The latest in gov't mangling of our rights

[Finnster]

PS.
I don't see how anyone can go on about the Dems when the Reps have been just as bad (and really more culpable) as far as spending goes.

Reps go on and on about sm gov't and fiscal responsibility, yet every R president/Congress has grown the budget, and the last R pres to run a net balanced or surplus budget over their term was Nixon.

Besides TARP and the auto bailouts which Bush started, what about the Medicare part D program Bush started in 2003? Free drugs to seniors on the gov't tab, but the gov't is not allowed to negotiate low prices? Basically a huge giveaway to Pharma from the taxpayer. Anywhere from $500-$700 billion over Obama's full term just on that. They are all full of crap, but at least the Dems are honest about it, and at least they are not all in your business of who you are screwing and how you are doing it (all the while they are banging their hookers and Argentinian mistresses.)

[kraegar]

It all comes down to the bottom line, as was said above. I work at a hospital, it's a small, community hospital. Not in an even moderately sized city. We give $30m a year in "free" care away to the uninsured. The majority of it in ER visits for car accidents, etc that result in MRI's, blood tests, xrays, emergency surgery, huge amounts of medications, and lengthy hospital stays.

The only way to make that up is to jack up the price for everyone else that actually has insurance.

So the gov't plan is to make the pool its maximum size, so everyone is covered, and spread the costs out. Can't say if it'll work yet, the current plan is too undefined (last time I read it, anyway) on caps for different services.

Why is everyone required to have coverage under it, though? Because if not, those who don't continue to screw the system every time they get into a car accident, etc. (Unless we could say "No insurance? You only get the amount of care you have cash in your pockets to afford")

Can't really compare to england or Canada, either. In those countries the hospitals themselves are owned by the gov't, and I don't see that happening here.

[starscream]

I'm sorry, but Fix'd news is the last place to watch for any kind of accurate information.

I find it quite sad that "Socialism" has been religated to the distribution of wealth etc to the poor, however, when it's distributed to the rich, oh well that's capitalism. The last time I checked, the only interests the Health Insurance companies were looking out for were their own.

If you left it up to the RIGHT, they'd privatize everything. Just think what would happen if we privatized the fire dept or the police force. Wow, we'd have a lot of burnt down buildings and a corrupt police force. {sarcasm} Oh how fire dept's and police are socialism, we should definetly get rid of them and privatize it. Hitler had police and fire dept's too, so we should definetly get rid of them {/sarcasm}