If anyone who is against health reform because they are listening to rants like

F

froggy

Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Points
6
"death panels" etc..? If you really want to be informed, I have an article for you read..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html?_r=1

The more facts, the better you can decide.
Thanks Dave. You are open minded to improve the system. Many people are just against Obama and not willing to listen to anything bu Hannity.
 
If this thing becomes law you can be sure taxes will go up because it will cost a fortune and the quality of health care will get worse.

There will be no choice but ration health care because there will be fewer medical facilities & personnel and more people seeking health treatment.
 
What he offers are not facts.

What he offers are representations of what may be facts. at least some are untrue, we can presuppose because he just lies SO much in other articles and speeches.

I read HR3200 and have read several other versions as they become available for reading. Obama's favored plans ALL have language designed for the implementation of taxpayer-funded abortion, sterilization, euthanasia and starvation. HR3200 even provides penalties for any physician who refuses to participate...

READ the bill ! ! !

Don't pay one iota of attention to the shill that posted this 'question. '

READ the bill ! ! !
 
Obama is a radical.
Wow just the fact that your link has the word opinion in it is funny.
 
No its too flawed for my liking.We do need reform but it has to be fair to all Americans.I would be supportive of health care paid by the uninsured on a sliding scale of their income.Tort reform needs a overhaul as well.I make up my own mind anyway and I can read.
 
Oh wow the New York Times I'm sure they are not leaning in a certain direction. For those of you who don't get it they just had to remove the section that Palin was talking about because it could be abused. Can you really be so blind that you refuse to see this?
 
If ANYONE at ANY point in time actually takes S.Palin serious, there is no hope for them!
 
wasn't the death panel assertion language excluded as of Friday? okay what did I miss. how could something that wasn't there be removed?

Interesting how H.R. 3200 is being changed daily...so I need to keep up and so do you.



giggle'n
 
I am against a government run option; I do not want to government dabbling in the health care industry. It has enough problems to deal with already. However, I am encouraged that politico is reporting that the white house seems to willing to step away from the public option. That is defiantly an encouraging sign; I believe that health care reform is a viable possibility then.
 
First off, in all fairness, I would like to point out that the article you referenced is actually an op-ed (opinion / editorial) article written by none other than Barack Obama. No one should ever make an "informed" decision on a subject based on an op-ed piece, especially one with a clearly partisan bias.

Don't feel bad, I would have pointed out the same thing had you used Fox News, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc., as sources. None of these are objective analysis based on facts.

The whole death panel argument is ridiculous, any sane person knows this. However, there are still some legitimate arguments against the public option. While I admire the universal systems found in Canada and many European countries, it remains to be seen whether or not our government is able to operate as effectively and efficiently as theirs do. In many ways, their governments are much more sophisticated than ours, and less influenced by the lobbyists, waste, and corruption that have come to define BOTH parties in D.C. I have little faith that a public option in the U.S. would yield the same positive results that they do in other nations. One need only to compare the American public education system to public education systems in Europe to see that our government is not as well-run as theirs.

Another factor to take into consideration is the cost. Even Obama admits that you cannot insure 46 million people for free. This is obvious to anyone with any common sense -- expanding coverage will cost money. The question is, who will pay for it? Do we pass the bill on to later generations? Cut costs by cutting back on coverage and benefits? Raise taxes on the wealthy or those who have insurance, or the population as a whole? Raising taxes is never popular, especially when 85% of the populace already have health care. The universal care proposal ends up looking like a form of welfare for those who cannot afford it.

ON THE OTHER HAND... those on the right fail to realize that WE ALREADY PAY FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE. We pay for it in the form of higher insurance premiums, just as you pay more in auto insurance to cover uninsured motorists. No hospital in the U.S. is allowed to turn away a sick or dying patient, regardless of whether or not they are a U.S. citizen or have health insurance, they are required to treat them. And they pass the cost on to the government and the insurance companies, who in turn pass the cost on to YOU.

To those who say they don't want government "meddling" in health care, I don't suppose you've ever heard of Medicare? Of course, people will be quick to point out that Medicare is headed for bankruptcy -- what do you expect when you insure the highest-risk group of them all, the elderly? With the elderly, it's not a question of whether or not they will get sick, it's a question of WHEN and HOW OFTEN they will get sick. The reason that Medicare is going to be dangerously underfunded in the near future is because the baby boomers are heading for retirement, and there aren't enough of the rest of us to cover their rising insurance costs. Perhaps this is part of where the whole "death panel" fear comes from -- the realization that providing substantial coverage to an ever-increasing elderly population is only going to get more and more expensive until it becomes unsustainable without raising taxes or making some kind of cuts in care. And just as the 85% don't want to be taxed higher to help cover the 15%, the young do not want to be taxed higher in order to support the old.

Being a free market, strongly capitalist, pro-individualistic society, Americans are rarely willing to sacrifice in order to help others, especially when we feel that the "others" are perfectly capable of supporting themselves -- or should be, at least. Of course this is not always the case -- homeless people can't just "get a job", unemployment will never reach 0%, and some people are never going to be able to afford $1500 a month to provide health insurance for their family, no matter HOW many jobs they work.

Moving on to another proposal, tort reform. Absolutely this is something that we should look into -- however, at the same time, I don't think we should simply let doctors off the hook when they make stupid mistakes that cost lives. Of course many of these incidents are nothing more than unforseeable accidents that could not be prevented, where the doctor is not at fault, but there are also several cases of legitimate malpractice where a doctor did something foolish that resulted in death, injury, or infection of a patient. Is there really any amount of money that can heal the pain of needlessly losing a loved one? If your child died as a result of a physician's poor decision, wouldn't you want to sue that physician? Wouldn't you expect justice of some kind?

When a person takes a job in the medical community, they are taking on a much greater responsibility tha
 
N.Y Times is far left Liberal, they make up a lot of lies for the lefties, they covered up for the Clinton's and they are covering up for the Sicko in office now. I believe that the N.Y Times is only good to wipe my behind with, they are pure 100% trash news.Amazing how them Liberals can make up such pity party stories, just like Hillary claim she was under sniper fire and Obama claiming he is a American.
 
palin was for death panels before she was against them.

the ny times helped bush to sell the war in iraq.
 
No one is going to believe a article from the NYTimes, you ought to no that. Now if fixed news said it they'd be climbing all over it.
 
I have read the bill myself....but there are 6 of them...not one. You only get what they want to tell you....not what is THERE!

NY times is as liberal as you can get. They lost their credibility a LONG time ago!
 
Why are people so against the government running the health care system. It has worked in the UK for years, and better still the powers that be are held responsible for any F*ck up's along the way.
National insurance in Britain cuts out the middle men, saves on millions of pounds sterling, and entitles everyone to a decent standard of health care, not just the upper classes.
You can if you like add a wee bit of private insurance for other things, but why would so many be against this? who's to say your jobs will still be there in a years time anyway. Don't you trust your own government?
Very interesting.
 
Back
Top