You can believe in Santa Claus if you want, doesn't make it right.

"Everyone who is trashing Obama's healthcare plan should be required to answer the following multiple choice question:

Pick A or B:

A. I don't want any changes to our healthcare system. I'm cool with the fact that 50 million Americans don't have coverage.

B. I agree that our system needs to be reformed, but I think there's a better option than the one Obama's proposing.

If your answer is B, pick from the following three options, described by Paul Krugman. (Krugman notes that "every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens"--except us. Which is why Obama's pressing for change).

Nationalized healthcare. "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We?ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs."

Nationalized health insurance. "The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That?s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It?s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are. Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program."

Private insurance with strict rules to make sure that everyone's covered. "Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can?t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies."

Obama is essentially proposing that we move from our system to the Swiss system: Private insurance with rules that make sure that everyone's covered.

So which is it, Obamacare-trashers?

(A). The status quo, in which we remain the only wealthy country in the world in which basic healthcare isn't guaranteed, or

(B), one of the other options above?"

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...ick-one-2009-8

50 million is a lot...if it's true, it should be a national crisis

what source do you use to back this claim?

A lot of this is scare tactics. Terms like "socialism" and "government takeover" are obviously inflammatory and are used to shut down the dialogue between otherwise rational people.

Do a Google search for internal insurance company documents and you will see their playbook for fighting public healthcare includes using such terms as much as possible. If you are parroting those terms, you are basically being played like a fool.

Watch this video by a former insurance company executive. For the part about the insurance playbook, fastforward to 14:40. However, I suggest you watch the whole interview.



Those terms have no place in this debate because they simply don't apply. If you need to, please consult a dictionary before you call a public option health care plan "socialism" or before you call a company that comes to Washington D.C. and literally begs for a assistance a "government takeover".

Prices for everything are astronomical. The prices of everything have gone up in multiples over the last 2 decades, and it's unsustainable. Health care is always going to be expensive, and it's one of the first things that's "boiling over" because of this run up in general prices.

It's just the next stage of capitalism, as things have matured. Rather than actually lose something, or share something, or make a sacrifice, people are doing the natural - pointing fingers, justifying their greed to themselves and others, and defending their stances.

My mom's house was less than $50k in 1980, and now it's more than $300k. In 2040 will it be worth $1.8 million? I highly, highly doubt it.

lol so basically what your saying is that you would prefer to pay for your health care instead of getting it for free?

How many people do you know that avoid going to the doctor/hospital because they simply cannot afford it?

Do you realize that when they "have" to go because some health issue is COMPLETELY out of control it will costs YOU 10x more then if they had gone earlier?

Sometimes by helping others your actually helping yourself in the long run.

I love it how Canadians think they should have any say in this issue. Your opinion really isn't warranted.

My problem is nothing to do with VA health care, giving those wounded in combat the health care they need or anything to do with that... my problem is with some idiot creating *multiple threads* per day about health care and him not wanting his taxes to help those in need and constantly going on about how "VA health care saved his life more than once."

I have family in Afghanistan right now, two serving in Iraq, and have family members who served in Vietnam. My opinions have nothing to do with military getting health care, it is just to point at the hypocrits who scream up and down on GFY all day about socialized health care will end America, then nonetheless attributing *socialized health care* for "saving their life nore than once"

Perhaps, some of us feel firemen and teachers serve this country too, why not give them free health care? Why not just give it to everyone? LOL There are American heroes who never point a gun at someone else...

I don't want my taxes going to pay for obese fat chicks who can't stop smoking long enough to cook a healthy meal for their kids, and popping out more kids for more food stamps either, however, I am smart enough to see what perhaps is a blatant case of hypocrisy from those who have themselves benefited from socialized medicine.

perhaps, there are some Americans who, should we help them when in their time of need would also have "their life saved by socialized medicine" the way some soldiers are.

I do not support universal health care for everyone, but I do see that perhaps something should be done before these people get so sick, we end up paying for them regardless... am I making sense?

Its also just fun to poke at someone who faked his death on gfy . Its just too easy.

"Private insurance with strict rules to make sure that everyone's covered. "Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can?t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies."

That is very similar to my thoughts about health care as I posted in this thread.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=922374

A co op plan is going to leave private insurance companies "in charge" and is meaningless bullshit. IMHO.

No public option = no change. Sorry :( Obama fucked up sending the message that public option was negotiable. Again, IMHO.

You have no problems offering your incorrect, unwarranted and uneducated opinions about our "broken" services, not sure why you would even object to anyone offering legitimate, thought out posts.

Actually, no. I relayed the experience of one of your fellow countrymen.