Public Option dead!

[Archaea]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_384591.html

Public option dead, a victory of sorts. But it looks like they're trying to sneak it in the back door.

[MikeWaters]

Public option / single payer isn't dead. Any compromise "against" merely means that its advocates have agreed to a temporary delay.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_384591.html

Public option dead, a victory of sorts. But it looks like they're trying to sneak it in the back door.

And the compromise is even better. This bill is getting better by the day.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the compromise is even better. This bill is getting better by the day.

Nobody's, to this day, has made a cogent argument in favor of federal government health care reform.

It's not been proven that government manages services more efficiently than the private sector.

It's not been proven that government services are of equal quality to that of private services.

It's not been proven what the alleged numbers of non-voluntary uninsured are, due to costs or pre-existing conditions.

The only "proof" is that it will cost at least $1 Trillion Dollars. And if past overstatement regarding program costs are any indicator, i.e., Medicare, it should really about ten to one hundred times that. Glory Be, Hallelujah!

There is a perception of a problem which is inaccurately stated for purposes of creating a hysterical rush to a solution which is really no solution.

May history curse Obama for his fraud and deceit!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nobody's, to this day, has made a cogent argument in favor of federal government health care reform.

It's not been proven that government manages services more efficiently than the private sector.

It's not been proven that government services are of equal quality to that of private services.

It's not been proven what the alleged numbers of non-voluntary uninsured are, due to costs or pre-existing conditions.

The only "proof" is that it will cost at least $1 Trillion Dollars. And if past overstatement regarding program costs are any indicator, i.e., Medicare, it should really about ten to one hundred times that. Glory Be, Hallelujah!

There is a perception of a problem which is inaccurately stated for purposes of creating a hysterical rush to a solution which is really no solution.

May history curse Obama for his fraud and deceit!

There are plenty of people who have made a convincing argument for government health care reform. That you would even claim to the contrary suggests you aren't even trying to find information on the topic.

In the sake of saving you some effort, here are a few:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009...re_journey.php

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...th-System.aspx

http://www.urban.org/publications/411984.html

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...0-Premiums.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3022

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072802114.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ave_healt.html

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the compromise is even better. This bill is getting better by the day.

The American people certainly think so.

Rasmussen: 51% against, 41% for.
Quinnipiac: 52% against, 38% for.
Gallup: 49% against, 44% for.

Of course, these polls were probably done by 6-year-olds with crayons.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There are plenty of people who have made a convincing argument for government health care reform. That you would even claim to the contrary suggests you aren't even trying to find information on the topic.

In the sake of saving you some effort, here are a few:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009...re_journey.php

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...th-System.aspx

http://www.urban.org/publications/411984.html

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...0-Premiums.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3022

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072802114.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ave_healt.html

That people unwisely advocate for health care reform to attract more voters is not my problem.

So government is going to try cost containment. Lol. Good luck with that. The only modification which could make a difference would be the medical profession's change of philosophy from a fee for service to a results oriented modeling. But then again that would come from the professional orientation not from government's heavy hand.

Does anybody see the irony here of government cost control?

Medicare, Government's great social experiment created the financing for costs spiraling out of control, so now the Great Conspirator says, "we're going to control costs by spending less after we make it available to everybody universally."

Yep, that's destined for great success.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That people unwisely advocate for health care reform to attract more voters is not my problem.

So government is going to try cost containment. Lol. Good luck with that. The only modification which could make a difference would be the medical profession's change of philosophy from a fee for service to a results oriented modeling. But then again that would come from the professional orientation not from government's heavy hand.

Does anybody see the irony here of government cost control?

Medicare, Government's great social experiment created the financing for costs spiraling out of control, so now the Great Conspirator says, "we're going to control costs by spending less after we make it available to everybody universally."

Yep, that's destined for great success.

Do yourself a favor and read the links above (or at least some of them). If you are actually interested in this topic (other than just to fight against) I am confident you will have a more reasoned view afterwards.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The American people certainly think so.

Rasmussen: 51% against, 41% for.
Quinnipiac: 52% against, 38% for.
Gallup: 49% against, 44% for.

Of course, these polls were probably done by 6-year-olds with crayons.

And I thought we were actually talking about whether the bill really was improving, not whether people generally perceived it to be improving. Perhaps there is a reason for the disconnect:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr....html#comments

[MikeWaters]

the strategy is 1) increase access, 2) wait for costs to implode, and then 3) trot out single payer as the only possible solution.

Liberals aren't trying to win in just one step.