House crams healthcare bill down the countries throat.

[mike92104]

Brian, I appreciate that you are the only liberal that will admit that rationed health care is on the horizon. To the poster who went on about dealing with insurance companies, do you honestly think the government will solve that or make it worse? It actually sounds like what Brian wants the health care system to be. Just the physical would be covered, but all the other tests would not. I can only imagine going to the doctor when I’m sick and being run around for hours because I don’t have this form, or that form, etc. Ever been to the DMV?

Another thing, if you don’t have an actual argument or
thought other than to make fun because you THINK someone is a republican, maybe you should keep it to yourself. At least I have a view, and am willing to argue my point.

[briansd1]

mike, sorry if you didn’t like the North Park humor.

So far, it looks like the health insurance companies who run the system will continue to run it. so if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.

I think that the public option is good. Nobody will be forced do join the public option if they don’t want to.

[briansd1]

mike, sorry if you didn’t like the North Park humor.

So far, it looks like the health insurance companies who run the system will continue to run it. so if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.

I think that the public option is good. Nobody will be forced do join the public option if they don’t want to.

[briansd1]

mike, sorry if you didn’t like the North Park humor.

So far, it looks like the health insurance companies who run the system will continue to run it. so if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.

I think that the public option is good. Nobody will be forced do join the public option if they don’t want to.

[briansd1]

mike, sorry if you didn’t like the North Park humor.

So far, it looks like the health insurance companies who run the system will continue to run it. so if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.

I think that the public option is good. Nobody will be forced do join the public option if they don’t want to.

[briansd1]

mike, sorry if you didn’t like the North Park humor.

So far, it looks like the health insurance companies who run the system will continue to run it. so if you like your insurance plan, you get to keep it.

I think that the public option is good. Nobody will be forced do join the public option if they don’t want to.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.

[Hobie]

Might I add Brian, that a decade from now the health care system will not be judged by the cost to GDP but rather the quantity and quality of new doctors and high skilled nurses that are choosing medicine as a career.

[Hobie]

Might I add Brian, that a decade from now the health care system will not be judged by the cost to GDP but rather the quantity and quality of new doctors and high skilled nurses that are choosing medicine as a career.

[Hobie]

Might I add Brian, that a decade from now the health care system will not be judged by the cost to GDP but rather the quantity and quality of new doctors and high skilled nurses that are choosing medicine as a career.

[Hobie]

Might I add Brian, that a decade from now the health care system will not be judged by the cost to GDP but rather the quantity and quality of new doctors and high skilled nurses that are choosing medicine as a career.

[Author]

Posts