GOP on Health Care: Worse is Better @ BreakRoomLive.com

[Smartassawhip]

For Information on health care reform and answers to some of the most common questions please visit the comment section of my profile. I also have included a link to an easier to read version of the bill and several ways in which you can contact your representatives including phone numbers. Thanks.

[sjcpal]

We the American people have been had by the medical insurance for so long ..It's only obvious that a public would be cheaper for the public and then the Private Insurances would have to compete and therefore lower the prices so more people could be covered.....47 mill people not insured is un-acceptable

[tnkidd1973]

47 million uninsured people includes people who have elected not to have insurance which is available to them. It also includes ilegal aliens. I guess even stating this fact make me racist by today's standards.

By the way; "uninsured" does not mean that you can't get health care. That's what health clinics are for.

[sjcpal]

i don't know where you think you get your facts but they are wrong the bill does not include illegal aliens .....and if you work and lost your healthcare with your job cobra , doesn't work either so you can discard your bullshit , we know you are lying

[tnkidd1973]

I said nothing about the bill covering ilegal aliens, did I? I said that the 47 million UNINSURED INCLUDES them.

Lying about what? I said nothing about Cobra. I know it's horrible.

You can, however, get health care without insurance.

You just read that the way you wanted to see it, huh? Another "crazy right-winger" spouting off his rhetoric.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

Let's pretend that 50% of the uninsured people in this country are by choice. Should that be any reason to allow the other 23.5 million people to suffer?

Are you denying one man his welfare because you're afraid you might inadvertently contribute to the welfare of someone who might not be doing what you approve? Would you rather just give your savings to neither person and funnel it to billionaire CEO's?

[tnkidd1973]

I think the folks who have elected to remain uninsured is a very small percentage. It just irks me to see that 47 million thrown around like all of them are in dire straits.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

I think you need to really begin questioning why such a negligible inaccuracy irks you. Because, insured or not, I can pretty safely assume that at least 47 million people are in dire straits over health problems or money problems resulting from them. At some point, people need to start being less concerned about disproving the opposite team and more concerned with our country suffering.

[tnkidd1973]

I myself have been in medical debt up to my eyeballs & it's no fun, granted.

I don't think it's fair for you, or my neighbor, or my coworkers to foot the bill that I acrued via higher taxes, which is the only way for public healthcare to be financed.

I believe in personal responsibilty.

It has been proven that people who get "free" health care will take advantage of & abuse it. We have TennCare here & people abuse it constantly.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

Well, let me list a few problems with your argument.

1) Personal responsibility is fine, but this is literally a matter of life and death. If it comes to financial gain, then I'm perfectly okay with an "every man for himself" philosophy. But there is a reason I foot the bill for cops and the fire department. I don't see republicans demanding we get rid of police in favor of personal body guards.

2) Taxes may be raised, but we won't be paying insane prices for what will be the same quality.

[tnkidd1973]

Well, how about food, shelter, clothing, transportation? There are programs for these things that help people who can't help themselves. The government doesn't just say here, everyone gets exactly the same thing. People who are truly in need should get assistance. I'm happy to see my taxes go for this.

You get what you pay for.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

"Well, how about food, shelter, clothing, transportation? There are programs for these things that help people who can't help themselves."

There is an abundance of all of this in our country, therefore people will compete on prices. Especially food. But the rest of the things you listed are things people can boycott within reason. People cannot go into a hospital with a heart problem, look at the price, and say "this is a bit steep, I'd like to change my insurance plan."

[tnkidd1973]

You're right.

We pay rediculously inflated prices for medical care and something needs to be done about it.

I think we at least agree on that, even if we have different views on how it should be achieved.

[tnkidd1973]

oops...ridiculously

[IMANFBIAGENT]

3) Again, you are promoting the suffering of many for the laziness of a few.

4) Unemployment does imply laziness, especially now. You're also implying that the prices on health care right now are fair.

5) People are denied service because it won't make a company money. Even if it was morally correct to make a profit off of health care, you are ignoring the fact that people are literally being scammed to death through no fault of their own.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

does *not imply laziness

[tnkidd1973]

Not having a high paying job does not imply laziness.

Being unemployed for reasons beyond your control does not imply laziness.

Refusing to dig ditches, or flip burgers, or sweep parking lots because you're "above that" implies laziness.

Treatment is available for people who are uninsurable.

[tnkidd1973]

In no way do I think that Blue Cross has my best interest in mind. Do you think that someone in Washington would?

I don't.

[tnkidd1973]

Wow. Have you guys seen the bill? By who's standards would it be better?

I agree with those who say there's need for improvement, but this proposal is not the answer.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

I am sick of people using this god damn straw man talking point.

"By who's standards would it be better?" This video is not addressing the subjective debate about this specific bill. This is about the concept of a public health care option. So, the people that claim "this will put private insurance out of business because it will be inherently worse than a public option" is the answer to your question.  It is by their standards.

[tnkidd1973]

Okay. Then "those people" are simply wrong in thier way of thinking.

Putting private insurance companies out of business is not the answer. Restructuring & regulating the way insurance works would be the way to fix what is wrong. And yes, I'm agreeing there is an enormous problem.

"Public Option/ Single Payer/ Socialized" health care is a bad idea, period.

You are correct that this particular video isn't directly addressing this specific bill, but this bill is the one being debated.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

Again, this bill is being debated. As is the concept of health care reform. However, it is deceitful to use this bill as evidence against the concept. It is what's called a "straw man" argument. "Well, since this bill on socialized health care is flawed, ALL socialized health care is flawed."

continued..

[tnkidd1973]

It's just my opinion that socialized health care is a bad idea due to what I've seen the government screw up in the past.

Thanks for a civil debate, as opposed o the other fellow responding on here...

[IMANFBIAGENT]

It's fine if you still want to defend private insurance, but I think it's immoral to allow companies to make a profit off of the country's health. People will dispute that they should, but look where it lead us. I would be as hesitant as you if this concept was unheard of, but we have plenty of countries with socialized health care that historically have worked and still work in comparison to what we have now (at the very least).

[tnkidd1973]

FBIAGENT,

As far as making profits from the country's health: I think that if insurance companies legitimately helped to lessen the cost burden of healthcare, I see no problem with them making a profit.

Unfortunately, they have gotten away from that purpose.

[IMANFBIAGENT]

Well, what you need to understand is.. if something was done to convince you that these companies care about our well-being, then it is an utter illusion. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent right now on advertising campaigns to stop ANY public option bill from passing. Imagine how many lives could have been saved with that money. Money that was only used to further the cause of profiting from pain.

[underbird]

Yeah employers will choose the free government subsidized option over something that costs money. But the real goal is a dependent middle class, and that way we all get to wait 6 months for an MRI. Well... if you are really rich I bet you can get around the system. And I think your age and condition will factor in based on the judgment of a health board.

What could possibly go wrong.

[dizzymasekela]

Snowe really means a lot fewer people will die. Oh no!

[JeepityJ]

Exactly! We all know it really boils down to the fact that insurance companies are lining the pockets of greasy Congress people. They have a good thing going and don't want to stop the gravy train. You know it's so funny that our leaders ALL have government insurance, paid for by US, but they don't want any of US to have the same benefits they enjoy.

[justperceptions]

Great video! : ) But, what I really want is a corrupt file that I paid for thinking I was getting a cool video... can you help me with that?

[ndvuncle]

The public option is an opponent that corporate big cheeses cannot under cut, though their employees are not unionized gov't workers. It's a Monopoly they want.when we're playing the game of Life.

Ooh, I just had a flash back.

[acarmyofone]

Lol... why is Catherine sitting in that office?!

[hollywoodartchick]

Waitaminute - when we FIRST had privatization shoved down our throats, the ONLY argument was that the profit motive would lead to BETTER product/service at BETTER prices. Now that we can have those by the public option, they are no longer virtues? If ANYONE still does not get it that the profit motive gets support from legislators ONLY because it makes their friends rich, they are seriously irrational.

[upabittoolate]

i think you may miss the underlying point of the public option: accessibility is it about profits? not quite. public option mean you use public hospitals. those hospitals are barely ever in the pink, the black maybe, but seldom pink. even then they have to jump through private sector hoops like joint commission just to get meager funding. now does it mean more access for people means = more profit? perhaps. but the sole goal isn't profit.

[hollywoodartchick]

Public services don't have to be profitable at all. They don't have to break even. They are services that people need. By those standards, everything that is in the public sphere is problematic (education, libraries, transit). If the accessibility is inadequate, we add funding. The reason we have inadequate funding is lack of political will and resistance of corporations to pay their share of the tax burdon. That can and should be fixed.

[upabittoolate]

okay then we're on the same page. for what it's worth, you didn't miss anything. my bad. public services should not be profit based at all. i think if they do pick up any extra, it should go right back into improving quality (just like a co-op or nfp). now in fairness, the richest people are paying most of the taxes in the us... even IF that's not their fair share. lol.

[hollywoodartchick]

Yes, quality is often an issue that comes up in the discussion of public services, and I admit that often public services are crap. But they don't have to be. In countries with less disparity between rich and poor, EVERYONE uses public services, so the demand for them to be efficient and well-managed is higher. We Americans have lowered our expectations, having been told that if you want quality, you have to buy your own. The rich may dodge some tax, but the corporations often pay nothing.

[PeterOrszagCallMe]

Thank you.  This argument is so bizarre.