National Health Care Coverage

The economics of anything is determined by scarcity. We have a limited amount of health care, everyone wants all the health care they can get, and thus we need a mechanism which rewards the provider and reasonably limits the consumption of a limited supply. One way is prices, this is the free market model. Then there is out model, one of mandates, barriers to competition, which is high quality but very expensive and usually employer based. Then there is government care, they have to ration.

Basically, as of now, unless I work for UPS, there is no way I could get quality health insurance. If Minnesota de regulated its insurance mandates or if I could buy over state boundaries, I could probably afford to buy a low cost low service/high deductible plan that would cover me should I get some terrible disease or have a horrible accident of some sort… were I could pay for smaller procedures as the need arose.

I am young and I can’t afford insurance. It would be my grandparents who would most certainly not able to have gotten a knee replacement. I worry about how the government will be able to afford my grandmother’s diabetes medication when they are cutting her medicare by so much.

At some point the expensive lymphoma treatments my grandfather has to have to keep down his cancer may be at risk. Medicare already denies coverage to twice as many people as private insurance.

I am sure Moxie that you are just as intelligent, thoughtful, and well meaning as my democrat family members who I love and respect deeply. But sadly, your party does not represent the people anymore, they represent the trial lawyer and the unions. It is those two special interests that have done the most in shaping this bill.

We are also different than the rest of the world, we are a much larger and more complicated country than Luxembourg or Israel. So being different, we require a different health care policy.

Because we are so diverse and complicated, competition is were we need to reform. We need to buy across state borders, be abe to buy the health care we want and can afford as opposed to having employers buy us mandated coverage that no one can pay for, and we need to have lawsuit reform.

Premiums will go up, employees will often have bosses you take the tax penalty and put them on the public option. It will likely fund abortion procedures which goes against the conscience of many Americans (Pelosi said it would not pass the house without such a provision). Even liberal commentators have said that the dept it will saddle on the taxpayer is not workable. David Broder is the latest critic talking about it from a fiscal perspective, he a left wing writer for the WaPo.

Tonsil removal will not likely kill you, also the backlash against the mammograms scale back has been so strong I doubt it will hold up. Maybe there was a similar backlash against a change in tonsil removal standards, however I doubt that scaling back on mammograms will save a single life.

Also, the plan on the floor of the Senate is not what has been implemented in Canada or the UK with free clinics. It is an insurance bill designed to eventually overwhelm the private market.

The mammogram things is based on recommendations they have been working on for over 15 years. If you have a lump or a family history you will still be able to get a mammogram and it will be paid for. They changed the recommendations for have tonsils taken out years ago.. was that also rationing? Things change. Why do you think it is impossible for our country to do what every other developed country has been able to do successfully?

Which services are not being covered that are covered by your basic private insurance plan.. Okay so abortion won’t be covered even though it is covered by private insurance companies.. I guess that could qualify as rationing. I don’t plan on having an abortion so I don’t have anything to fear.

The fact hat you ignore all his positive qualities just because he does not share your partisan affiliation says volumes about what a small, spiteful, and silly kool aid drinker you are.You have zero evidence that Steele was selected for his race yet you persist in saying so, you will not present evidence for his demographic affiliation being the reason for his selection other than demographics. Clearly this is a fallacious argument. You have to submit information separate from the allegation.

Frankly Steele represents the left wing of the Republican party, not that this makes him a bad person, but it simply is bad timing. Conservatives have all the momentum in the GOP right now, this was the other way around a couple years ago. Steele just is not the right man at the right time. A clearly conservative man is what was needed, this is why I personally preferred Blackwell and Saltsman despite the fact that Steele is an incredibly articulate and smart guy.

I do not think if there were a redo Steele would win, job satisfaction has been low, but that does not mean he won because he was black. The fact that he was so closely challenged by a white guy with far less notoriety proves this.

I already realize you are a pathetically stupid little douche bag who won’t answer a question, but you have to be brain dead to not realize that your allegation can only be true if you clearly establish indisputable superiority of the white competition.

Are you that dumb, who is going to put the worked “ration” in their bill. You are a moron.

What do you think the mammogram thing is about? It is the first sign of an oncoming ration mentality.

How can you save money without tort reform and without lowering standards without rationing? You cannot. It is an extremely obvious element of economics, if you pay less, you get less. If care is not going to be determined by prices, it will be determined by rationing. That is the nature of scarcity.

“what about health care being rationed with a government option isn’t scary? ”

Way to parrot the GOP lies there chukmaty! Tell us where in the health bill is rationing discussed.

Good luck with that!

What I personally believe about Dawson really is irrelevant. I’m still amused that I know more about the situation than do you. You don’t see the big picture here. When it came down to Dawson and Steele the GOP really had no choice. In light of the recent general election, Steele could be comatose and they would still have to appoint him as GOP chair over a white man from S.C. Otherwise, critics would tear them apart. It’s simple politics really. BTW, “douche-bag”? Are you like, 13?

Health care getting sacked should scare a lot of people, what about health care being rationed with a government option isn’t scary?

Thanks chukmaty. Great song indeed.

Oh, btw.

Props must be given were they are due.

Your faved song on your profile page is great. Good taste.

So you do not believe Dawson was more qualified?

Got it, so you basically just hate the fact that a Black man can succeed in the GOP. Fine, at least pretend to give a real answer instead of ducking.

Given that you have made multiple posts without answering me once, I will now properly dismiss you as an intollerant douche bag. You have not backed up a single one of your assertions and only have the fact that I am unable to write a biography on one of the many RNC candidates.

Thank you, bai!

“Do you really think Dawson is more qualified? If so, why?”

Still stinging that I know more about GOP national politics then you, eh? Here’s the deal Junior: As you’ve learned from me here today, the choice came down to two individuals: one was a black man from Maryland and the other a white man from S.C. Considering the racial history of S.C. and the fact that the first Black President in the U.S. had recently been elected in a landslide, they had no choice but to choose the black man.

I knew his name, certainly. I had picked three people I liked. They were Blackwell, Saltsman, and then Steele. There were five or six candidates at one point, you can hardly fault me for being less than an expert on every single one of them.

You however have not answered my question, which makes you a total douche loser. You also have failed to answer my second question on what the other candidates had that makes Steele as a selection clearly about race.

“So Dawson not being known by me very well only demonstrates that if I (who am a GOP political junkie) did not know who he was, he probably had far less notoriety and appeal than Steele.”

HAHAHAHAHAHA Nice try attempting to cover your ass. IF you really knew much about the situation you at THE LEAST know who the other front runner was.

And you have not answered me question either.

Do you really think Dawson is more qualified? If so, why? What did he do that was so extraordinary that the only means of explaining Steele beating him was because of the GOP preferring a black man over a white man. Please do tell, I am waiting.

I knew he was the runner up, I am contending with your allegation that Steele is only in this because of the fact he is black.

I have outlined how he is articulate and far better known than the other contenders. He was endorsed by nearly every major Republican voice that didn’t endorse Blackwell or Saltsman.

So Dawson not being known by me very well only demonstrates that if I (who am a GOP political junkie) did not know who he was, he probably had far less notoriety and appeal than Steele.

“Considering I was not familiar with Dawson I cannot judge him. ”

Well then that proves you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about because Dawson was the “runner-up”.

So how does it feel to be schooled on the inner workings of your own miserable obsolete political party by a dreaded liberal?