Haven't you heard?  According to the President, General Practitioners are handing out free candy to Diabetics so the surgeons can cut their feet off.

Brilliant!

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

did you read Alaska Statute 13.52? 

___________________________________________ 
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax"  - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15

Try reading section 1233 of HR 3200 for yourself.

I see things like this:  "`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
"

Exactly how many 'stakeholders' can there be besides the patient?  And why would ANY of them be from the government unless the intent was to deny treatment?

If you really want to get into a substantive discussion on Health Care reform, I'd suggest you join us on the Forum Topic, here.  We've been discussing this topic (and all of its sets and subsets) for about five months.

There is a wealth of information contained there, stratman, Par, and many others have included wonderful links.  Feel free to join us.

I hope he fails, too.

As an example, look at economist predictions about our currency during
this last financial crisis.  Everyone said the dollar was doomed, we'd
go into a tailspin, no one would want our money any more.  What did
they base that prediction on?  What happens to other countries when
they go through the same kind of crisis.  But it didn't happen to us! 

Ahem, a prediction is about a possible event in the future. When every country that did what we are now doing ends in failure by hyperinflation, it becomes only a matter of time before the inevitable event.   Your line of logic is like saying predicting a person standing on railroad tracks is going to get run over is not assured because it didn't happen in the first 24 hours, you then proclaim the prediction false.  The problem is, the train runs on those tracks once a week, 6 days later that person gets run over.

Like so many liberal assertions, it's only a matter of time before they get proved false.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

I too have wondered why a switch to an eventually all-pervasive system could not have been based on a better studies on what has worked in other countries, what has not worked, how these countries differ, and so on. If there are long wait times, for instance, what if we made medical school free here for qualifying people and built up our doctor supply before we started this? (AMA, I know, but I am putting this out there,) This should be planned for--the infrastructure put into place. What can the present insurers offer from their experience--what parts of it could they run? Something intelligent...I just don't have faith in the thinking here.

mamabear:

Blonde makes a great suggestion - her healthcare thread goes into detail about these issues and more.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, please read that thread and let's continue the discussion.  It will require a time commitment from you, but I think the result will provide all of us a more informed perspective from the debate. 

You have some good points that deserve a response. 

I think a good starting point for all in this discussion is to determine whether you believe healthcare is a 'right'.  My working definition of a right is drawn from Walter E. Williams:

"A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference."

What about a right to healthcare then?  Williams continues with

"The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce."

To reiterate, Williams, commenting directly about healthcare and rights, says

True rights, such as those in our constitution, or those considered to natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. The exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. It imposes no obligations on another except those of non-interference.

You may be thinking, why did he repeat himself?  (And here is another viewpoint on healthcare and rights!)  I did it because the point goes to the heart of the healthcare reform issue.  If you disagree with Williams' point about what a "right" entails, then we will surely disagree on what each thinks is the nature and duty of Government.

Looking at the history of legislation in healthcare does give one the ability to predict further and further governmental intrusion. 

Sometimes the intrusion appears beneficial, for instance

• History of the VA, with its roots in this country beginning in 1636.
• History of Medicare and Medicaid.

But it's the nitty gritty that begins to tell the tale about governmental intrusion into healthcare:

• DRG's - Designed to decrease reimbursement - 1983, the beginning of the end
• HCFA - All about the Benjamins - Taking the simple and making a mess - a pox on their house
• CPT Codes - One of the worst book you've ever been required to read.
• ICD9 Codes - Designed to decrease reimbursement- make sure you delve into the lists to get a flavor for this other worst book you'd like never to have had to read.
• E&M Codes - Designed to decrease reimbursement - This is what physicians must do to get paid - an example for in Hospital only work - to begin understanding why these codes are not as good as the government makes them out to be read here and here. 
• Numerous other rules and regulations that decrease efficiencies and therefore revenue (some are fleshed out in Blonde's thread on healthcare)

This is the tip (and some of the submerged part) of the iceberg.  So much to be said.  It may take an insider's view to truly get a quantified and qualified understanding of the scope and nuance of the issue(s).  I am not saying that no one but a medical person can know, just that there is so much going on that superficialities do not do the topic justice.  That is why Blonde started a thread, one which has covered a lot of ground.  That is why our politicians appear incapable as a group to understand that which they are "debating", especially when they do not read the bill.  (I'm still waiting for a debate)

I think we can read HR3200 and decipher the legalese.  I know I can, and from what I've been reading, the bill is about voraciously expanding government control more than it is about our health.  It is bad legislation that deserves an ugly demise.

Try fixing what you have already first.  Show the public that government can run Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP properly, within budget and without accounting sleights of hand or belicose excuses.  Show us that the government is serious about managing within the parameters already set. 

Let opposing voices speak without demonization, but hold their feet to the flames of truth and give no quarter if deception or knowing lies are floated.  No more free rides for or by a feckless Media.  The partisanship is going to damage all of us in the end.

Make each politician define and describe their thoughts on the very same topics we are discussing.  Do not let them evade and escape on the issues or what they should know about the issues before them.

Only then does the public stand a chance against populism and deceit, vanity and ignorance, laziness and aggression against the Constitution and our way of life.

I appreciate and respect your belief in the strength and resilliance of America.  I believe this too.  But, these qualities do not exist in a vacuum.  Vigilance and respect must be nourished and kept.  We were a world leader before the stock market collapse in the 1920's.  We fell upon very hard times.  It can happen again. 

Other nation states, such as China and the EU, have the potential to rival or exceed the importance of America.  One major deterrent for them is the very systems they live under - Communism and Socialism.  Why should we be unconcerned that China has years to "catch up" with us?  Because that means that we have lowered our principles for some illusionary egalitarian utopia.  Our system of a democratic Republic with free market Capitalism is the essence of why we are the leader in the world.  People hunger to live in America because they know that hard work enriches and secures themselves and their family more than anywhere in the world precisely because opportunity is safeguarded here like nowhere else.

Physicians earn $60 per month in Cuba - do you think it was that way before Castro?  Do you think pay has improved under the systems in Canada and Britain?  Why do those physicians flock to America?  It's all about governmental intrusion.  More Government invasion into the lives of Americans erodes the might and will of the people.  It has been a slow process of turning away from our foundational principles, though giant leaps like HR3200 change the landscape faster.  It continues to occur and is speeding up with this Administration, House and Senate.  Obama has said he believes in a Socialist Single Payor system but knows it will take 10-20 years to come to fruition.  This is his vision.  Once certain laws are passed, such as HR3200, it will be nearly impossible to roll it back.  The barbarians are inside the gates, so to speak.  Our rights will be diminished, possibly forever.  Then another target will be chosen and pushed.  Drip, drip, drip.

This is not just about healthcare, though that must be the primary focus currently.  This is also about how much of your life and work product is your own, without governmental obligation, without governmental interference, to partake in your Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This is the foundation and the overview I think are important for you to understand about my thoughts, plus a few nuances, in our beginning discussion on healthcare and governance.