Gov't Cannot Fix Health Care.

Any credible proof of this?

 

That's the point Padre, we've been discussing it since TR. When do we end discussion and put it to a vote? The allegations of rushing are a red herring, even Jim DeMint has a health care proposal. All but the newbies has legislation they had put together by now.

"Bipartisanship" I believe is the biggest breaker of government. Most of the time, there is so much compromise that the final legislation misses the intended target. However, that is the spoils of our form of government so I guess we live with it or move in with Jim.

 

I disagree, it may not be the best but Medicaid, Medicare, VA and Tri Care do their intended jobs. I give them another shot because the cost is becoming unfordable and the insurance companies are canceling policies on people when they need it. It is free market gone wild.

No more sillier than letting your kid disassemble your engine.

 

No, I am serious. What I noticed was Obama starting dropping in the polls once the blue dogs started diluting the promises we voted for. One proposal has state sponsored co-ops and the government option wouldn't kick in unless the co-op fails. Those types of compromises are loosing Obama and the democrats support because he is letting those blue dogs move us in a direction that won't guarantee reform.

Read this poll, when all this started 72% of Americans wanted a true public option.

The poll question is do you support the current plan? The answer is no, but for some of us it is because the public option is so diluted it will have no effect toward reform.

There is no reform with out a true and bonified public option. They might was well not pass anything if we don't get a true public option. It would all be a huge waste of money and time.

 

So you're against Medicare and Medicaid? Without Medicare most Americans would have no health care insurance in retirement. Without Medicaid poor people would simply be left to die.

 

According to the HHS website the Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law on July 30, 1965. Are we to believe that poor people were left to die before 1965? Retired folks couldn't see a doctor before 1965?

It was never God's intention for governments to care for the needy and downtrodden. He gave that responsibility to us - Christian folk.

"He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; Then it was well.
Is not that what it means to know Me?" Declares the LORD.
Jeremiah 22:16 NAS77
​

 

More than 50% of the voters wanted Obama for president also. That number is rapidly falling since the woke up and found out what he meant by change: A Marxist government!

 

LeBuick has been shown--more than once--that the 72% figure goes waaaay down when the inevitable qualifiers (deficits, tax increases, poorer quality, individual plans in jeapordy, job losses) happen.

But he keeps ignoring that fact...

 

No they wouldn't. There are plenty of clinics in America that charge according to ability to pay or offer free care for inability to pay. Shriner's Hospitals provide FREE medical care for children. Hospitals that receive any government funding must adhere to the Hill-Burton Act (revised by Congress several times) which provides free health care.

So your premise is completely wrong. Poor people are not left to die in this country if they seek medical care.

 

I have said it before that if Churches would stop building bigger more luxurious barns they could care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Take a look at this one.

http://www.prestonwood.org/plano/i-am-new/locations/

Wonder what our Savior who had no place to lay His head would think.

 

You haven't shown me anything. But I like your implication that 72% of American's who wanted the public option didn't realize what it would mean to society.

Also, most of those detractors you list are negative fear mongering used by the opposer's of change. If you go to some of the site I listed you can improve the depth of your list.

 

Your last sentence is exactly the point. It isn't as if we haven't looked at the problem of providing more effective health care long enough. We've LOOKED at it TOO long. It's time to fix it.

 

I would say a single payer system but I will settle for a public option.

 

Like what Canada has. True government run health care. With the money we current pay for Medicare, Medicaid and employer/employee contributions we'd probably get a rebate. Since it would be not for profit, all those billions the insurance executives made and the millions being spent per day on special interest and to stop this legislation would be saved.

I am mixed on this one. I do see your point on TORT when it comes to frivolous claims, however, people are seriously disfigured, crippled and killed by incompetent doctors. To think a doctor could deliberately use an unsterilized scalpel and my family gets a minimum pre-set settlement is not much of a deterrent for a doctor to be proficient or leave the profession and not fair compensation for my families loss.

So reform I do agree but we probably don't agree on the level or type of reform. I don't believe in maximum caps.

 

You must not read in the threads you post.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1437533&postcount=16

And there were other refutations as well.


It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't repeat the "fear mongering" phrase every third post.

It doesn't matter what democrats do. You defend it. 100%.

It doesn't matter what conservatives do. You malign them. 100%.

Intellectual honesty, anyone?

 

That post doesn't refute the poll numbers I am using. You have one pollster (Rasmussen) against the 10 I posted here http://citizenactionny.org/2009/08/public-opinion-and-the-public-option/867

 

Notice that the only dates shown for these numbers are "April" and June".

This is "August".

Do you have anything up to date?