Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I didn't say I supported them lol.
I didn't mean to say that you did. I was just observing general silliness about the word "socialized."
Yes and no(funding).
Elaborate? It must be late, because this made zero senses to me.
I know there aren't. Then again, I have a choice between believing foxnews or cnn/msnbc.
MSNBC is just as biased, but they are a little bit more subtle in that bias. The distinction between [Opinion], [News], and [the filter on which stories are given prominence based on our bias] is significantly stronger at msnbc than it is at faux. If that is simply because FOX is better at the whole propaganda bit has yet to be determined.
[This still says nothing about the relationship between medicare and the public option, or how they are the same or different. Imagine that I hadn't brought up fox, if you can.]
What makes you think that welfare is a concern, or that health care reform is even about the uninsured? Be objective lol. Also, not sure about fewer administrative costs, or reduction in costs. What I am sure about is longer waiting times and less doctors. I'm also interested in another trillion dollars on top of Obama's astronomical deficit spending. But I'll look over administrative costs tomorrow.
I'm largely ignoring the bill at this point, and instead looking at whether or not it was a good idea as an opening move. We could have opened a Nuclear Power plant for all the fuss this has been worth.
I'm definitely for tort reform and it's largely why doctor's are so damn expensive. In fact, tort reform is a more realistic reform at this point than Obamacare.... [/B][/QUOTE]
But it is only a very small fraction of the costs of healthcare. The facts back this up. Obama, at the healtcare "summit" observed this when [generic republican congressman]'s suggestion regarding Tort reform was brought up. He said something to the effect of 'this issue is about 5% [I might be remembering that number wrong, but it wasn't very big-- eight maybe?] of total costs. We can't fix the system with only tort reform.' (Also, I am generally opposed to protecting the interests of corporations against the interests of individuals.)
EDIT
Why must the government intervene? What makes the government any different than the health care companies? They don't have limits. Government shouldn't intervene in the private sector at all, at least those are my thoughts.
Well, because the government can (theoretically) be motivated by something other than economic self interest (like the welfare of its citizens, or at least each representative's respective constituents) it can move to counter, for example, incentives leading to arbitrarily low quality (like lead paint from China).