Start with the flaws that can be fixed... tort reform and fraud prevention. We have a flawed system, no doubt, but throwing money at it will do nothing to make that better, only further the problem when there is a larger entity (the federal government) to defraud.

Nothing but a house built on sand....

And before him, Clinton. Remember his "balanced budget?" he had to borrow a few hundred billion from programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to make that work. Obama, to my knowledge, has not, but likely only because he hasn't signed off on a budget yet. Then again, I have not read all legislation passed by him.

you mean a pool of IOUs. Social Security and Medicare have been broke for years.

Funny, I feel the same about myself and Adventure... we talk from information and fact and receive nothing but feelings in return.

All the good will in the world will not work if the underlying structure you are trying to fix is flawed.

I'm sorry to say that that answers nothing. i've been asking this question for months and to this day have not received an argument, only feelings.

So deficiency decides need? Hell, I don't have a million dollars... maybe I deserve that too! There are billions of people in the world that do not even have close to the status of healthcare we do, let alone free access to it... what makes us so much better than them?

this is the fatal flaw of the liberal philosophy on this topic: we deserve it because we are human beings but we are better than the other human beings in the world.

i never said they were all low-lifes. i don't think I should have to support any of them but I REALLY am against supporting the lazy scum in the pond.

Why is it a need? Why should I be responsible for taking care of the others? Why are poor americans more important that they deserve the best care in the world for free while those in other nations would be happy to have any care at all?

So do you plan on giving me a reason why we need it? That was the actual intent of my post.

This is essentially socialist health insurance in the making. This is step one: foot into the marketplace. I have yet to find a page that recants page 16 and I'm up to 4xx or something.

But ignore that. Why do we need this?

in itself, no. Is it a setup? Most definitely.

so can you give me a real reason yet why we need this that is based in fact and not emotion? Something that does not involve the phrase "we are the greatest nation in the world" maybe?

The honest answer is yes, this is socialized health insurance. That's what a health insurance run by the federal government is by definition.


I'd like to point out to you, again, that any additional tax is a violation of my liberties and rights. I will have to pay a tax on my health insurance which will take my hard-earned money and give it to some low-life that refuses to take care of themself. That is ********. We do not need the nanny state, expecially a half-assed nanny state where we pay for healthcare yet still allow them to act as they please, further increasing that cost.

That is exactly what it says, essentially, the only way to add a member to a group plan is if they are a dependent.

However, it's 13xx pages or something now... I'm curious if there is an amendment somewhere in there...

In these cases there is no monopoly. You can't select a substitute good in a monopolistic marketplace because there are none in that segment. Sure, a bike is a substitute good to a car or gas, but in reality, do you think even a few million less drivers would hinder and make a monopoly fall in the gasoline industry? All it would do is lower quantity (less output/jobs) and possibly increase price in order to maximize their profits.

monopolies in effect have to either destroy themselves or become obsolete (i.e. new technology replaces that which they have a monopoly on). They are in fact very difficult to take down.

Government is an economic issue. Socially liberal means managment of daily life. for example, I do not believe in regulating what people can and cannot do provided it does not interfere with the core liberties of others. Conservatives generally believe in regulation of daily life like no gay marriage, no sex outside of wedlock, no abortion, etc.

Government should have no other purpose but protecting the core liberties of its nation's citizens in cases where no state can do it fairly and efficently. basically, interstate commerce, national defense, etc. it's a very short list.

A monopoly is good with the potential to turn bad. Either way, a monopoly is not exactly what everyone has a perception of because in reality, the monopoly is competing with itself and the market. No other business organization must research as much as a monopoly.

Other than in cases of government regulation or intellectual property law, a monopoly can develop by being the best and most efficient. If they were not, competitors would trump them. This inherent efficiency is very good for the economy as the best entity for the job is doing it.

However, as I stated above, the monopoly must extensively research market trends and data. They do in fact have the ability to set price wherever they wish, but they cannot outprice themselves from the market. There is a formula to calculate what the production quantity and price should be, namely, by finding where marginal costs meet marginal revenues will determine the quantity and tracing this value to the market demand curve will give you selling price. This calculates maximum efficiency and is theoretically where the market determines the price to be (as it is where supply meets demand at equilibrium - though supply is determined by the monopoly to reach this point). However, the market is played by the monopoly in order for them to maximize profits.

So, monopolies are good, but the normal actions that are taken by monopolies are bad. Either way, I do not agree with regulation so I think monopolies should be allowed - provided the government does not control it.

This makes two of us... I like to call it logical anarchist.

right... because we all know Mr. Sportscenter to be all fair and balanced. There are two sides to every decision and in every decision, someone wins and someone loses. While 47 million win in this case, odds are, the other 250 million of us lose in one way or another - most just don't realize it yet.

I'm sorry to say but her lack of health care is just that: her problem. I didn't have healthcare for two years and I still ended up in the ER once and urgent care at least twice... i arranged payments with the hospital and took care of my business. personal responsibility goes a long way. we have moved further and further on as a nanny state ever since the New Deal. The more dependent we become, the harder it will be to give up when it all goes terribly wrong.

It's time to man up and stop asking for handouts.

A politician lying to get into office!?! No way!

Section 102 states in subparagraph B that dependents may be added onto an existing plan so long as that plan was active at the start of the timeframe.

That document is some scary ****... I think I need to sit down and read one night because page 16 seems too blantant of a grab not to cause an uproar. There has to be some part that allows new enrollment somewhere in that.

Sorry, but I think hannity and O'reilly are just as bad as olberman and the crew at MSNBC. i don't trust any of them and they do nothing but push agendas. It's just they are curently aligning with my economic ideals to an extent.