National Health Care Bill...A national health scare?

[dmagicglock]

the whole "its just a proposal" thing is crap. It's a proposal because they want to make it law. I think anyone who thinks they don't want to get this passed is naive at best. They were trying to cram it down before the recess. Once this passes, it'll be nearly irreversible. Granted it has to go to the Senate, and hopefully they'll block it. But I know for damn well the president will sign off on it if it gets to him, and the majority of dems want it in Congress. So to pretend the current legislation is just spitballing, is really naive. 2/3 branches necessary to make it law are pretty much in the books. People might have an idea that "universal healthcare" could be good, is good, or might work out? But this bill is not what most people think of as traditional "universal healthcare". Its a complete takeover of the system, with government overstepping boundaries and exploiting medical professionals. You don't need to blow up the house to fix a leak.

[dmagicglock]

Article 6, paragraph 2 - This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Any questions?

maybe you missed the tenth amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[chevysoldier]

Better stock up on your ....and people actually voted for this guy and believe he is doing good?

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Seriously? WOW!

[Cheech]

the whole "its just a proposal" thing is crap. It's a proposal because they want to make it law. I think anyone who thinks they don't want to get this passed is naive at best. They were trying to cram it down before the recess. Once this passes, it'll be nearly irreversible. Granted it has to go to the Senate, and hopefully they'll block it. But I know for damn well the president will sign off on it if it gets to him, and the majority of dems want it in Congress. So to pretend the current legislation is just spitballing, is really naive. 2/3 branches necessary to make it law are pretty much in the books.

First off, it is just a proposal. This is why we have 100 people on the opposite end of the building drafting their own version, and given the fact that IT JUST CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE means that there are 376 additional people besides the committee that just voted on it to debate it further. So that means we have almost 500 people who have direct access to the bill to make changes as their constituents (if only I still believed that) see fit.

I mean seriously, this is the time to debate the provisions but everyone is carrying on like they've already passed the thing and it's a active law.

People might have an idea that "universal healthcare" could be good, is good, or might work out? But this bill is not what most people think of as traditional "universal healthcare". Its a complete takeover of the system, with government overstepping boundaries and exploiting medical professionals. You don't need to blow up the house to fix a leak.

So you tacitly admit that the current system is flawed. How would you fix it?

[fusion]

Better stock up on your ....and people actually voted for this guy and believe he is doing good?

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Seriously? WOW!

That doesn't say that either.

You realize the insurance companies only pay certain amounts based on fee schedules as well right? Did you also know that doctor's offices (to include dentists) often charge you based on those fee schedules?

[Cheech]

maybe you missed the tenth amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No, I got that one. Re-read it again:

Article 6, paragraph 2 - This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[dmagicglock]

I think universal healthcare is a bad idea because its constitutionally wrong. You can't provide someone the service without imposing on the rights of someone else to provide it. That being said, here's how you fix it, or at least start.

Prescription drug care: Lower the FDA approval period time, 17 years on avg to get a drug from conception to market. The patents are up after 10 years, they renew it once for another 10 years and have only 3 years to make back their profits to cover overhead and reinvestment. The average cost for development is 600 million bucks! This means we pay higher prices on prescriptions because the FDA has a stranglehold on the industry.

Tort Reform: 80% of all trial lawyers donate to democrats. They do this because they know the dems will not cap how much money they can recieve from frivolous lawsuits. Have arbitration committees made up of doctors/insurance reps/lawyers to determine payouts and limit them. This would drop the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors which would drop the cost of care for us... continued in my next point.

Defensive medicine: Doctors spend up to 200 billion a year on unnecessary medicine to prevent lawsuits. This drives up our medical costs for tests we don't need, our insurance costs because they're paying for services they shouldn't and bogs down the over all efficacy of the system. Start with tort reform and this will work itself out, and dramatically lower medical costs and amount of time spent in hospital.

The fact is 90% of american *citizens* have insurance and 80% of those who do are happy with it! It's the illegals and indigent are the ones that have the most to gain from this program. But you could fix the system with those 3 points, without more government bureaucracy breaking the bank and replacing something that already works for the most part.

[chevysoldier]

First off, it is just a proposal. This is why we have 100 people on the opposite end of the building drafting their own version, and given the fact that IT JUST CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE means that there are 376 additional people besides the committee that just voted on it to debate it further. So that means we have almost 500 people who have direct access to the bill to make changes as their constituents (if only I still believed that) see fit.

I mean seriously, this is the time to debate the provisions but everyone is carrying on like they've already passed the thing and it's a active law.

So you tacitly admit that the current system is flawed. How would you fix it?

No it hasn't been passed but just the idea that it was even drafted like this is shocking! People actually thought a bill like this is a good idea!? How to fix it? Educate people.

[Aerik]

I think universal healthcare is a bad idea because its constitutionally wrong. You can't provide someone the service without imposing on the rights of someone else to provide it.

UPS and FedEx have been happily competing with the USPS for years. Government-provided police forces haven't driven private security firms out of business. There is no reason why the private health insurance companies couldn't compete with a well-designed public option-- it just might mean they have to change how they operate. Gouging, reducing benefits, denying coverage on everything possible, and all the other little games they play (with people's lives in the balance) are business practices that harm Americans-- I for one wouldn't be sorry to see them have to clean up their act to stay in the game. At any rate, if a company can't find an ethical way to turn a profit, I'm not lamenting them if they fail.

And anyway, I don't see how the rights of a relatively small number of corporations should even get to be considered alongside the rights of living, breathing, American citizens. A corporation is an entity whose existence is a product of our legal framework; it's a pile of paperwork, not a person.

These bloated, corrupt, hideously amoral companies get very little sympathy from me.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Aerik

[PrincessPratt]

I wish idiots would actually read the thing.

Ummm I think I know how to read and just b/c I didn't quote the whole entire section does not mean I haven't read/skimmed it. Have I thoroughly read it? Ummm no b/c I have been very busy the last week with work...I have a life! I am FAR from an idiot and I find that to be an extremely uneducated inference you have there. I think my educational accomplishments speak for themselves!

[Cheech]

I'm going to put on a pot of coffee, something tells me I'm going to be here for a while.

I think universal healthcare is a bad idea because its constitutionally wrong. You can't provide someone the service without imposing on the rights of someone else to provide it. That being said, here's how you fix it, or at least start.

Which rights are being violated? Please, cite specific examples.

Prescription drug care: Lower the FDA approval period time, 17 years on avg to get a drug from conception to market. The patents are up after 10 years, they renew it once for another 10 years and have only 3 years to make back their profits to cover overhead and reinvestment. The average cost for development is 600 million bucks! This means we pay higher prices on prescriptions because the FDA has a stranglehold on the industry.

In 2006, the pharmaceutical industry AS A WHOLE had a 27% increas in profits. Pfizer, the largest privately funded pharmaceutical firm, had an increase of 73% over a 6 month period when the new Medicaid drug plan went into effect. (Source here: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060919115623-70677.pdf) If you are accurate in saying that the average dev cost is 600 mil, and they made 2.7 billion in a 6-month span, I don't think you need me to connect the rest of the dots.

However, I'm all for streamlining expenses, so let's open up Pfizer's financials and have a peek (isn't doing independent research fun!) So you can follow along at home, here's the link: http://media.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2008/financial/financial2008.pdf

On page 19 you will see the income/expenses chart. R&D - 7.95 billion dollars for FY'08. SI&A (Pfizer's lovely term for marketing expenses, see page 29 for the full explanation) is 14.6 Billion dollars. You want to lower prescription drug costs? Explain to me why it takes DOUBLE the cost to market the drug to physicians than it takes to make it in the first place. In that same vein, explain why it's necessary to bombard drug ads all over the media for drugs we are unable to get ourselves?

Tort Reform: 80% of all trial lawyers donate to democrats. They do this because they know the dems will not cap how much money they can recieve from frivolous lawsuits. Have arbitration committees made up of doctors/insurance reps/lawyers to determine payouts and limit them. This would drop the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors which would drop the cost of care for us... continued in my next point.

I'm not going to argue that the medical tort system isn't in need of a little overhaul, and that malpractice insurance is a HUGE barrier to entry for people starting out. However, having docs/insurance/lawyers instituting caps for payouts is a little like the fox guarding the henhouse. We already have a mechanism in place to check a runaway jury's egregious award, it's called the appeals court. Let me ask you this, if you were a doctor and I asked you how much you would be comfortable in parting with if you made a mistake and I sued you, how much would you say?

Defensive medicine: Doctors spend up to 200 billion a year on unnecessary medicine to prevent lawsuits. This drives up our medical costs for tests we don't need, our insurance costs because they're paying for services they shouldn't and bogs down the over all efficacy of the system. Start with tort reform and this will work itself out, and dramatically lower medical costs and amount of time spent in hospital.

Got any sources? I've got a few doubts about this.

The fact is 90% of american *citizens* have insurance and 80% of those who do are happy with it! It's the illegals and indigent are the ones that have the most to gain from this program. But you could fix the system with those 3 points, without more government bureaucracy breaking the bank and replacing something that already works for the most part.

Got any sources for this too? Last I checked, the measurable unemployment rate nationwide was 9.5 percent. This, of course, only measures people who are actively collecting unemployment benefits and data sent back by employers. It doesn't take into account the guy that can't find a job for 6 months that just lost his benefits. The real number is probably way south of that. This guy: http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2009/07/06/true-unemployment-rate-already-at-20.aspx says it's at 20%, so let's split the difference and say 15%. I'll venture to say without employment they don't have healthcare, so that's putting a little damper on 90% of "citizens"

Edited August 3, 2009 by Cheech

[dmagicglock]

UPS and FedEx have been happily competing with the USPS for years. Government-provided police forces haven't driven private security firms out of business. There is no reason why the private health insurance companies couldn't compete with a well-designed public option-- it just might mean they have to change how they operate. Gouging, reducing benefits, denying to cover everything possible, and all the other little games they play (with people's lives in the balance) are business practices that harm Americans-- I for one wouldn't be sorry to see them have to clean up their act to stay in the game. At any rate, if a company can't find an ethical way to turn a profit, I'm not lamenting them if they fail.

And anyway, I don't see how the rights of a relatively small number of corporations should even get to be considered alongside the rights of living, breathing, American citizens. A corporation is an entity whose existence is a product of our legal framework; it's a pile of paperwork, not a person.

These bloated, corrupt, hideously amoral companies get very little sympathy from me.

Well if you haven't noticed, the price of postage has gone up consistently and quite a bit over the past few years (percent increase). The postal system is actually headed for bankruptcy as well. Thats why they're trying to cut back their delivery days to M-F. In fact, the postal service is having trouble competing with the "private sector". And the postal service was around well before the private sector was...

As far as considering the rights of a "small number of corporations... an entity whose existence is a product of our legal framework... its not a person..." well they make up 1/6th of our GPD and too bad the government didn't feel the same way about those "corporations" when they bailed out the banks or the auto companies.

[PrincessPratt]

Ya but when the pharma companies lose their patent they still find a way to recoup their money. I'm sure many on here have heard of celexa. They lost their patent and then created an isomer of the same drug. Now we have lexapro and they can charge $100 a rx when we can still get the same benefits for $4 with celexa. I don't play the pharma companies games. VERY infrequently have I prescribed lexapro. I ALWAYS go for the most cost effective methods to help out the patients and I never go to the dinners where they allow nurses/docs to eat $100 plus dinners at the patients expense learning about a drug we've been administering for years already!! Ok I'm sleep deprived right now and completely done with my rant and this thread! LOL....signing off now.

[Aerik]

So, by pointing out that the USPS is actually having trouble competing with the private sector, you're admitting that your earlier argument was not really valid?

Incidentally, I wouldn't have handled the bailouts the way they were done anyway- I'd have probably hung the people in charge of those companies for treason, given the harm their poor management caused this country, and then considered helping whoever survived get through a bankruptcy restructuring.

Obviously, I'm being a bit facetious on the last part...

...but not really. When your company grows to a certain size, I think you have a responsibility to act like a grown-up and not implode a big chunk of my country's economy by acting a damned fool. By becoming rich, by becoming big, you've received all the benefits and advantages that this country can provide. I think it is ungrateful to take all those great gifts and poop in our collective pool.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Aerik

[dmagicglock]

1.) you're imposing on my rights because you're forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare. You're also forcing me to choose to have it, whether it be employer or govt. provided. You're also imposing on the doctor's right to provide, limiting their pay for the service, requiring them to provide the service, etc... etc..

2.) Patent length was increased to 20 years in 1999, so I was mistaken on that, but drug companies have to get the patent during development for the chemical structure that might not "be the one" often using up several years of the patent before they figure out the final compound. http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Patents

3.) cost to develop a drug: I was wrong, I thought it was 600 million, its actually 1.2 billion! http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/NewsArticle.asp?newsid=69

4.) Since when did america penalize companies for making a profit? We are a capitalistic society? Unless you would prefer something else comrade?

5.) Medical Malpractice continued: "Defending a medical liability lawsuit in which the defendant prevails at trial costs more than $110,000, according to a 2005 Physician Insurers Assn. of America claims trend analysis. Even in cases where the claim was dropped or dismissed, the defense costs average more than $15,000, that analysis showed. Those costs add up, considering that 75% of medical liability claims don't result in patients receiving any money." - source http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/06/18/edsa0618.htm

6.) cost of defensive medicine:

"If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine." - http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

7.) number of uninsured/insured: This is from a U.S. census in 2004, "The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004." This doesn't include the advent of Healthcare spending accounts that people don't take advantage of, nor the people who are eligible for insurance but don't opt to take it. Also you mention, people getting laid off or without jobs. What about spousal or domestic partner insurance? Many people that don't get their insurance from their employer, often get it through a spouse, parent, domestic partner etc.

[Aerik]

1.) you're imposing on my rights because you're forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare. You're also forcing me to choose to have it, whether it be employer or govt. provided. You're also imposing on the doctor's right to provide, limiting their pay for the service, requiring them to provide the service, etc... etc..

Protip: You're also paying for my police/ fire dept coverage, drinking water, roads, the soldiers who fight on my behalf, and the first 12 years of my education. You have the choice whether to use these same provided services or not, but the whole reason people get together and form a country is because they are able to do things as a group that wouldn't be feasible as a bunch of Daniel Boones living in the wilderness.

Incidentally, since I don't have insurance (because I'm a full-time student and my wife's job doesn't offer it), if I had a heart attack tonight and had to go to the ED, you'd still end up paying for it (because I can't, so the cost just gets passed back up to people with insurance and sometimes the government, while I pay 10 bucks a month to the bill collectors, anyway).

Although it might be worth stating that I've been working full-time and paying my taxes unfailingly since I was 16- this business of being a full-time student began just a year ago, I haven't just been leaching off of public resources for the last ten years. I've paid my fair share toward the services I use, and will continue to do so again after I graduate.

/me is not a welfare-king!

Edited August 3, 2009 by Aerik

[dmagicglock]

So, by pointing out that the USPS is actually having trouble competing with the private sector, you're admitting that your earlier argument was not really valid?

I'm saying that the government can't do better than what the private sector can. That doesn't mean we should try anyways and see if it "might work". I'm also saying that with unlimited funding they will bankrupt our economy. If a company is terrible they have the right to fail as well, shipping example: DHL. But the government system can be terrible but since it doesn't have to operate for a profit they can continually run tax dollars into it without it being a successful model. In this bill, a lot of the additional funding is not provided by the fed, its required to be provided by states (many of which are already in negative budgets). This also is unconstitutional because it imposes on states rights and individual state sovereignty. I'm not standing up for the bernie madoffs of the world, the enrons or the worldcomms, they deserve to be punished for poor business ethics. But we need to make our society more enticing for big companies to do business here without encouraging fraudulent behavior. I.E. lower the corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world. Not too mention big corps also have to pay high state taxes too. Anyhow thats a WHOLE different thread.

[Aerik]

I think the idea of our system in this country is that if the government does a crappy job we're supposed to make a big stink and advocate and argue and march, and at least vote, until we get our way.

It's not government's fault if we (collectively) would rather pay attention to and vote on American Idol- it's ours. We get the government we allow to exist. If we're too lazy to force it to work for us, it'll work for whoever puts up the effort.

[dmagicglock]

Protip: You're also paying for my police/ fire dept coverage, drinking water, roads, the soldiers who fight on my behalf, and the first 12 years of my education. You have the choice whether to use these same provided services or not, but the whole reason people get together and form a country is because they are able to do things as a group that wouldn't be feasible as a bunch of Daniel Boones living in the wilderness.

Incidentally, since I don't have insurance (because I'm a full-time student and my wife's job doesn't offer it), if I had a heart attack tonight and had to go to the ED, you'd still end up paying for it (because I can't, so the cost just gets passed back up to people with insurance and sometimes the government, while I pay 10 bucks a month to the bill collectors, anyway).

Ah but you're referring to local government, not federally mandated government. With the exception of a military which is a necessity for a government to exist. If you think universal healthcare is a good function of the government, thats fine... but thats bordering on restructuring what our government was founded on: a capitalistic democratic republic (or something along those lines).

As far as you having a heart attack, that is the case of a catastrophic event, this doesn't include check ups, prescription costs, preventive medicine, etc... The idea that a scenario like that is responsible for all the runaway spending is well false. If you don't have insurance, be proactive and sign up for a HSA and get payroll deductions pre taxed so that in the event of a catastrophic scenario you'll be able to pay for it or at least knock the bill down so you can pay less than 10 bucks a paycheck from the bill collector. As a full time student, you should also be eligible for health insurance through your University or College.

[dmagicglock]

I think the idea of our system in this country is that if the government does a crappy job we're supposed to make a big stink and advocate and argue and march, and at least vote, until we get our way.

It's not government's fault if we (collectively) would rather pay attention to and vote on American Idol- it's ours. We get the government we allow to exist. If we're too lazy to force it to work for us, it'll work for whoever puts up the effort.

i completely agree with you

[Aerik]

I'm fairly certain it's been shown that preventive care is cheaper than catastrophic care, but I'm too lazy to go looking it up right now.

And, since I was laid off, I haven't had a payroll to deduct from, not that I had the extra money to put in an account anyway.

Last, you're quite right that my school does offer the option to buy health coverage through them- as the admissions councilor told me when they were getting me all set up, "It's really pretty crappy." I'll not spend money I can't spare to be told that nothing I need is covered, when I can essentially accomplish the same thing for free.

[fusion]

Ummm I think I know how to read and just b/c I didn't quote the whole entire section does not mean I haven't read/skimmed it. Have I thoroughly read it? Ummm no b/c I have been very busy the last week with work...I have a life! I am FAR from an idiot and I find that to be an extremely uneducated inference you have there. I think my educational accomplishments speak for themselves!

So you admit you commented on (bitched about) something you didn't even read??? Doesn't sound very bright.

[Cheech]

Fuck it, I just bought an entire Columbian coffee field.

1.) you're imposing on my rights because you're forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare. You're also forcing me to choose to have it, whether it be employer or govt. provided. You're also imposing on the doctor's right to provide, limiting their pay for the service, requiring them to provide the service, etc... etc..

No specific example yet, if you can allege a infraction on your rights surely you can tell me which right it is that is being violated. Come on man, stop regurgitating the mainstream stuff and do a little research.

That being said, I suppose with that logic you are completely at odds with paying for Medicare, Medicaid, contributing to Social Security, paying income taxes that contribute to the functioning of the gov't at large? Gov't is forcing you to pay taxes, and you already have been paying for Grandpa's Viagra for some time now through Medicare. How is this some radically different concept?

Where on the bill is it imposing the doc's right to provide? What does that even mean?

Where on the bill is it imposing limiting pay for services? The little blurbs from the blowhard on the original post fails to mention that the private ins. co's have had a rate schedule for YEARS.

Requring doctors to provide the service? Yeah, I totally want my doctor to give me a sugar pill and bill for open heart surgery.

2.) Patent length was increased to 20 years in 1999, so I was mistaken on that, but drug companies have to get the patent during development for the chemical structure that might not "be the one" often using up several years of the patent before they figure out the final compound. http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Patents

See PrincessPratt's post above. Reducing excess overhead like completely useless marketing would do wonders for recouping expenses, wouldn't it? Or are you completely satisfied with paying $100 for a pill knowing that the cost is inflated by a minimum of 10% in airtime charges for the evening news?

3.) cost to develop a drug: I was wrong, I thought it was 600 million, its actually 1.2 billion! http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/NewsArticle.asp?newsid=69

Come on, really? You're going to cite as a source a non-profit think tank that relies on more than half its funding coming from the pharma companies? http://csdd.tufts.edu/About/Sponsorship.asp If I asked you about smoking, would you come up with something from the Academy of Tobacco Studies?

Even so, you're talking 3 months until the gross profit breaks even with the R&D cost. With EBITDA let's be nice and say a year. Get rid of bullshit marketing and that number gets even lower. 7 more years of patent protection remain.

4.) Since when did america penalize companies for making a profit? We are a capitalistic society? Unless you would prefer something else comrade?

That's your source? A series of rhetorical questions and a passive-aggressive remark? Wow. Oh wait, here's something...

5.) Medical Malpractice continued: "Defending a medical liability lawsuit in which the defendant prevails at trial costs more than $110,000, according to a 2005 Physician Insurers Assn. of America claims trend analysis. Even in cases where the claim was dropped or dismissed, the defense costs average more than $15,000, that analysis showed. Those costs add up, considering that 75% of medical liability claims don't result in patients receiving any money." - source http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/06/18/edsa0618.htm

An Op-Ed piece. I'm not going to argue with his argument premise (too many frivolous lawsuits), but it's not the same premise (ginourmous jury awards jacking up malpractice ins.) you were arguing before. If the suits are baseless and frivolous then the plaintiff should have to pay legal expenses. Period. Problem solved.

6.) cost of defensive medicine:

"If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine." - http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

Take frivolous lawsuits out of the equation and this disappears. How to take frivolous lawsuits out the equation: make it cost cash money for plaintiffs to file them if they are found to be frivolous.

7.) number of uninsured/insured: This is from a U.S. census in 2004, "The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004." This doesn't include the advent of Healthcare spending accounts that people don't take advantage of, nor the people who are eligible for insurance but don't opt to take it. Also you mention, people getting laid off or without jobs. What about spousal or domestic partner insurance? Many people that don't get their insurance from their employer, often get it through a spouse, parent, domestic partner etc.

Hadn't thought about couples, I'll concede that point. However where does 84.3% = 90%? Also, I'm curious to see where that number stands today with unemployment as it is now vs. 2004.

[dmagicglock]

cheech i need to go to bed, i gotta work tomorrow so we'll have to continue this some other time. That being said, you ask for sources from me, I give you them then you question their credibility, yet your response to all my points is "empty blowhard rhetoric" with no facts.

If you want to give a homeless man 5 bucks thats great. But if I put a gun to your head and make you give the homeless man 5 bucks is it still a good charitable act? Universal Healthcare is no different. If you don't see it as a violation of your rights, I can't spell it out for you any more than that. I've listed the 9th and 10th amendments, its the federal government imposing on states rights and the "rights of its people".

I've done plenty of research, maybe you should read the bill, I posted the PDF link earlier from the house of rep. Page 124 mentions price fixing by the government, that limits a doctors pay.

I tried to offer you solutions, if you don't like some of them, what solutions do you suggest besides a government handout? And please don't argue for some ideal perfect world scenario of universal healthcare, because thats not whats being proposed. Support the legislation thats in the docket, because that IS what's being proposed by our government.

As far as more current figures, we'll get them in 2010 with the new census... sort of, because no where on the form does it mention whether or not you're a legal resident of the U.S.

Alright seriously, I need some sleep. Sorry you just downed a pot of columbia's finest roast and I'm now heading to bed, have a good one.

[Rod38um]

Folks we can debate this all day.... it wont change anything.... This will happen, Democrats have the majority. Obama is pushing it..... they are all desperate to get something passed so he has something to brag about come re-election time.

The only way this doesnt get passed is if we the people start calling our congressmen. And anyone with a brain needs to get out and VOTE.........