So Virginia bans O-Care

[KenC]

Realistic question:

How much freedom in your healthcare are you willing to give up in exchange for better quality and lower costs? (I'm not referring to rationing or that "death panel" hysteria bullshit). They're more mutually exclusive than you think.

[z31maniac]

Realistic question:

How much freedom in your healthcare are you willing to give up in exchange for better quality and lower costs? (I'm not referring to rationing or that "death panel" hysteria bullshit). They're more mutually exclusive than you think.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what your getting at, care to clarify it a bit more?

[dinanm3atl]

"ObamaCare" has nothing to do with Health Care.

It's about taking from the "rich" to give to the "poor" and to create further dependencies on government.

The more dependent, the more control they have over you and I.

And to bribe voters with "free" stuff.

Hit the nail on the head. You have in any given setup a middle ground that can easily be swayed with crap. Like 'free' healthcare. They will support it. They will vote for it. Same during the election all these promises of all this 'easier to go to school' and a bunch of other empty promises.

I just don't see why the majority of the citizens do not want something yet more than likely we will end up with it. What is the deal with that? Why is that how our government decides to operate. Quite fun really.

[KenC]

I guess I'm not sure exactly what your getting at, care to clarify it a bit more?

Choosing whether you get to see a specialist or not, whether you get generic vs name-brand medications, possibly having to wait a bit longer for certain procedures. I know the last comment is going to make most think I'm doing some round-about comparison to UK or Canada as that's a downside of their system that is often cited/exploited, but I can assure you I'm not. Within the system I work for, patients are often irate at 4-8mo waiting lists for joint replacements to repair non life threatening conditions that they've dealt with for decades. It may not be as convenient as many would like an you can't choose the hospital at which the surgery takes place, however, care is delivered for a reasonable cost with excellent outcomes.
Would you give up the freedom to self-refer yourself to a specialist if evidence-based reports indicated that their services weren't necessary for your ailment if it meant that costs would be decreased system-wide?

[KenC]

I just don't see why the majority of the citizens do not want something yet more than likely we will end up with it. What is the deal with that? Why is that how our government decides to operate. Quite fun really.

It depends on which polls you look at. The funny thing is that when you ask about each portion of the bill separately, people overwhelmingly agree with them, yet when you ask about the bill as a whole w/o mention of specifics, many will then contradict themselves and disapprove of it.

On a side-note, what's with all the damn "public opinion" polls regarding outcomes of the bill!?!? Like I give a damn what Joe-Schmo thinks is going to happen because of it. His opinion on the outcome based solely on ill-informed conjecture is of ANY significance.

[dinanm3atl]

I don't know a single person in my family or friends that is interested in this bill. I am a firm believer at looking at past performances to get an 'idea' of what the result could be.

USPS?
Social Security?

We can keep going... Can't setup a budget. Can't run a mail program. Can't run social security. But guys... seriously. They have this healthcare game figured out. Sorry. I am not getting on board with that. I like what I have.

[BlueBMW]

What was it something like 15% of those polled actually had a clue what was in the bill? So 85% are basing their opinions on what they were "told" to believe by media, friends, whatever.

[KenC]

I don't know a single person in my family or friends that is interested in this bill. I am a firm believer at looking at past performances to get an 'idea' of what the result could be.

USPS?
Social Security?

We can keep going... Can't setup a budget. Can't run a mail program. Can't run social security. But guys... seriously. They have this healthcare game figured out. Sorry. I am not getting on board with that. I like what I have.

There's no public option. They're not "running" healthcare delivery.

[dinanm3atl]

I know that. They couldn't get that part of it. So scratch that and try again. Get something else going. Going on months and months and months and just dwindling it down to something that our supposedly 'representatives' will vote for without fear of losing their job.

yawn.

[Wiglaf]

What was it something like 15% of those polled actually had a clue what was in the bill? So 85% are basing their opinions on what they were "told" to believe by media, friends, whatever.

this.

I'm more willing to beleive that 85% of people don't know wtf they are talking about than to beleive that the government would try this hard to self-destruct. And to be honest, I have not seen the latest version that they are voting on tonight. Which puts me in with that 85%. The last version I did read seemed quite reasonable, and a far cry from a "government takeover".

My feeling is that this is more important as an ice-breaker than anything. It can be fine-tuned with a lot less hassle later if something isn't right with it.

[KenC]

I know that. They couldn't get that part of it. So scratch that and try again. Get something else going. Going on months and months and months and just dwindling it down to something that our supposedly 'representatives' will vote for without fear of losing their job.

yawn.

You states that they run the postal service and social security poorly, and then references healthcare. You inferred that the gov't would be running something. I'm just asking what you think they're running?

[BlueBMW]

If it passes and ends up being as awful as republicans say it will be, what happens.... republicans take back control of congress, pass a repeal and everything is back to the status quo (rich stay rich, poor stay poor)

[dinanm3atl]

Look. Let's be honest. Anything they touch ends up in the crapper. You have a bunch of people that are more interested in backhanded deals and a way to keep their own power than doing the job 'for the people'.

Sorry that I don't buy into the idea they suddenly have figured out how to 'overhaul healthcare'.

[KenC]

If it passes and ends up being as awful as republicans say it will be, what happens.... republicans take back control of congress, pass a repeal and everything is back to the status quo (rich stay rich, poor stay poor)

I wouldn't say it's that simple... they'd be very difficult to overturn. And the bill certainly isn't establishing any sort of equality regarding distribution of wealth.

[KenC]

Look. Let's be honest. Anything they touch ends up in the crapper. You have a bunch of people that are more interested in backhanded deals and a way to keep their own power than doing the job 'for the people'.

Sorry that I don't buy into the idea they suddenly have figured out how to 'overhaul healthcare'.

You seem to be repeating the same rhetoric in slightly different forms, yet don't articulate any specific concerns. The vast majority of the bill is going to be mandates on insurance companies (which are overwhelmingly popular), and subsidies to purchase insurance.

I guess I'm just trying to dispell the "government takeover" talking point that every clueless person seems to be spouting.

I'm pretty upset that strict tort reform doesn't look like it's making into the ammendments. I really hope that states take up the issue now that it's been placed in the forefront. It narrowly failed here in 2004, and my state's public institutions are struggling due to a recent court case removing any tort cap (which as rediculously low in the first place).