not the kind of reform the majority will support. It could not be more obviouse.

When people are polled on individual sections on the Democratic reform efforts, people support it:

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr022310nr.cfm

What sort of reform do you think people want? When you say "people want reform," what do you mean?

So yeah, obviously they need people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at the strings right?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are elected officials in Congress. Frank Luntz and Dick Armey are not.

Seriously, this is not a productive use of time. Your arguing talking points. The facts are that people are not in support of the legislation. There is no but this or if that. The people don't support it. That is really what all of this boils down to.

It is funny you talk about talking points when you just repeated a specific Fox News talking point: "The people don't support it." This quote could be on an endless loop on that station.

My "talking points" are my views -- I WISH more media sources were talking about Frank Luntz and Dick Armey, but they DON'T.

[Baculus]

R.I.F. it's all there your mind is just closed.

All you said is that "both sides are hypocritical" while ducking any attempt to make a direct reply. Both sides are NOT hypocritical on this matter, because the Democrats would WELCOME Americans having a chance to shop for insurance via the FEHB. Republicans do NOT, even though they enjoy the benefits of it. Instead, they vilify such government health care while enjoying the fruits of it.

This ain't very complex or difficult -- you just don't want to answer, because it will expose the total hypocrisy of the Republicans on this matter.

That is OK. A lot of people clam up when they are backed into a corner.

[Thiebear]

Did you post 11 times in one page?

With 6 times in a row?

And your telling people they can't support the idea that Government isn't the answer?

Government IS fraud / waste and abuse paved in good intentions. The money theirs, so theres no reason to treat it as if it was special and should be conserved as if it was Anwar.

[helptheSKINS]

1. Why would I stop the Fox News comments when people opposing health care reform won't stop using Fox News comments. I mean, seriously: If people don't use their talking points, generated from the GOP, then I won't say anything about Fox News.

It is well known that Fox is determined to stop reform. They have even said it themselves, as evident by their daily drumming of the anti-reform messages on their network.

To say otherwise is to be completely oblivious.

Do you actually watch fox news? The reason I ask is you seem to know everything that’s discussed on it. Your comments lead me to one of two conclusions.

1. You are a closet fox news fan

2. You are a liberal pawn that bases your opinions on what others tell you. I’m guessing you are fall under this option.

What is your response to fox news consistently being considered the most trusted news source? It’s actually not even close. So your opinions or should I say the opinions of others that you repeat are in the minority. Now based on your comments about polling, I’m sure you will say that this means nothing. Feel free to google it before replying.

Now this is part that is really gonna hurt. You may want to sit down. I’ll give you a hint, it’s has to do with fair election coverage. You haven’t mentioned what news source you trust by the way!

http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage---pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008

BEST (FOXNEWS)

Positive Obama Stories 25%

Positive McCain Stories 22%

Negative Obama Stories 40%

Negative McCain Stories 40%

WORST (MSDNC)

Positive Obama Stories 73%

Positive McCain Stories 10%

Negative Obama Stories 14%

Negative McCain Stories 43%

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)

Positive Obama Stories 36%

Positive McCain Stories 14%

Negative Obama Stories 29%

Negative McCain Stories 57%

Oh yeah, because Bush's spending was, like, a million years ago, right? Because we surely don't have his five to seven trillion spending on our national debt. Right?

Ignoring history and hypocrisy is so convenient, ain't it? Yeah, let's forget about the seventy years of Republican efforts to defeat reform. Let's forget about the spending during this last decade.

No wonder right-wingers want to rewrite history books: Historical truth is too unwieldy and awkward to support their arguments.

I repeat, this is about the current HC bill. I’m far from happy about the way GWB’s fiscal policy. Unfortunately, Obama has stuck to his word about change. He has changed too much spending by Bush into unimaginable spending. Now please stick to the topic at hand.

A projection is a projection. It is taking factors into consideration and producing an answer.

It is funny, though, how the CBO becomes untrustworthy as soon as the numbers favor the Democrats.

What's really funny is how you pick and choose which CBO projections to use. Of course based on your previous posts it’s possible you are simply unaware. I also know that you will shrug these off because it’s from the weekly standard. You’ll say they are part of the republican lie machine even if they are facts. Of course you’ll probably follow those comments with an article from the Huffington Post.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/cbo_real_10year_cost_of_senate.asp

In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion -- for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill's full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion -- according to the CBO.

Even MoveOn.org says that the bill is "a massive giveaway" to private insurance companies. The CBO estimates that, from 2015-25, private insurers would receive $1.0 trillion in subsidies from the American taxpayer.

I didn't 'directly "avoid" answer anything, because I never dissected all of the CBO numbers. Also, the CBO only projects for a certain period of time.

Now you know that’s not true. You are welcome!

Make it worse? Do you realize how bad it already has gotten? In ten years, the average cost has doubled, to over $10,000 per GDP. We have tens of millions without coverage, an estimated 45,000 Americans die from a lack of access or care, and we have some of the worst outcomes in the Western world. But yet, you are claiming that things are going to get worse, as if things are spiffy and wonderful?

For "not trusting" the insurers, you sure are doing a lot of work for them. Heck, look at all the people on this thread mouthing their talking points, pushed through members of Congress, Fox, and TV ads.

Unconscious shilling is good business for them.

Feel free to re-read this post. Let me know if you still believe this to be true. If so, I’ll be more than happy to provide additional educational points.

We disagree on this issue.

See Cartoon