patrick.net

Also Rhaman,... Let's hope that you never have a preexisting condition. For that matter, hopefully
you never get sick and only pay your premiums (or your employer does as a benefit).

Under those circumstances, you and your insurer will remain very happy with your "freedoms."

justicular says

Perhaps some of those opposed to this do not believe that this is the roll of the federal government. Let us assume they can do it better and cheaper, does that make it the roll of the government? At what price do we sell our freedom?

yeah, yeah, Federal govt can't do anything right.

So
- don't drive on freeways from now on (it is built by fed money)
- throw your grandma under a bus (she is likely no Medicare and we don't want to do that any more, right)
- shutdown the defense department & dissolve the armed forces
- shutdown VA (Veterans Affairs) hospitals, so our men in uniform can pay out of their own pocket for that war injury.
- FDA won't check imported food from China, so if you die from lead poisoning, it is too bad.

And 'freedom' are you going to give away? you can still keep your overpriced private health insurance. You don't have to get the 'public option'... it is called OPTION, get it?

Don't take any thing you read on Interwebs, including this comment, and written by some one called 'I-can-see-russia-from-my-house' :-)

Yes it fascinates me you get a roomful of "anti-socialists" together and ask them are you going to MARCH & PROTEST & DEMAND the complete shutdown of:

MediCare
MedicAid
Social Security

Particularly if they are close to drawing on any of these they say HELL NO but these same people say if we pass new program then American Paradise will turn into 1970's Russian Hell complete with waiting on line for hours to get rationed toilet paper. Seems more like a bunch of Dittohead whack jobs who can't reconcile their own hypocrisy but are willing to rant anyhow. I do not think it's fair to call them "puppets" of the insurance barons, I think it's more correct to call them "useful fools".

Since Obama's health care will kill more people earlier and cost more while violating liberty at the same time, Patrick, since you went there, all I can say is "fuck you too." Not that you care, but you've just lost one reader forever, asshole

jd, thanks for letting us know you will not return, this is good. But, please do enjoy watching our President and the Democrats succeed. ;)

SSome Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Some Guy,

Actually the high prices are a result of the government granted monopolies of insurance companies through tax exemptions for employer purchased health insurance (established by your beloved government) and through fee for service programs like Medicare that take virtually all accountability to consumers out of the mix.

Government/insurance industry together blew this bubble. Can’t you see it????

Then why do you oppose fixing it?

Some Guy,

I propose we DO FIX IT. The government ought to get out of the picture all together and quit offering tax exemptions that effectively subsidize insurance companies: and end the growth of fee for service programs like Medicare that drive costs up. (I am not saying end Medicare, just that medicare is inflating this bubble. Any further government involvement is just going to inflate this bubble in health care even further.)

I used to like your website because you made lots of sense and provided a melting pot for good and goofy information. Not only about the "housing crash," but about other financial details that were affected by the crash. You also supported Ron Paul, kudos’s to ya. But when Ron Paul had to concide, you turned to spare change. That was disappointing, but none the less your choice and I respect that. It also was misleading to think you were all about our debt addiction and getting away from it. With your new crusade with government run health care I question your judgment. The final blow, for me, came when you lowered yourself to name calling like a lot of your pundits on your forums. I only joined your forum yesterday, but like most blogs it is only full of hateful, spiteful, one-sided, useless, repetitive opinions. Sorry that the government couldn't come the rescue of your dying parents, maybe they would have lived longer. My father died of an aneurism while he was being taken from the emergency room to the x-ray, nothing that any kind of health care would have been able to take care of. None the less he is dead. I have no regrets because the last three words I spoke to my father was “I love you.” I hope you get back on track. Good luck and good bye.

kthomas,

You might change your opinion if you understood how National Socialism regulated business in Germany during their reign.

Kingdombuilder :

I heard him say he was uncomfortable with what he had said. Are you the kind of self righteous jerk who rubs someones face in it, when you know that even they regret saying something ?

Do you have a well informed opinion that you can articulate ?

I think that many of us are willing to learn. Mostly what patrick is about is reading and sharing links to what others are saying. For example he includes arguments on both sides of the inflation deflation question.

Don't you have anything other than your self righteousness to share ?

2ndClassCitizen, I appreciate your concern(s), I just don't think it is you that understands history, namely Nazi Germany.

The German people of post WWI and thier lives, and thier country, do not in anyway compare to the America of today. Your analogy is not only false, but probably racist. And by that, I am not calling you a racist. Left or right, anytime we disagree with a government program or decision, we stoop to comparing to to Nazi Germany. I opposed much of what Pres Bush did, but NEVER would I compare that man to a Nazi or Adolph Hitler. Likewise, anyone comparing Pres Obamas ATTEMPT to reform a clearly broken health care system to Naziism is stooping to the lowest caliber. Shame on you, sir.

Kingdom builder: What does your imaginary friend have to say about health care? Oh crap I remember...............It's all in God's plan! Glad your gone idiot. Next!

kthomas,

Shame on you sir for implying racism. That shows who is stooping to what caliber.

Some Guy,

The government is SUBSIDIZING health insurance companies by giving tax exemptions to companies who purchase health insurance for their employees. Citizens can't get this subsidy only businesses. Government is blowing this health care bubble by its tax policies and fee for service plans like Medicare.

"And by that, I am not calling you a racist."

Please read moe carefully. Just because you oppose something and feel free to compare to Naziism does not absolve you of ignornace, or insensitivity to others. And do read more carefully, sir, and I do sincerely apologize to you.

kthomas,

I accept your apology but you clearly did imply racism. You can't imply racism and then take it back in the next sentence. The cat is already out of the bag. You also are accusing me of insensitivity just because you don't agree with me. That is a shame.

Cool.

Just trust, sir. Stay away from the Nazi analogies. It's not going to help anyone, and you'll be glad ya did. What we can both agree on is that Naziism was bad for Germany and the rest of the world.

kthomas,

I am sorry that Nazi analogies offend you, but there was more to National Socialism than just racism. In fact most Germans were not racists, but they did allow people who were to take control. It was about expanded government control and government in the hands of madmen. If it happened once it can happen again. We would be foolish to think it could not. That is why we must keep government to the limited confines of the constitution. I don't care who has power (Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Capitalists you name it), if they have too much power much we are in danger.

:) As soon as I see madmen, I will reach out to you and we will fight them togther!

Hey Diomedes,

The fed is a government created entity. They have a license from the federal government to print money which no one else has or can get. How can you say they are private?

Hey some guy,

If you think you health insurance companies are inefficient, mismanaged, and/or evil, why don't you start your own? This is America and there is nothing stopping you. If these companies are so bad it should be no problem for you to go and sign up all of your hippie liberal friends. I know hard work is kryptonite to liberals, but you'd really be making the world a better place. Go for it.

Hey several people,

A public "option" will ruin private health care, much like public schools. Everyone will be forced to pay for the expensive and low quality public option so you will only be able to afford private care if you are rich. Most of the middle class will be forced into the shitty public "option", that's a fact, and you need look no further than the school system to see what lies ahead.

kthomas says

As soon as I see madmen, I will reach out to you and we will fight them togther!

It's a deal! Unfortunately if history is our guide it we can reach a point where it is too late for us to prevail once we give away too much power.

"The fed is a government created entity. They have a license from the federal government to print money which no one else has or can get. How can you say they are private?"

Actually, the Federal Reserve Act was based off of the Aldrich Plan, which essentially gave the power to coin money to an agency that was essentially private. Here is the excerpt from wikipedia:

"Since the Aldrich Plan essentially gave full control of this system to private bankers, there was strong opposition to it from rural and western states because of fears that it would become a tool of certain rich and powerful financiers in New York City, referred to as the 'Money Trust"

"The Federal Reserve System has faced a considerable amount of opposition over the course of its existence. The first debates primarily regarded its constitutionality, private ownership of a central bank, and the degree to which the economy should be centrally planned, with luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison being some of the first central bank detractors"

And as the above poster indicated, with such a powerful banking lobby in place, it is easy to sway Congress and the Senate. So our government now becomes the tool of these bankers and private interest groups who use their influence to make decisions for their own personal benefit at the expense of others.

Instead of the same examples of good govt program vs bad govt program, please indulge a stimulus-related diversion into my industry, advanced batteries. Govt reps on both sides of the aisle seem to realize how popular they are when they talk about green energy. That's good. Their policies, however well-intended though, are probably harmful. Take the recently announced $2.4 billion in stimulus grants for battery companies

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_PLUGIN0908_20090805.html

The intent is to make us competitive with China, S Korea, Japan, etc. I can tell you that a number of companies working on brilliant new technologies are based in California or the west in general (Quallion, Mobius, Imara, Altair Nano, and many others). Now, of all the stimulus grants, only one small company in CA, which is not even one of the battery-tech developers, received a grant.

Where did all the grants go? Michigan and Indiana are the heavy winners. Now, could there be any political reason to push the vast majority of the money to companies in Michigan and Indiana, which are manufacturing-based areas that could punish a president up for re-election for not bringing jobs? CA is solidly Democrat - no worries there. Let's pump the money into important swing states.

If, as I believe, these awards are based on geography and politics and not solely on merit, what effect will this have on the industry? The companies that received $100+ million grants are at a major advantage to those that didn't. Now, the government has essentially picked winners, and will make it that much harder for just the best technologies to float to the top.

For the short-term gain of popularity of infusing money to certain states, we could be damaging ourselves by punishing, and possibly bankrupting, the best companies. Short-term gain, long-term loss for this important industry.

Do you really believe that the sleazy crew of politicians that we've elected are more worried about the country's long-term interests than their short-term interests? They've made a mess in housing, autos, and probably even energy. If we are going to hand something as important as health-care over to them, we need a much better group than the liars we have.

Patrick,
You started your own TOWN HALL here........ look-- everyone has a different story, medicare, medicade work for some but not others. Private health insurance works for some not for others.
Nothing will help everyone all the time. Not even a GOV plan or reform, some will not get care they need.
The problem we have now is there is no trust... after all the mistakes the GOV made on the economy , why should we believe they will get this right. I personally dont know what the answer is so i wont speculate.
Food for thought,
Humans did not live long in the past, with all the great medical technologies invented or found since the 70's (MRI's, Cat Scans, stints, defibulators, The Jarvic artificial heart) we are able too keep people alive longer and longer, that is draining Medicare. When Medicare was started most people died in their 60's and 70's. Now that same money needs to last into your 80's and 90's.
So the longer they keep us alive the bigger the problems will get paying for it!
Just remember you will never make everyone happy. No matter What!

Diomedes says

“The fed is a government created entity. They have a license from the federal government to print money which no one else has or can get. How can you say they are private?”
Actually, the Federal Reserve Act was based off of the Aldrich Plan, which essentially gave the power to coin money to an agency that was essentially private. Here is the excerpt from wikipedia:
“Since the Aldrich Plan essentially gave full control of this system to private bankers, there was strong opposition to it from rural and western states because of fears that it would become a tool of certain rich and powerful financiers in New York City, referred to as the ‘Money Trust”
“The Federal Reserve System has faced a considerable amount of opposition over the course of its existence. The first debates primarily regarded its constitutionality, private ownership of a central bank, and the degree to which the economy should be centrally planned, with luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison being some of the first central bank detractors”
And as the above poster indicated, with such a powerful banking lobby in place, it is easy to sway Congress and the Senate. So our government now becomes the tool of these bankers and private interest groups who use their influence to make decisions for their own personal benefit at the expense of others.

Diomedes says

“The fed is a government created entity. They have a license from the federal government to print money which no one else has or can get. How can you say they are private?”
Actually, the Federal Reserve Act was based off of the Aldrich Plan, which essentially gave the power to coin money to an agency that was essentially private. Here is the excerpt from wikipedia:
“Since the Aldrich Plan essentially gave full control of this system to private bankers, there was strong opposition to it from rural and western states because of fears that it would become a tool of certain rich and powerful financiers in New York City, referred to as the ‘Money Trust”
“The Federal Reserve System has faced a considerable amount of opposition over the course of its existence. The first debates primarily regarded its constitutionality, private ownership of a central bank, and the degree to which the economy should be centrally planned, with luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison being some of the first central bank detractors”
And as the above poster indicated, with such a powerful banking lobby in place, it is easy to sway Congress and the Senate. So our government now becomes the tool of these bankers and private interest groups who use their influence to make decisions for their own personal benefit at the expense of others.

Well said.

Moneybags says

So the longer they keep us alive the bigger the problems will get paying for it!

I read something maybe 10 years ago about how the Czech government calculated that it was actually in their interest to promote smoking, because the medical expense of caring for the cancer patient was relatively short compared to the expense of paying his social security for the extra years he would live if he didn't smoke.

So maybe the solution in the US is a pro-smoking campaign! Free cigarettes for the elderly!

How about free drugs, alcohol and ammo too! Lets get rid of as many of those pesky beneficiaries as possible.

Notice my tongue firmly in cheek! :P

As someone who works with people with disabilities who are reliant upon government healthcare, I can state with no equivocation that government healthcare stinks. My wife and I run a group home for six girls with developmental disabilities. We have spent many hours calling around trying to find doctors who will provide care to our girls who are on Medicare. The doctors who do tend to be ones that you wouldn’t want to see; their reputations are less than stellar. My own personal doctor, who takes private insurance, has already warned me that he will be retiring if this bill gets passed. He is originally from England but left there because the government was mandating hours and numbers of patient visits per day for G.P.s. I also work with the government on funding for people with disabilities on Day Program and Residential activities. Each day is a long argument with a government representative as they attempt to cut funding for our clients (10 percent cuts across the board already this year, and denial of services for one out of every ten clients). The government on the one hand will pay 20,000 dollars a month for a placement for one guy while denying service to another, even if the first's disability is no more pronounced. There is no logic to the system. Before this, I worked in the schools with people with disabilities. Your claim that elementary school is a good example of something our government runs and does right doesn’t bear up to scrutiny. Fifty cents out of every education dollar are spent on the bureaucracies of the Department of Education and State Departments, rather than on education itself. Our country also falls behind other countries who spend a lot less on education. The arguments in favor of Pelosi’s plan (it's not Obama's plan after all, it's the Congress') are similar to those that were used to create the Department of Education. Considering how poorly that has turned out, I don’t trust the government on this plan either. I do not oppose medical reform, as someone who pays 200 dollars out of pocket a month for asthma medication not covered by my insurance I would certainly like to see the cost of medical care reduced (and considering my medication was pioneered by the French, I do not have a huge issue with other countries as a lot of people do). My fear is of government bureaucracy doing a worse job than what it replaces. I fear Italian style Corporatism, where government money supports businesses it chooses to work with whether they are effective or not. So again, please let us have some health care reform in this country (perhaps starting with things we could perhaps all agree on, such as doing away with denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions, Medicare and Medicaid reform, Tort reform to manage health care costs), but let's not turn it into warfare. According to almost all recent polls, this is a 50-50 issue, and in a democracy that should mean meeting halfway.

I find BubblePopper's post interesting.

Could a logical inference be that California representatives and senators screwed up and didn't do their job of getting a share for the battery companies in California ? Or that the California companies weren't nimble enough to open branches in Indiana or Michigan ? (maybe better anyway for tax state reasons).

I'm not saying you are wrong, as I know nothing about this. But I would hope that maybe the battery story is not over yet for western companies with promising technology. Maybe they can sell themselves to companies in Michigan. Or maybe the next round of stimulus will include a piece for them.

It seems to me that in future technology oriented businesses there is a place for government support. Especially businesses that compete against entrenched interests. Energy is the perfect example, because oil and coal are still the cheapest, and yet they have costs that hit us in the future with pollution, global warming, and with skyrocketing costs when supplies dwindle if the more "renewable" replacement hasn't been developed.

Great blog Patrick, keep up the good work!
I'm both French and American, The French system was great in the 70's but as any social structure it became big as people always ask for more rights, more social, more free stuff, up to the point where the system became heavy, not enough people to pay for it, too many people to receive and abuse, the system became inefficient so some people started to take some extra private insurance, or use some private hospital.
In the US the current system also has some issues, I was working for a private company for 12 years with a good healthcare insurance, one day I needed a scan, no problem I got the scan and it didn't show anything bad, then 2 years later I changed from employee to small business owner and decided to use the same insurance. I was refuse (I'm young, and make a good salary), I couldn’t believe my eyes. It took me 8 months of fight to get insured (also the insurance was so inefficient dealing with my files - this was like a big fat administration, files were lost etc...). I learned during this process I got refused because of the scan I receive 2 years before (remember, they didn't find anything on the scan, I guess scan = more risk -> we do not want to insure), so I finally got to see a doc for a checkup and then the insurance insured me as the doc didn't find anything, but what if I did have something? I'm sure the insurance will have never insured me, even if I paid monthly this insurance for 12 years (insurance are so expensive in the US, $1100/months, I have 2 kids). At this point I realize the system was really bad.
As a rule you want to keep your work force happy, workers should be able to insure themselves and their families without any extra help from the gov.
Few words about Socialism (Be careful for what you wish for): Social need to stay for a small amount (%) of the population in order to work, social should only be for people that really needs help (for instance, wife with kids who lost her husband, very bad sudden sickness etc...), the other people must work and contribute to the life of the country. It is very hard to not fall in the trap of doing more and more Social for people that do not need it (as Social attract more social, the gov grow and self nourish itself), where do we set the threshold/barrier? what define too much social? who get, who doesn't?. What happen in France (and some other European countries) is more people that do not really need some social and could help more the country complain and start to also beneficiate of the Social system, the taxes increase, social rights increase, unemployed rights goes up so people can earn as much money not working than working, so why working?, the gov become bigger up to the point where the gov become the 'mother state that feed us all’ as we say in France, this is so sad, this is so shameful.... I know so many young guys who are not working in France, they just became lazy (they just watch TV the whole day), and because the way human works and the gov allowing and facilitating/encouraging this behavior (by allowing unemployed people to get as much money as low rate workers, or having free whatever), I know many people that say “I work for the administration and we do not do anything” (some have low salaries and do not pay taxes). The taxes for others are really high, someone needs to pay for the others.
I wish more American could see the danger of Socialism and how it start simple with good intention but grow naturally and quickly (in 10 to 20 yrs) as something you cannot get rid of anymore. The French government even offer free transportation, free museum??? (I guess this way unemployed people can spend nice days while other are working and paying for it ;), free Medicare and so many other things to unemployed people, most of those people could work but choose not to work (if you know all the gov tricks to get money, and trust me people learn them quickly, people can almost get as much money not working than working as I mention earlier). At some point a presidential candidate asked for unemployed people to at least contribute a little bit to the country as they are paid to do nothing, just to do few hours per weeks to clean up the cities or whatever, it was the end of his political career, Socialism imply selfishness as the gov is the mam and everybody expect from it. I guess our French revolution displace our dysfunctional King by the dysfunctional gov where the nobless has been replaced by the gov people (they have so much more right than private sector workers, this is disgusting, why can they retire at 50 or 55 when the private sector is a 60). Remember, France did have the perfect system in the 70's but Social imply more social, this is like a cancer spreading (this is the way humans work (always want more free stuff)), this is up to the point of becoming a country of none equality for all and less liberty for the one who work (our French moto is "liberty, equality and fraternity" ;).....
I guess any system needs to be base on a strong ethic and have a controlling system to check if the ethic is well respected.
Going back to health care, we should look at what is bad in our health care system and think on how to fix it, but I do not believe socialism is the long term solution. I cannot see how a gov that is already unethically correct (all those bailout to unethical people, mistakes made by the fed, lobby etc) could solve this issue without clearing up first the ethic question.
It is critical that US does not become like Europe, most of the Social system in Europe are failing badly and are deep down, every year I travel in Europe and I can see the countries getting poorer, the criminality going up, worker complaining of taxes, and more people not willing to work. Once again Social must stay small for people that really need it, people who can work must work to help and contribute to the country and people who work must be able to buy insurance (even if they already are sick). I can’t believe we are in 2009 with such issues!
I do not know the solution to those issues, but I wanted to share these few feeling with you
Carpe diem
Wil

ahasuerus99,

Good post. Ultimately, part of the issue is not that things run by the government are not bad per se, its things run by OUR government that cause grief.

And a lot of that stems from the fact that our politicians placate to the political lobbies and their own personal self interest rather than doing what is best for the country. You brought up the education system as a frame of reference. Part of the problem with the bloated beauracracy there is directly correlated to a very strong teacher's union lobby. How did this housing bubble get the extra boost it needed to rise to moronic proportions before crashing down like the Hindenburg? Hey, how about we ask the National Association of Realtors and THEIR powerful lobby about that. Let's all jump on the ethanol bandwagon despite the fact that it cost nearly 7 times as much energy to produce ethanol than it does gasoline. Why do? Helllloooooo corn lobby!

Maybe what we really need to fix in this country is the entire lobbying system and do away with it once and for all. Now that is something that may finally give us the baseline framework we need to move forward and get things accomplished effeciently around here.

Moneybags says

The problem we have now is there is no trust… after all the mistakes the GOV made on the economy , why should we believe they will get this right. I personally dont know what the answer is

The system definitely needs reforming, however, the lack of transparency (for decades) is making us all crazy. It is clear that crony capitalism has taken over... we should all be joining together to resist this. Do you all really think your representatives (whether Dem, Rep or Indpend) are fairly representing you? Whatever your ideology may be, we need to work together here and work on true reform. These nonsense arguments are a diversion from the true issues. There will always be the wingnuts on the extremes. I would like to believe that most people want to be reasonable, fair and logical. Maybe I'm dreaming :)

Interesting: Big Business goes big for health care reform

My good gracious, this goes against the memes of the day! What now? Kill the messenger (e.g., "Stossel's a radical righty nutball ...and just ignore those sourcing links in the article")? Or perhaps, once again, neither side of the "common-man" debate has a complete understanding of the roles of the major players?

Smells like 1913 all over again, when the common man triumphed through a new Constitutional amendment that paved the way for a rich tax, so that those eeevil top 2% of income earners could finally be taxed and pay their fair share! Take that, you rich bastages! Of course, the Sixteenth Amendment hasn't really worked out so well for the common man after all... but class warfare is a tried and true carrot in the politician's toolbox. Interestingly enough, 1913 was also the year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Remarkable coincidence, that.

And to what marcus said, in his response to BubblePopper's post:

Or maybe the next round of stimulus will include a piece for them.

Here's an idea: how about we suggest that the federal (and state) government stop subsidizing private businesses as much as possible? Perhaps, I dunno, let the markets do their thing? Artificially low interest rates (thanks Greenspan!) created not one but two malinvestment bubbles -- I'm quite ready for the federal government to start doing ...hell, pretty much nothing at all. After they repeal the Federal Reserve Act, that is.

Where's Andrew Jackson when you need him...

Diomedes says

Maybe what we really need to fix in this country is the entire lobbying system and do away with it once and for all. Now that is something that may finally give us the baseline framework we need to move forward and get things accomplished effeciently around here.

One solution: term limits. Would probably take a state-called and state-led constitutional convention and an amendment, but I'm all bout-it bout-it.

wil,

I have seen similar things in Canada as well when I was growing up in my home province of Ontario.

When we elected a very socialist New Democrat Party in the late 80s, our unemployment rate skyrocketted to something like 11% while our tax rate went through the roof. The media did all these studies finding tons of free loaders essentially living off the government teet and having whole welfare families that were actually living better than some of their contemporaries that were working. It put a tremendous strain on the system and invariably, it was unsustainable. Eventually, that government was ousted and we performed a huge reduction in welfare services and reduced taxes. That got the free loaders off of their asses and returned us to some assemblence of growth.

One of the things to recognize when it comes to healthcare (or anything for that matter) is that there is no panacea. If there was, we would already know about it. Any system will have flaws and any system will be exploited. Which is why we should take our take and think this through. I am all for health care reform. But if we want to truly accomplish it effectively, we need to be diligent and think it through. Shoving a solution down everyone's throat or rushing to get legislation passed means we will likely have to revisit it later. And there will be tremendous waste in that scenario.

One sidebar: my stance at this point is we, as a country, have WAAAAAY bigger fish to fry at this point then health care. Our economy is still in shambles despite what Larry "Crackhead" Kudlow would have you believe. Our wages dropped by the biggest amount on record, our housing prices are still going down and the minor bounce we have seen in the stock market recently is driven solely by speculation and fervor, not fundamentals. Not to mention we have too wars going on right now.

If I was Obama, I would basically make a televised appearance indicating that he has no desire to rush things and is merely bringing up the topic of health care for discussion. Let congress and the senate work and stew over it until the hash out something that looks viable. But everyone at this stage needs to take a step back and breathe deeply. If we make this decision based on emotion and toss a big 'fuck you' to those that voice concerns, then we are asking for trouble. And I am not talking about the idiots at these town hall meetings that quote Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like its scripture. I mean those that bring a cogent argument to the discussion and have valid points. Lets put it out on the table and come to a resolution. Shit, I hate to sound like I am condescending, but we are not splitting the fucking atom here! This is something that, if thought through correctly, can be done well.

I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The following stories, told in second person and based on my personal experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal warning to Americans.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html

Obama’s health care game show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfM

The collectivization of medical costs, both under government-imposed “private” medical insurance and under Medicaid and Medicare, raises medical costs in a variety of ways, each of which deserves consideration. In each instance, the perverted notion of the need-based right to medical care – that is, an alleged right to medical care that entails a claim on other people’s wealth or labor, which must be met with or without their consent – is what underlies both the collectivization of medical costs and the concomitant loss of the individual’s personal financial responsibility. In this way, it is a perverted notion of the right to medical care that is fundamentally responsible for the rising cost of medical care.

http://mises.org/story/3613

The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages

http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/

“The bottom line is that doctors don't want socialized medicine — another flawed health care system like Medicare. They don't believe it will lower the costs or improve quality,” Brady said. “Medicare is already going bankrupt and not quality care. It also shifts medical costs onto other paying customers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6563705.html

Patrick, you are right.