Pelosi - $15000 Socialist insurance policy or 5 years in prison

[Pox Eclipse]

All the free market countries have failed.  Just give them time...

[rwanders]

Capitalism certainly isn't perfect---like all human devices it will serve some better than others. However, I haven't seen a better system for encouraging the human drive for a better life. Theories are well and good but I need to see results in the real world before I would abandon what we have.

Obamacare hasn't even made it to the theory stage---it's a ridiculous mess and is doomed to failure---hopefully before it reaches Obama's desk.

[Pox Eclipse]

Who is asking you to abandon what you have?  The public option will cover less than 10% of the country.  Those who like their private insurance can keep it.

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

How much longer should liberals in the blue states continue to pay for red state's self reliance and personal accountability?

[Don_P]

I'm not so certain that acting irresponsibly because others are acting irresponsibly makes one responsible. It will drive change so it is another path, I'm not so sure it will lead to a different place. If it does I haven't seen anyone mention what it will be.

Every socialist society has fallen

To my knowledge EVERY society has fallen, or will, all are doomed, this is the nature of societies. The Roman Kingdom lasted about 245 years, the republic lasted about 450 years. The Athenian democracy lasted under 180 years. I believe the longest lasting societies were the Roman empire and the Ottoman empire. Is longevity the best yardstick to measure societies by?

We are paying for poor people and illegals now, you are also paying for those quite able to pay who choose not to. All of these people are already getting socialized medicine. At the moment we are paying for the have-nots and for many of the haves. Slackers do kill my incentive. Why should I pay their way? If we choose to do nothing at some point I must drop my insurance, join their ranks, and let you pay my way, after all, you have more than me. A short time later you will join our ranks, the insurance and medical care system will spiral in. Is this leading towards or away from a stable society?  

Those that opt out have no vested interest in reforming the system, they hide among the other freeloaders. They all already belong to, and like, a socialist system. They are rationing your care. Those that cannot, and those that choose to not pay, are already cramming the ER. Does forcing those able to pay for their insurance increase or decrease the number of freeloaders? If everyone who can pay does, and if they share in the cost of taking care of those who can not pay, is it a more or less fair society? If there are more unhappy paying members of society do they have more or less control over the fewer freeloaders? Should we give everyone, no matter how poor, a graduated but personally high deductable? Could make a case for that.

One way or the other another plan will surface, it must. You have not provided one. The path we are on is doomed to fail. Not making a decision in a timely manner is very often a decision as well. Some add momentum but choose not to paddle. You think its mean to make them paddle and don't seem inclined to throw them over the side. Hope we enjoy the ride.

[Sassy]

DonP, you are right, every society does fail sooner or later...  IMHO, every society ends up failing due to the breakdown in the moral fabric - whether the society is a country, state, city, religions etc. 

My signature below quotes Jesus as saying "you will know the truth & the truth will set you free."  Basically, you can live in a free society & still not be truly free...  if you are bound up in your mind with guilt, hatred, envy, greed, etc, etc, you will never be free.  If you believe lies, you are a prisoner to those lies...  Each person has freedom to determine if they want to be free or not, each person has the freedom to search for TRUTH...

We can banter back & forth forever & never come to terms on this issue because there is a bigger picture...

[StinkerBell]

So, what I am hearing on the news toay is that the POTUS wants to give 12 miliion illeglas amnisty. I guess this means they then are intitle to socialist medicine too.

[NM_Shooter]

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

You are using very old data to make a very weak argument.  Look at the electoral map and compare it against the states in most serious financial trouble. 
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/11/11/pew-report-nine-states-join-california-in-facing-fiscal-crisis/
One red, nine blue.

[Pox Eclipse]

Apples and oranges.  The red states still take more federal spending than they pay in taxes, regardless of the financial health of the states.  If they are so darn independent, they should send it back.

[NM_Shooter]

This is interesting... it explains that the blue states are in areas where there is higher earnings and respectively higher tax brackets.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

It's actually pretty poetic that democrats are being taxed at a higher rate.  (Which, btw... I am against.  I support a flat tax).

So.... higher income folks are paying higher taxes to their states too.  And those blue states are now in deep financial trouble.  An example of liberal leadership in action! 

[Squirl]

Answer me this.  If conservatives are all about self reliance and personal accountability, how come most of the red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes?  And most blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending?  

You are using very old data to make a very weak argument.  Look at the electoral map and compare it against the states in most serious financial trouble. 
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/11/11/pew-report-nine-states-join-california-in-facing-fiscal-crisis/
One red, nine blue.

The electoral map is for presidential elections and only this past one.  The financial jeopardy is from state governments. Many of these states are equally controlled democrat to republican between the legislature and executive branch.  The most telling descriptor is most of these states where the largest run up in property values and collapse of the tax base in mortgage foreclosures.
"The United States housing bubble was an economic bubble affecting many parts of the United States housing market, including areas of California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, the Northeast megalopolis, and the Southwest markets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

I do agree that 2004 is old data. In 2004 the "red" states that voted for GWB controlled the house and senate this combined with that most major metro areas are "blue" and pay more taxes.  Also most I expect this to change with the new control of the legislature.  In 2008 3 of those ten states voted "blue" and 16 of the 20 Senators from those states are now "blue."  Although the whole red and blue thing I find over simplified and more for TV.

[fishing_guy]

Want to write a letter to your editor on this subject?  They make it easy for you:

http://ga3.org/campaign/healthpetition?qp_source=cloture_durbin

I got signed up by a well meaning cousin in Illinois(I live in MN) to Durbin's newsletters.  It has been an education on how they work.  Everything on his website is predetermined.  They had a "survey" where all of your options included supporting the public option...then surprise surprise, the survey says...public option.

Why I hate politicians!

[StinkerBell]

Forcing us to buy insurance when I believe is unconstitutional is extortion. Simple as that.

[Don_P]

Forcing others to pay your tab is theft, simple as that. I haven't heard a plan yet as to how those of you without insurance plan to handle that debt without stealing from others. Another plan I could see working is all the unisureds could be assessed the cost of treating the uninsured population. At the end of the year you either show proof of insurance or pay whatever your piece of the pie is.

[harry51]

Forcing others to pay your tab is theft, simple as that.

I agree 100%. That is precisely what this so-called health care bill will do. It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

[Pox Eclipse]

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

By 2010, the additional costs for the uninsured will be $1,502, and total premiums will hit $17,273. In 11 states, the costs of the uninsured will exceed $2,000 per family.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8144237/

[harry51]

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

We are not forced to participate right now, that's the difference. Here's a take on the bill from a constitutional law prof who has read the whole thing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2339355/posts

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

[Don_P]

It will force those without health issues to pay the tab for those who do. Simply wrong.

How is that different from what we have right now?

I do not presently have a choice in paying for those who choose to act irresponsibly, however I agree with Harry and that was one of my proposed solutions to this problem. No treatment without showing a method of payment. Release the hospital from having to treat those that will not pay. My insurance works for me, the healthy and those who think they always will be do not pay for or use the system. The free market can take care of the problem.

[ScottA]

Surely, surely I'm reading something wrong here. Let the "process of selection" take care of the problem by just letting people without insurance die preventable deaths? A survival of the fittest thing?

It's already happening.

Once the government gets control of health care they'll mandate all sorts of things people have never even dreamed of. Any risk taking will be considered an excuse to exclude people from care. Drugs will be forced on people and not taking them will be an excuse to refuse care. The list will grow with time until who knows what will be required. Permits to have children anyone?

[MountainDon]

My insurance works for me, the healthy and those who think they always will be do not pay for or use the system.

If only it was that easy. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree.

[Pox Eclipse]

We are not forced to participate right now, that's the difference.

Yes, you are forced to participate right now.  Your insurance bill is over $1000 higher each year because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.  Your taxes are higher now, because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/healthcare_underinsured/index.htm

Now, you can wish for social Darwinism to free you from this burden, but that will not make it so.  That will never happen. 

You are paying for it now, and you will continue paying for it, until your premiums are simply too high for you to afford any longer, and then you will join the ranks of the uninsured.

Then who will you curse?

[harry51]

Your insurance bill is over $1000 higher each year because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.  Your taxes are higher now, because the cost of the uninsured is passed along to you.

My health insurance isn't anywhere near $1,000 higher each year. But I can tell you that when auto insurance was decreed to be mandatory here in Kalifornia a number of years ago, the price went up, not down. The same will be true of health insurance, with or without the "public option."

Then who will you curse?

Those among us gullible and selfish enough to trade their liberty and mine for an empty promise of security, and amoral enough to use force of government to do it.

[Pox Eclipse]

My health insurance isn't anywhere near $1,000 higher each year.

So who is paying for all the uninsured people who use the emergency room as their primary care?

[Whitlock]

Then who will you curse?

Those among us gullible and selfish enough to trade their liberty and mine for an empty promise of security, and amoral enough to use force of government to do it.
[/quote]

Wow Harry that is quite a quote

It sums up my feelings on the whole mess, I'm not here for the Gov. they are here for me and as a U.S. citizen I hold the highest office in the land. So don't tell me I'm going to get fined if I don't buy something you are selling.

For all you that think this plan will work pull your head out.

We need to fix what is broke first! No more treatment with out paying. No more malpractice suits and bring the cost down way down.

Who do you think owns the pharmaceutical and insurance companys?

[glenn kangiser]

Nothing like telling it like it is Whitlock.  Subtlety is not one of your fine points I assume...  

[Pox Eclipse]

Malpractice lawsuits and defensive medicine account for less than .5% of health care spending in this country: 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Banning malpractice lawsuits will only hurt patients, and will not significantly reduce health care costs.  They tried capping awards in Texas, and malpractice insurance rates went up:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/malpractice_ge.html