Dear M40,

I'm sorry that you believe us "Euro-weenies" have "NO RIGHTS… NONE" and that we're "subjects… slaves to the system". I believe your views are misguided, but they are just that: your views. And you have a right to them. Feel free to put forward an argument in future. For example, seeing as the founding fathers were obviously anarchists it is saddening to see America's political philosophy to go so far astray.

Hypothetically, if you were to rule America, would you set up a system to make it easier for those who don't have access to facilities such as health care, education and family planning facilities to emigrate to other countries which do provide these services? And what effect do you believe the absence of these people will have on the state of the country?

If you choose not to emigrate people, would you just leave them wanting? And how do you think that will effect your economy? Would you allow the establishment of non-governmental organisations to cater for these people's need? Or do you feel that this is too much a form of non-centralised government? Should everyone instead take to the wild, hunting with their rifles in order to provide for their families? I'm sure the poor state of health of the general population would easily balance out the growth rate increase resulting from the absence of education and family planning.

I was particularly impressed by Randolph's response, which gave me an indication for the first time as to why the US healthcare reforms in the current proposal are unfeasible. I believe (sorry, "Euro-weenie" chiming in again where he's not wanted!) that if more dialogue was opened up between people like Randolph and the global community, who have already established effective healthcare systems, it would allow for the formation of a fair and just system which benefits everyone, and would be a milestone in both the health of individuals, and that of America itself.

Regards,

Tom "Insert Slave-Name Here" O'D

p.s. One of my favourite (and at the same time most nauseating) arguments against the health care reforms is that "I don't want America to become a communist country like Russia or China". Seriously, thank you Randolph for showing me that reason does exist in the anti-healthcare reform camp!

Alain said:

“The only way that such a company can make a profit is to give less than it takes.”

I suppose that means your labor should be worthless because the only way you profit from it is to give less than you receive.

Natural law states that people have the right to compete brutally, fight, struggle, and die.

There are no rights in nature except what you can claw out for yourself.

All rights are social, and whatever society decides is a right, is a right.

The US is in trouble exactly because of so much flawed legislation (not to mention the Federal Reserve System). The current bureaucracy does not and will not subsidize naturopathic treatments over allopathic treatments.

The FDA gestapo is constantly waging war upon innocent manufacturers of nutritional supplements and bioresonant electro-therapies while the only ones who can afford the super expensive clinical trials, the super rich, multi-national drug companies, go on scalping the US while putting the American Republic in a drunken stupor. If they weren't in a drunken stupor, they would have pointed their fingers at these constant drains on the US long ago. Instead, they are deciding which drug to take because mainstream media and conventional medicine has turned them into so many drug addicts.

TRUST Education. TRUST Your Instincts. TRUST History; this is what good people do. Of course, if you don't want to educate yourself, if you don't have good instincts because you're on too many drugs, and if you don't trust history, then you shouldn't be reading this. You should go take your drugs and fall in line with the rest of the zombies.

Randolph, do you not think that it would be better to first implement a system which guarantees some form of healthcare for everyone, even if it is flawed? I should imagine that if a nationalised healthcare system like the one proposed was implemented then it would soon be realised that the current style of healthcare is just sweeping the problem under the rug, so to speak. Sure, in it's current state with private healthcare it's lucrative, but the moment the government (and the tax payer) are involved the process of streamlining begins! A major feature of the NHS is bureaucracy, targets and budgets! I should imagine they would start implementing alternative therapies like you suggested, as a cure is usually cheaper in the long-run than a treatment. It might well be that the current legislation has been written in order to please the lobbying groups in order to get the damn system started in the first place!

T

I listened to the director of the NHS a few weeks ago. There are definite differences between universal healthcare in the UK vs. what would be universal "healthcare" in the U.S. The #1 difference that stands out in my mind is that UK doctors are salaried. US doctors are fee per service; that's why we have super efficient assembly lines rather than super efficient healthcare.

I prefer to educate myself, discipline myself, and be vigilant. Part of that education is provided by altruistic medical doctors (they do exist). I will not put my life in the hands of HMOs. I'm already continually arguing with mainstream doctors because they constantly insist on pushing drugs with obvious consequences while having absolutely no suggestions for holistic alternatives.

Where does US Universal "Healthcare" leave the naturopathic physicians? That's a real mystery, isn't it? Naturopathic physicians keep you very healthy at minimum cost. Mainstream physicians keep you barely healthy at maximum cost. Naturopathic medicine pushes an ounce of prevention for a ton of cure. Mainstream medicine pushes a ton of trash for an ounce of prevention. Which do you prefer?

Dear M40,

I'm sorry that you believe us "Euro-weenies" have "NO RIGHTS… NONE" and that we're "subjects… slaves to the system". I believe your views are misguided, but they are just that: your views. And you have a right to them. Feel free to put forward an argument in future. For example, seeing as the founding fathers were obviously anarchists it is saddening to see America's political philosophy to go so far astray.

Hypothetically, if you were to rule America, would you set up a system to make it easier for those who don't have access to facilities such as health care, education and family planning facilities to emigrate to other countries which do provide these services? And what effect do you believe the absence of these people will have on the state of the country?

If you choose not to emigrate people, would you just leave them wanting? And how do you think that will effect your economy? Would you allow the establishment of non-governmental organisations to cater for these people's need? Or do you feel that this is too much a form of non-centralised government? Should everyone instead take to the wild, hunting with their rifles in order to provide for their families? I'm sure the poor state of health of the general population would easily balance out the growth rate increase resulting from the absence of education and family planning.

I was particularly impressed by Randolph's response, which gave me an indication for the first time as to why the US healthcare reforms in the current proposal are unfeasible. I believe (sorry, "Euro-weenie" chiming in again where he's not wanted!) that if more dialogue was opened up between people like Randolph and the global community, who have already established effective healthcare systems, it would allow for the formation of a fair and just system which benefits everyone, and would be a milestone in both the health of individuals, and that of America itself.

Regards,

Tom "Insert Slave-Name Here" O'D

p.s. One of my favourite (and at the same time most nauseating) arguments against the health care reforms is that "I don't want America to become a communist country like Russia or China". Seriously, thank you Randolph for showing me that reason does exist in the anti-healthcare reform camp!

Ophelia, most people don't have the benefit of your experience. TV provides that vicarious experience wherein most Americans hope and pray that political statements and drug commercials are telling the truth w/o serving special interests.

I have to agree that North American IQ is probably down a few points because of all the drugs in public drinking water. It's very nice of you to worry about US. I advise you to take care of you and your loved ones in France because the psychotic crackheads running the show over here may actually push that flush handle sending this once proud nation into the vortex. And who said France or any other part of the "civilized" world is safe from the psychos?

I supported Ron Paul's run for Presidential office. I have donated to his campaign several times. However, I do not agree with his view point.

Having made over $100,000 per year and having made $3,000 in a year and living in America and experiencing its health care system for a variety of physical illness and surgeries, I have to say that the American health care system is in severe need of change.

Having friends who work in the pharmaceutical companies as executives who admit there MUST be change for regular Americans to get health care and medicine; it's very troubling to see how uneducated Americans REALLY ARE.

I left the United States of America and I will never return to live there. I moved to France and the health care system here - as it has its flaws - is nothing like it's being advertised by mass media and even Ron Paul. People's needs are being met. Period. Are doctors slaves? My father in law is a dentist, his wife is an orthodontist, my brother in law and sister in law are both psychiatrists for France and they have large homes, nice cars, and enjoy the health care system and its benefits - including long vacations that you Americans do not enjoy. They are not slaves. They earned their degrees, paid back the government through working for state institutions for two years, and then were able to start practicing on their own. My best friend is an American medical student and she already owes $200,000 in student loans in her second year. If that's not slavery, then I do not know what is.

I was born in a third world country. I was raised after the age of five in America. Spent my childhood years living in post communist Germany. I am an adult living in Europe. I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that many of you must see further beyond your own television sets. Meet real people and listen to their truths. Experience suffering. Travel and see how other people live.

I tell you, the world you live in WILL change. It will change as a result of your perspectives.

M40, what you say is completely true. Our country's forefathers knew their place. I believe Thomas Jefferson said, "When Gov't fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the Gov't, there is tyranny." Who else here remembers Waco, TX incident 1993? (FBI could have ended the Koresh Cult with the leader's arrest, but they decided to take out women and children too.) Who remembers the CIA fiasco "Cuban Missle Crisis" in the 1960's? Who remembers all the tyrannical actions of the FDA and IRS against innocent Americans?

M40, those are all grand things to say on the web, but what do you think would happen if you stood on a pedastal on a loud speaker and said these things in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? We are not in the country of our forefathers. "Terrorism" has secured our present gov't.

I've seen eloquent arguments in this forum, both for and against 'nationalized' health care. The problem is that it's ILLEGAL... period... end of story.

The federal government has NO RIGHT to meddle in health care. They have NO RIGHT even discussing abortion. They have NO RIGHT messing with the auto industry or any other business. They have NO RIGHT screwing with education. Almost everything the federal government has done over the past 50 years is ILLEGAL.

Read your constitution folks (because obviously the power-grabbers in Washington haven't). All of this discussion is MOOT unless it is discussed for implementation in INDIVIDUAL STATES.

And for you Euro-weenies that have been chiming in, you have NO RIGHTS... NONE. You are subjects... slaves to the system, pure and simple. Your government owns you, your children, your home and car, and everything else. Here in America, it's the other way around. We've simply forgotten and become muddled in stupid, circular discussions like the one here.

Some day soon... and it has been coming for a long time... we Americans will wake up. The time has come yet again, to remind those who would be king, that we are not anyone's subject. We are each of us king's, and our 'subjects' reside in Washington.

Tom, UK universal healthcare is clearly a different animal than the one being pushed by Obama which would be compulsory for every US citizen. The US legislation is bent on subsidizing conventional medicine full of drugs and surgery while the NHS allows acupuncture, osteopathy, and other holistic therapies. Meanwhile, the US Gov't couldn't care less about CAM or anything else that's holistic or naturopathic - because alternative medicine doesn't feed the drug companies.

HMO medical doctors in the US fully realize that there's not enough of them to service the universal healthcare paradigm because too many patients are suffering iatrogenic diseases from the "super efficient" hospital assembly lines now, so they don't want it; under this system, doctors will have greater incentive to push end of life counseling for seniors and greater incentive to push drugs rather than administer proper health care.

Tom, the UK made bromines illegal. The pound is worth 1.6X the US dollar. Admit it. You're in a better country.

I'm British, and as you know we have the National Health Service. We also have private healthcare companies, for those that wish to pay for it. And sure, the private companies provide faster service because they have a lighter workload. However, you'll find that NHS nurses and doctors are extremely proud to work for this national institution. In fact, my mother's a nurse, and she will attest to the fact that the standard of treatment is second to none.

SO, what happens if you continue with the American private system? Well for a start it means when people get ill they can't afford treatment: a Texan friend of mine has never had healthcare in his life (a fact which I find to be abhorrent). From my understanding only the people with a higher rate of pay get health insurance as part of their job in America. So what happens when offices need cleaning; trash needs collecting; who labours building sites? These are the sort of jobs which don't have inclusive health insurance. If people are healthy, then so is society.

Then there's also the fact that I LIKE people, and I want people to be healthy. You wouldn't believe how small the tax burden is, relative to goods and services provided!

I will honestly never understand why anyone would object to universal health care. Although I don't understand a lot of things about America.

Strange, strange people.

Yail,

Indeed, healthcare is vital to a good quality of life. Everyone agrees on that. The debate here is how to achieve that goal and there are far more options than socialized medicine vs. what we have now.

Regulation has fostered an environment where only large companies can compete, a trend started with Nixon. This is also a bad system.

If at the very least each state runs it's own healthcare system then competition can make it better. With one Federal plan there is no competition and quality of life will be less because the healthcare available will not be innovative or efficient.

Doctors and nurses in the conventional medical care system are already being taxed. Yail, in an ideal world, your logic makes sense, but within the context of Obama's plan, HMO's and its presently impersonal, assembly line approach to patients, "universal healthcare" would render proper healthcare obsolete; the conventional medical doctors know that 5 minutes per patient isn't enough, but that would be healthcare under the Obama plan - and the Obama plan isn't interested in funding alternative healthcare practitioners. Under this system, because of the incentives to medical doctors, they would actually be encouraged to give end of life counseling to every senior citizen. Excuse me, but I don't want to be part of any compulsory end of life counseling for myself or my loved ones under a life negative "healthcare" system where millions of people are already dying from iatrogenic disease.

Ron Paul is apparently not noticing many similarities twixt public and private health care. Rationing doesn't exist in the private system right? Let's ignore the 50 million rationed out of the system. Let's ignore who already pays for emergency care when performed on a patient that can't afford treatment. Maybe we should just ignore them. They don't have money, obviously they don't deserve to live.

The rights mentioned are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without healthcare it is impossible to pursue two out of three. The poor without healthcare certainly have no right to life as we ignore them when they get sick and you can't pursue happiness when you can't treat medical conditions.

Look really. If you believe in rights you have to believe in making those rights possible, right?

The real drains on the system are the Federal Reserve System and the multi-national drug companies defrauding medicare with their astronomically inflated prices. American People want to believe that these drains on the system are all right as rain, because deep in the back of their minds they fear the consequences of the U.S. Gov't being wrong and in cahoots with special interests. You can have your soapbox back, Jeff.

I just cannot understand how there is trust from Ron Paul, or anyone, toward insurance and big pharma.. What have they really done that is in the best interest of the people that pay their premiums and exorbitant drug costs? When the corporations are forced choose between our health/well being and their profits, obligations to shareholders, etc. We the people lose that battle every time. So how does complete deregulation, giving the same people that would sooner let us die than deal with the costs of health care, not further that problem rather than fix it?

We have a greater problem than lack of competition in health care. We have a crisis of corporate and political alliance that is so pervasive that we've given up on trying to fight it, or forgotten that it is real due to the complete and total disregard for integrity and truth in our media. yes, even the great and independent Ron Paul is victim to this in my opinion.

I don't believe that corporations are genuinely evil, but that the very nature of their existence forces them to be soulless. let me explain that. If you or I were to find someone at our door in great need of help, chances are that our sense for care and compassion would usually kick in. We're good people, we want to help. When that human compassion is replaced by the ability to detach ones personal feelings from the consequences of that decision by means of "corporate policy" and personal reward, we lose ourselves and the compassion and caring that most of us are raised to hold above most other things. Help your neighbor. Apply that basic assumption to a company that is responsible for the health and well being of millions, and you have a real crisis.

Do you all understand that very basic and fundamental thing? Allowing them to be in the situation to choose between our lives and well being and their profits, is our fundamental problem. It is no different than the military industrial complex, or the prison industrial complex or any other immensely wealthy and powerful corporate force. They will do whatever it takes to secure their profits before considering what is best for our country, our people and our environment. They have proven this over, and over, and over, yet there is no revolt by the people. Why is truly a mystery to me.

In my humble opinion on this, the conflict between making profits and human life should not exist. War, pharmaceutical, health care, prison, etc should not be for profit industries. Just like the police force and emergency services. If you had to swipe a credit card for an ambulance, there would be a credit check to get services. hows your credit? Get it?

Can we not simply see that removing the conflict that exists between making a profit and decisions involving human life is critical to our very way of life? Whether you are a republican or a democrat in this, there is a greater understanding to be had in this pseudo discussion. And that is this.

These companies have put a price on our lives. They have turned decisions regarding our well being and the quality of our lives into a math equation, and then decided that some simply are not worthy because they are not profitable, aka They are Sick, based on this equation. Do you not see the reprehensible conflict in that model?

Spread the risk, right? That's what insurance companies do. The risk they are working with is to their profits, not your life. You dying is a better option than experimental treatments or preventative care that costs them $$ but might keep you alive or cure you. What they are doing is controlling costs people. If you are dead, you don't cost them a thing. Given all the BS hype about death panels, etc. I would pose that we already have them. In common parlance they are called Claims Review Boards and every insurance company has many of them.

This debate is not about universal health care, that is a simple answer. We need it, we have millions of people who are in ruin because they got sick, and millions more without health care. How secure does that make *YOU* feel? A little afraid? You should be, republican or democrat,old or young, white or black, this or that. The fear is real.

The debate is really about corporate power vs the people of this country. it has been masked as R vs D, conservative vs liberal for so long that we've forgotten that WE ARE THE PEOPLE in the WE THE PEOPLE. yes, just you. We've let them divide us so deeply that we believe we're fighting against each other in this. That is the BIGGEST and most elaborate lie of all. We're fighting against them folks. The politicians and big corporate influences that would seek to drain every ounce of resistance and dissent from within our ranks. Polarize us, and keep the population in fear most of the time and just about anything can be accomplished. just look at the job GWB did on habeus corpus, wiretapping, etc. post 9/11. When we are scared, we are vulnerable to manipulation.

In my opinion, we better figure out a way to take this country back (and i don't mean by becoming right wing gun toting fundamentalists terrified of losing their pasty white vision of America). I mean by realizing that we cannot have truthful and honest discussion and discourse when corporations can so easily pollute that discussion for their own interests. By realizing and accepting that the vast majority of our politicians and corporations sleep in the same bed at night. That they are a united force, hell bent on dividing and conquering us until we are merely "units" in the consumption engine of the world. And last, and most importantly by understanding that profits and the corporate machine are not what make our country great or powerful or successful, WE THE PEOPLE make that happen and the further we get from being connected to each other the further we are from a working democracy.

I think the Government should be more concerned with funding medical students to increase the number of doctors. It also would be a good idea to fix Medicare for starters and get rid of the fraud in that system, first!

Keep it up Ron. You know what is right, and don't give in to the left agenda. Healthcare is covered under "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Stay strong in Texas - Keep your head and live life to the fullest.

On page 425 of The Obama Plan, "The End of Life Counseling Program" is discussed. After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care..."

On page 16 of the plan it is ILLEGAL for a citizen to have private insurance if they lose their job, change their job, become a senior citizen or graduate from college and land their first job. Yes, illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of his plan yesterday his response was, " I am not familiar with that part of the plan..."

Innocent Americans are suddenly guilty of a federal crime if Obama's plan goes into effect?

An Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about..."

Again he doesn't know what's in his own plan? This "health plan" is turning into a "1984 + THX1138 + Soylent Green" debacle. If American sense of morals and ethics are not too clouded by drugs, then our focus must be on the true drain on the economy: The Multi-National Drug Companies.

And what happened to the debacle in the middle east? Is that finished? Why is Obama and mass media redirecting our attention like a bunch of magicians?

Medical schools would empty if health-care became a right over a good? Sweet. Getting into med school right now is difficult enough as it is. Here's hoping I get into one of the 5 I applied to and matriculate next year. Somehow I think the columnist is off-base when he seems to imply that people become physicians purely for money, because there are easier ways to be come more successful than a doctor.

And just as the healthcare issue is at risk for postponement, Conveniently the media trotting out the swine flue scare again.

Dan wrote:

Again, the 16th amendment is the problem.

No it isn't. It is A problem, and a big one. But it isn't THE problem anymore than the 14th amendment is THE problem. And the 14th is just as much a problem as the 16th. Indeed, it is more of problem in my opinion, because it laid the foundation on which the 16th amendment was installed in the constitution, among other things we've already covered at this site.

I think that when you delve off into this kind of reductionist thinking, you move farther away from the truth rather than closer to it. And THAT may well be THE biggest problem of all.

John wrote:

As for freedom, we have infinitely more freedom here in Europe - true freedom of expression, religion or atheism, democracy with more than just two choices of party, freedom to keep mythology out of the science class.

Ha, ha! That's the gall-butin'est joke I've heard in a while. Thanks for providing the laugh, John.

The problem here in America is that we're about 30 to 50 years behind you Europeans, give or take and depending on the issue. You and I can agree that that ain't good, John, I'm sure. Albeit, we'd be agreeing for totally opposing reasons.

Healthcare is beyond the sphere of powers delegated to the government. Just like seat belt and smoking laws may have positive effects, they're immaterial when put next to the fact that they force people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Consequences be damned. Nothing is supposed to trump or coerce the individual!
But even still, all you pro-government healthcare advocates...come on, man. Do you REALLY think the same people who gave us the DMV, social security, and who pay farmers for not tilling their own land, are going to fix our supposedly broken system with more regulations? You're living a fantasy. They cannot do it. They're not smart enough. Get off it.
The truly messed up thing is that it's going to eventually get signed into law, not work out the way everyone plans, but still continue to exist.
Wanna bet?

John,
I'm truly sorry for the typo on Holland.. I guess I didn't cut the edited sentence far enough.. thanks for noticing..

As for your perception of freedom.. you are as free to pursue whatever direction your European governments will allow you to..right up to the point of resisting your government. then it's back to the age of stone throwing and complaining to your masters...The fact that you included the whole of Europe in your statement shows not only the obvious lack of freedom, but also a lack of sovereignty.. but again, as long as you fee free you exactly where they want you..I'm sure the EU is as content as you are.

As to My Parents coming to America, they came in 1927 from a democratic Germany and a bad economy that made my Dad decide to come to America.. and found that a republic was more to his liking.. I am sure you have your own reasons for staying in Europe..Just like the mass of immigrants had their reasons for leaving

One more thing, you put quotation around "Socialistic regimes" implying a quote.. My post said nothing of regimes.. but nice try anyway

Larry - perhaps you should read a bit more and get your facts straight.Your ancestors and parents may indeed have fled Europe but if they did it certainly wasn't 'socialistic regimes' they fled. The sort of regimes where the destitute died as the intervention of church or private charities was pretty thin on the ground.

As for freedom, we have infinitely more freedom here in Europe - true freedom of expression, religion or atheism, democracy with more than just two choices of party, freedom to keep mythology out of the science class.

One more thing, Holland and the Netherlands are the same place.

Again, the 16th amendment is the problem. If the federal government wasn't taxing us to the hilt already then individual states who decided to make universal health care in their state could go for it! Those of us who love freedom would have choice in our freedom loving state! The 16th amendment has so perverted our country it's not even funny!

Alain,

I'm glad to see that we have European visitors here at TAC! Your comment regarding what you perceive as a good health care system is really a result of indoctrination- you see there are other choices besides the two you list (corporate greed/government greed).

What you and many in the US seem to forget is that once upon a time health care was considered a charitable act and conducted by non-profit organizations, rather than a route to MASSIVE profits. Today, the sheer amount of government obstruction that exists in the form of licenses, regulation and requirements such as VERY expensive malpractice insurance that prevents more health care providers (ie competition for the greedy corporations who currently abuse patients on a regular basis and give sub-par care) from going into business, outside of the current HMO scheme.

I'm glad you feel that your European healthcare system is working for you, but I have far less faith in my Federal government to do anything pure with such a plan. There are too many other examples of DC exploiting the trust of the people to make money to convince me that the current Obama health care scheme is anything other than a continuation of this pattern.

Just look at the basic fact that once the current plan is in place, it will be ILLEGAL to obtain private coverage and how that major detail has been obscured by the Obama rhetoric thus far.

It's different here, but not that different in the end. I'm sure plenty of Soviets thought their health coverage was better than ours at one point in time also.

Alain said:

“The only way that such a company can make a profit is to give less than it takes.”

I suppose that means your labor should be worthless because the only way you profit from it is to give less than you receive.

Since heath care is not within the sphere of powers granted to the federal government, there is no reference to it in the list of powers delegated to Congress. Thus, their plan, irrespective of party, is a usurpation of power. When we debate the merits of usurpations of power, we give creditability to the usurpation because it gives the impression that the federal government must have been granted the power because we are discussing the details.

Alain,
I hate to tell you this my friend, but you have no idea what living free means.. you cannot possibly comprehend what Americans are going through right now because you have never experienced freedom and liberty on this scale..our ancestors and parents fled Europe.. we fled Belgium, Germany, Holland,France the Netherlands, we fled your socialistic form of government, to come here.. your "fight" for healthcare was over before it started, you have no fight, you have no options and you have no means in which to change your government. so Please spare us your expertise on the subject.. you seriously Lack the fundamentals of Business.. the only way a company can make a profit is to provide A HIGH LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND BETTER/ MORE PRODUCTS.... of coarse that only works in a capitalist society... and Belgium is hell and gone from that
**************************************************************************
Alain said:

"The only way that such a company can make a profit is to give less than it takes."

the argument that progressives use is that "Millions of people are without health care".. that's because the majority of people are healthy and do not seek it. This isn't about the health of Americans, it's about corralling Americans. I cant wait to see how more efficient the health care system is.. Sort of like the Instant FBI background check to purchase a gun.. the "instant" part takes 3 days.

Long lines? Forced sign up? What bill is he looking at? Wasted paperwork?

OOOOH right, he is the one already on a socialized(paid for by US) government run program, maybe he doesn't realize how we don't get choices even when insured in the real world, or how long the wait to get denied for care is for the working people.

If this health care bill really were about the health of US citizens, then why make it illegal for us to go out and get private coverage (once the plan is in effect)? The answer to the question is that this legislation is NOT about caring for people, it's about further monopolizing a very lucrative product- health coverage.

Central planning doesn't concern itself with the welfare of the people, it concerns itself with bringin in funds and securing more power. Period. These two things are easy to do if said central planners can convince people that it's for their wellbeing. This is where the current administration (who's policies are stunningly similar to the previous administration) has been most devious- convincing the left that 'the good guys have arrived, so leave your worries behind'.

With as much money and unchecked power the Feds have currently, there are no good guys. Except for Dr Paul of course... =]

Hi,

I'm european and am fighting everyday to keep the healthcare we have.
Al I am saying is that a workforce that is healthy is also productive.
And I would rather have a government run the healthcare than a profit seeking company. The only way that such a company can make a profit is to give less than it takes.

Alain from Belgium

It will not be mandatory for everyone. The Congress and President are exempt and continue to have the system they have now.

In a true free market based health care system, health care insurers would be even more free to deny access based on pre-existing conditions, drop patients that are too costly, and don't profit the shareholders. Furthermore, you talk about bureaucracy getting introduced into the system by the government? The insurers are already there, making sure treatment is decided by spreadsheets, formulas, arguing with insurance companies and mountains of paperwork. Look in Canada for instance, you get treated, and the doctor decides. Anti-health care reform advocates give a very distorted view of our current system, where there is already rationing by insurers. We all pay for the uninsured, who visit ER's, much more costly than getting preventative care. The insurance system in this country is so crooked, that good old American as apple pie government bureaucracy would be a major step in the right direction. As such, I respectfully dissent.

Dr. Paul wrote:

And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

Which is to say that someone like myself who absolutely will not participate in such illegitimate schemes will automatically become law breakers. So, on top of everything else, the federal government is in the business of turning independent, productive, law abiding citizens into law breakers. Well isn't that special!

Health care is a right, and who's obligated to provide it? Isn't eating a right then too? Should those evil grocery stores and their "for profit" model be taken over by a government run system?

Well, it's comin'

Ron Paul is right on the mark here. How can I have a right to health care if it requires you to pay for it, or requires you to perform a service for me? Rights are those things that we can do without forcing someone else to do something too.