This is the level we're now at

[David Rakoczy]

I believe we both made our points Scott... and each individual reader will decide.

 

Let's get back to cinematography!

 

Cheers.

[Paul Bruening]

XXXX YOU Paul.

 

Keep playing with film cameras in a closet in the middle of nowhere that you can't afford to buy film for. . . :angry:

[K Borowski]

You're clearly making no attempt to even provide an argument for your side, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that you don't even know why you support what you do. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have argued against socialized health care with such brilliant arguments as "it will cost too little and be too good, and private insurers won't be able to compete," which pretty much makes my point for me.

 

And on a personal level, David, I'm really kind of irked that I spent all that time writing a fairly detailed explanation of why I supported single payer health care, and you couldn't even bother to come up with an response other than "haha you really want socialism? lol you're crazy! :blink: "

 

I think your response is well-written.

 

Even a lot of Republicans support socialized healthcare.

 

 

I'm sure the ones that are against it make better arguments against it than you lead on. I haven't paid attention because I am on your side on this, but I am sure they are worried about the system failing like welfare and medicaid.

 

There is reason for trepidation in allowing too much government spending, especially with such a high national debt.

 

 

At the same time, what definitively tipped me in favor of socialized care is the statistic I saw on why premiums for those who ARE insured have skyrocketed.

 

Basically, because they are not turning sick people who cannot afford to pay away at the door, doctors have to charge those who DO pay more. So it already is socialized to some extent because those who are paying, on the honor system, are being made to pay for uninsured sick people who come in.

 

We're already augmenting the people who are uninsured and need treatment in our higher premiums. So why eliminate this unfair burden on the insured by having the government provide coverage for those who are currently uninsured? This should have an effect of REDUCING premiums for both individuals and, ahem ahem David, small businesses.

 

Look at it another way: Why is the 20-29 group the healthiest group but they have to pay some of the highest premiums? Free enterprise clearly isn't working in a field that everyone, at least at some point in their lives, is going to require the services of.

 

 

David, just because something isn't in the constitution is irrelevant. Look at the state of healthcare in 1776. I am pretty sure they were still using leeches and blood-letting to treat the four humours.

 

Surgery was primitive, childbirth was highly dangerous, there was no treatment for cancer, heart disease, smallpox, tuberculosis, etc.

 

It wasn't an issue because, basically, if you got sick, you died. You needed a free church, not free healthcare in 1776, or burial insurance.

 

So of course this isn't going to be in the constitution. Also, I don't see how healthcare is going to burden businesses more. I agree with you that businesses shouldn't have to pay more for their workers, shouldn't be the burden of businessmen, but I do think it ought be made available through the government, which should in some cases eliminate a burden on the business.

 

If (almost) everyone is now paying for healthcare, the far fewer that are paying for it now are going to have an immense burden lifted off of their shoulders. There are clearly many many people leaving college who are uninsured not because they want to be, but because the policies are needlessly, hideously expensive, from what amounts to a lack of competition and ripping off the poor kids that CAN scrape up enough money to account for all the cases they have to treat of uninsured in that age group needing treatment.

 

 

So, David, I guess I don't understand why you are arguing against it. Surely you want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare, right? I don't think anyone here is advocating for the rich to just pay for it all and have the poor get a free ride.

 

There will still be premiums, copays, etc., but the playing field should be leveled somewhat t to the point where healthcare providers are competing atgainst the government. I mean, I have relatives who are doctors, nurses. I wouldn't be in favor of this unless I were convinced it wouldn't negatively impact their livelihoods.

 

The plan currently on the table is pretty good, IMHO, and I urge you to look at it more closely instead of just writing it off as a Democratic conspiracy to ruin the free market ;)

[David Rakoczy]

The plan currently on the table is pretty good, IMHO, and I urge you to look at it more closely instead of just writing it off as a Democratic conspiracy to ruin the free market ;)

 

 

Karl... no one can explain the plan 'on the table'... most haven't read what is on the table and by the time they get to the end of the eleven hundred plus pages it has been changed anyway... Obama can't explain it. This is a concern for many many democrats in Congress. Sure healthcare "Insurance" needs some fixing... but the government running healthcare? Are you crazy? Does anyone here understand this country is all but bankrupt? Boy, they did a great job with the mortgage meltdown. Let's give them our healthcare too!

 

 

Why Read the Bill?

 

 

Without a doubt the goal here is to bankrupt the US and from the ashes raise a 'kinder, gentler nation.. the problem is this kinder, gentler nation will have far more control over our lives than we presently experience. The Founding Fathers would shudder at the intrusion already taking place. Wait till the government runs healthcare and tells you what you can and can not eat, drink, smoke... and on and on. We are building a Tower of Babel my friends.

 

Karl.. you can not approve what can not be explained.

[Paul Bruening]

I'll hazard a guess that what underlies this semi-meandering thread are issues of social trust and mistrust. We, Americans, constantly vacillate between thinking we're great and thinking we suck. Lately, due largely to our financial demise, we more and more, think we suck and are driven to fix ourselves. The thing is, we sucked just as much when we were rich as we do now. But, money smooths all that suck right over. Now, we're broke and we suck. So, let's go ahead and fix where we suck while it's still on our minds. Our health care system sucks. Let's fix it before we get rich again and go back to our gluttonous sleep.

[Scott Fritzshall]

I think your response is well-written.

Thanks :)

 

Even a lot of Republicans support socialized healthcare.

I'm sure the ones that are against it make better arguments against it than you lead on. I haven't paid attention because I am on your side on this, but I am sure they are worried about the system failing like welfare and medicaid.

They don't, in fact, support socialized healthcare (well, unless you count the socialized healthcare the military gets). They're pretty much in lockstep against anything that doesn't benefit the insurance companies. Most of the Democrats are actually with them on this. They aren't worried about the system failing, they're actively trying to dismantle it so that they can 1)cut taxes for their constituents, 2)punish poor people for being poor, and 3)transfer public programs to private businesses, who of course give them healthy contributions for the favor. Also Republicans are mostly against Welfare in order to pander to their racist Southern base: many welfare recipients are black, and by campaigning against welfare, they are indicating that they oppose blacks. I'm not making this up, either, it's been a prominent component of the GOP's "Southern Strategy" for decades, and those who originated it, such as Lee Atwater, openly admitted that this was the reason for opposition to welfare.

 

There is reason for trepidation in allowing too much government spending, especially with such a high national debt.

The US already spends more in taxes on healthcare than any other nation on earth. A UHC plan will actually cost considerably less in taxes than what we pay currently, with the bonus that you'll no longer need to buy healthcare on top of what you're already spending.

 

So of course this isn't going to be in the constitution. Also, I don't see how healthcare is going to burden businesses more. I agree with you that businesses shouldn't have to pay more for their workers, shouldn't be the burden of businessmen, but I do think it ought be made available through the government, which should in some cases eliminate a burden on the business.

UHC would be incredibly beneficial for businesses. Paying for insurance is a huge cost to them, and it causes them to be less competitive against foreign companies, who can do the same work for less because they don't have this burden. The CEO of the company I'm at right now is a huge proponent of UHC for exactly this reason. Our competitors in London don't have to pay for their employee's health insurance, so they can charge less than us. For small businesses, the cost is even greater, and an even larger burden.

 

So, David, I guess I don't understand why you are arguing against it. Surely you want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare, right? I don't think anyone here is advocating for the rich to just pay for it all and have the poor get a free ride.

I'm not quite sure what David's angle in this is considering he refuses to support his arguments with anything but bumper sticker slogans, and I'm honestly pretty sure he doesn't even know himself. But there actually are a lot of people who argue against UHC on the grounds that they believe that certain people (typically "lazy or unproductive people," or in other words, poor minorities) don't deserve health care in the first place. Many more believe that the only reason that they themselves are able to enjoy good healthcare is that other people are denied it. There are many ignorant arguments against UHC, and there are also a whole bunch of arguments that are flat-out malicious.

 

The plan currently on the table is pretty good, IMHO, and I urge you to look at it more closely instead of just writing it off as a Democratic conspiracy to ruin the free market ;)

I'm going to disagree with you here, it's actually a pretty awful plan, because it's actually a Democratic conspiracy to uphold the free market (ie, they're being paid off by the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries). It's basically going to mandate that you give money to the insurance companies, but will not mandate that they actually offer you an affordable plan, or require that they actually cover you at all. It's a gigantic handout to companies that are already making huge profits by hurting the rest of the country. It puts an even greater burden on employers, and will cause more people to lose or drop coverage. Prices will skyrocket, because you are required by law to pay whatever they charge, and if you can't then everyone's tax dollars will pay it, and there are no caps on prices for at least 3 years. There is almost no chance at this point that we will end up getting a solution that is better than the current one; most likely we will hurt the poor, the working class, and the middle class in order to preserve the profitability of a handful of companies.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Karl... no one can explain the plan 'on the table'... most haven't read what is on the table and by the time they get to the end of the eleven hundred plus pages it has been changed anyway... Obama can't explain it. This is a concern for many many democrats in Congress.

Hey, I thought you wanted to go back to discussing cinematography ;)

 

Sure healthcare "Insurance" needs some fixing... but the government running healthcare? Are you crazy?

Healthcare is fundamentally broken because it runs on a profit motive. Everyone at every step is concerned only with how much money they can make, and not with your health. ~$.25 of every dollar you pay to insurance companies goes to pay for an army of employees whose sole function is to decide whether they would profit from covering you, and to find ways to weasel out of their contract with you. Your health should not be decided by whether or not someone else would make money from it. And I don't know if you've noticed, but literally every single other first-world nation on the planet already has the government run healthcare, and they have healthier populations and pay less money for it. It's not like it's some crazy new concept that no one has ever tried before, it's already a success story multiple times over.

 

Does anyone here understand this country is all but bankrupt?

Partially because we spent all of our money to murder a bunch of Arabs. With the money we spent on Iraq, we could have funded UHC for a decade. Additionally, Britain implemented NHS right after WWII, when their entire country was in pieces, and it's been largely a success ever since (and yes, I'm aware that NHS has numerous problems, but it's nowhere near as fundamentally unsound as the healthcare situation in the US).

 

Boy, they did a great job with the mortgage meltdown. Let's give them our healthcare too!

The meltdown came about for similar reasons as the healthcare problem now- because of a complete lack of regulation. The response to it has also been terrible, again for the same reasons- because they would rather protect their billionaire buddies at Goldman Sachs than nationalize failing banks. Instead, they just pay off the banks' bad debts with taxpayer money, but then leave the people who made the bad decisions in place to keep making more bad decisions, and to get billions in bonuses paid by taxpayers in the meantime. The free, unregulated market failed completely and utterly. Even Ayn Rand sycophant Alan Greenspan admitted he was wrong about it.

 

Without a doubt the goal here is to bankrupt the US and from the ashes raise a 'kinder, gentler nation.. the problem is this kinder, gentler nation will have far more control over our lives than we presently experience.

I think you're projecting.

 

The Founding Fathers would shudder at the intrusion already taking place.

I think mostly they would shudder at the fact that we amended the constitution to include blacks and women.

 

Wait till the government runs healthcare and tells you what you can and can not eat, drink, smoke... and on and on.

Private insurers ALREADY DO THIS! All of this paranoia about what the government might do, and private companies already do them!

[David Rakoczy]

I am trying to get back to it :) ... but here goes. You want more regulation? Check this out. Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ..... During the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Well... We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... The reason for which not one person who reads this can remember... Ready??????? It was very simple.. And at the time everybody thought it very appropriate... The 'Department of Energy' was instituted on 10-01-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hey, pretty efficient, huh????? AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER ... AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND... LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY "WHAT WAS I THINKING?" Ah, yes, good old bureaucracy... And NOW - we are going to turn the Banking System, Health Care & the Auto Industry over to government? May God Help Us !!!

[Scott Fritzshall]

How about addressing even a single one of my arguments?

 

The department of energy doesn't really have the ability to control where we get our oil from, as far as I'm aware. Especially because actual energy policy is basically written by the energy companies, who generally oppose anything that causes us to pay them less, such as becoming more energy efficient. I don't have the time to look up all of the functions of the DoE right now, but I'm pretty sure that it has a far larger scope than simply "reducing dependence on foreign oil," and that you citing it is pretty disingenuous.

 

PS: The auto industry begged the government to buy them out, so that's not really a very good argument for you either.

[robert duke]

Ha!

 

I appreciate things are different when you're in the US and three "locals" all at once, but that's not quite how it works here. We have no feature industry and as of ten years ago we could claim to be a place that made commercials and music videos. Both of those are entirely optional promotional efforts and in the current economic situation they're more or less gone too.

 

You put up with the situation described because you have precious little choice. My purpose in starting this thread was to highlight that, but it's turned into something entirely different.

 

P

 

Phil.

What do you feel like is the solution to your problem? I understand your feeling of powerlessness. I too have been put in those situations. I have had to play the bad guy for production and call them at their BS. It is hard.

We all have. I joined the union to have something of a baseline code of conduct for production. I still work non-union on occasion. More this year than the last few.

 

I think what happened to your friend is BS and that the producer should be slapped. Producers like them get work because they undercut the competition. They then transfer those "savings" on to you and your friend. I understand that if you didnt take the job someone else would have and that it is all the work available. So I give you two options.

 

1. Compete against them as a producer. you know who and what has to happen on set. you know equipment owners and operators. you know what they make and should be able to calculate a budget based off that information. Undercut the bad producers, but pay your friends a decent rate. It would me you not taking the lions share. Go for it. what do you have to lose.

 

2. Dont put up with their BS. Be Very explicit when making your deals and be very explicit as to the consequences of contrary actions. Charge overtime, Charge transportation costs. Will you work less, maybe, but will you have to risk getting burned? No. Take a leap of faith and step up. BS producers are like playing with fire. eventually you will get burned. you dont have to stoop to their level. Be Better than that.

[Scott Fritzshall]

PS: this is the level of understanding that most Americans have about healthcare and about what "socialism" means, and an illustration of just how effective the Right's constant stream of lies have been:

In other pockets of the state, the reaction to Democratic proposals has been strong, too. At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

 

"I had to politely explain that, 'Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,' " Inglis recalled. "But he wasn't having any of it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009072703107

[Phil Rhodes]

What do you feel like is the solution to your problem?

 

The problem is deeply-rooted. My previous comments about the unfashionability of personal honour notwithstanding, people do this sort of thing because it's almost the only way to operate in such a rarified environment. I don't really think the producers are making that much money in these circumstances either, much as it's fun to demonise them.

 

Since it's a broad-based problem starting at the most fundamental levels, any solution needs to be similarly broad, probably originating at a central-government level. Comfortably over 90% of feature films exhibited theatrically in the UK are US-originated, and while there are more stringent rules about TV exhibition, quality television drama is also overwhelmingly American. On the one hand, it's hard to have too much of a problem with it because this stuff is technically very well produced and nicely done, but there's an intrinsic cultural problem in that while Brits will happily watch American material, Americans are far more picky about watching foreign film and it's almost impossible to mount any sort of counteroffensive. I don't think anyone should blame the US for this, it's just free market economics, and I hate to incite protectionism, but really - we're getting steamrollered out there.

 

I'm part of the lobby that feels the we need something like a reinstatement of the Eady Levy, to cover both film and TV, which was designed to counteract this situation and level out the playing field a bit. Even with that in place, the situation would be far less restrictive than in say France where there are very specific culture-of-origin rules.

 

This might not seem to have that much to do with producers taking advantage of people, but a healthier industry overall would make it far more difficult to justify and I think these sorts of problems are rooted right down at the fundamental level. I've said it a million times but one of the reasons life is so hard here for new people is that there's tiny, crappy productions like the one my friend worked on, then there's Harry Potter, and there's absolutely nothing inbetween. In LA, you get all these few-hundred-thousand features and modestly budgeted music videos which are fantastic proving grounds for new people and provide a trickle of work to keep established workers going. That work simply does not exist in the UK and it represents a critical missing chunk of the ladder and a missing source of revenue for everyone, producers included.

 

In short I suspect a lot of this penny pinching happens because people feel they have no choice, because the film and TV industry in this country is terminally ill. I believe that fixing it is an unavoidable first step in curing some of its wider ills, and that is an issue requiring regulation at the central government level.

 

P

[Freya Black]

In short I suspect a lot of this penny pinching happens because people feel they have no choice, because the film and TV industry in this country is terminally ill. I believe that fixing it is an unavoidable first step in curing some of its wider ills, and that is an issue requiring regulation at the central government level.

 

P

 

With regard to the TV industry, it's my belief we have to go all the way on this one. It's too late to try and patch things up at this stage. Things must be allowed to take their course and there must be no hiding place. It is as you say "terminally ill". Theres no point putting band aids on it. We should then start thinking about what a new tv industry might look like here. Such a new industry will require a large amount of restructuring and government intervention.

 

As for the film industry, yes quotas are the only way. It's straightforward.

 

Intrested to see that it's now finally not just Phil here speaking out about this stuff:

 

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/comment/new-...5003904.article

 

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/comment/new-...5002096.article

 

Broadcast of all places!

 

The UK TV industry is presently largely entirely consisting of a bunch of people from very priveliged backgrounds with little imagination, this goes a good way to explain why it is the mess it is. That and the general corruption and selfish poor decision making our whole country has been engulfed with.

 

love

 

Freya

[Brad Grimmett]

no one can explain the plan 'on the table'

Oh really? Where is the proof of that?

Obama can't explain it.

And where is your proof of that?

but the government running healthcare? Are you crazy?

I know! That would be like trusting the government to put out a fire at your house in the middle of the night, or trusting the government to catch criminals! That would just be irresponsible! It would be much better and cheaper to do through the private sector. Right?

Does anyone here understand this country is all but bankrupt?

We're all aware of that, which is why we need to fix healthcare, which will quickly take us from "all but bankrupt" to "completely bankrupt" very quickly.

Without a doubt the goal here is to bankrupt the US and from the ashes raise a 'kinder, gentler nation

I guess you're into conspiracy theories? Who's conspiracy is this anyway? The US was bankrupted during the last administration, not during this one.

Wait till the government runs healthcare and tells you what you can and can not eat, drink, smoke... and on and on.

As Scott already mentioned, this is already happening. I suspect there will be much less of this if the government does run healthcare. Oh, and it will be much cheaper and much better care for all of us. But yeah, I TOTALLY understand why you hate the idea. Those crazy liberals are always thinking about ways to help everyone....nutty.

[Phil Rhodes]

If I may.

 

I live in a place where there is government-run healthcare at extremely reasonable cost available to everyone.

 

Many Americans I have met consider this to be something of a nirvana, although it is not without its problems. The standard of care is probably as good as in the US, though you will sometimes have to wait for procedures that are perceived as non-urgent. This is particularly troublesome in the case of things like hip replacements for the elderly, whose level of overall fitness can suffer during the period of disability caused by chronic joint problems. There are often not private rooms available in UK hospitals, something I think I'd deeply regret. There have also been claims that the more expensive treatments, commonly drugs, have been unavailable for cost reasons. Free universal healthcare is, obviously, gigantically expensive, and a considerable drain on the national finances. NHS trusts, which run regional healthcare, tend to have charitable components and it's common to run charity drives to equip new hospital facilities - I was involved in one to support a capsule endoscopy unit a few years ago, after said technique was instrumental in diagnosing a cancer from which my father recovered.

 

However, it is also massively less expensive than a similar level of care costs Americans, first because of the general insurance principle of shared risk among a very large number of people, but also because we do not have to support several intermediate corporate structures. If you are severely injured or become disabled, you will get as much care as you need until you are either as fixed as you can be or you are dead.

 

Preferring either the UK or US situations is a judgement call and my feeling is that they both have advantages. I have experienced several situations in the US where I felt that people should have been precautionarily shipped off to the ER, but then, these people didn't have insurance and didn't want a $4000 invoice landing on their doormats. This is, quite literally, a foreign situation to me. I'd probably put up with waiting a few weeks for a hip replacement to avoid it.

 

P

[Robin R Probyn]

Karl... your way out of your depth here.. and its becoming embarrassing.. Iam sure your a nice guy.. I would slip quietly away from this thread if i were you..

[K Borowski]

Karl... your way out of your depth here.. and its becoming embarrassing.. Iam sure your a nice guy.. I would slip quietly away from this thread if i were you..

 

Your spelling is embarrassing.

 

Your fake name is too.

 

 

This thread is really old, but since I am a fan of digging up the past too, care to make a go as to why I'm way out of my depth?

[Brad Grimmett]

Your fake name is too.

It's not a fake name.

[Robin R Probyn]

It's not a fake name.

 

 

Iam not an Elephant :)

 

Actually sorry Karl.. I was a bit of a P*ick ... you got your rights to say what you want.. just your wrong..(only kidding)

 

Peace and love

[K Borowski]

It's not a fake name.

 

I apologize, in that case.

 

 

I am confused to get a post out of nowhere though, weeks after this thread has died telling me to basically slither off and die, when I am not even one of the main characters in this post.

 

Just to summarize, I am basically in favor of socialized healthcare, but I have reservations as to the proper solution.

 

Maybe Robin has me confused with someone else here?

[K Borowski]

Iam not an Elephant :)

 

Actually sorry Karl.. I was a bit of a P*ick ... you got your rights to say what you want.. just your wrong..(only kidding)

 

Peace and love

 

 

Thanks for the apology, but you seem to be saying one thing and meaning the opposite.

 

You say you are only kidding, but seem pretty serious that I am wrong. You also seem to be convinced that I am on, I assume David's side being totally against any sort of government-run healthcare; we disagree pretty completely on this.

 

So, do you not believe me that I am in favor of public healthcare or what? I don't see where you are coming from at all, nor why we are even in an arguement lest you are against public healthcare as well.

[David Rakoczy]

You also seem to be convinced that I am on, I assume David's side being totally against any sort of government-run healthcare; we disagree pretty completely on this.

 

I never said that.

[K Borowski]

I never said that.

 

What did you say then, David? You seem to be pretty firmly in favor of continuing a private-sector system, and, as a result, are against the current bill.

 

If I am misreading you, what is your position then?

[Brian Dzyak]

8 common myths about health insurance reform

 

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

 

2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

 

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

 

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

 

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

 

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

 

7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

 

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

 

Learn more and get details:

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

 

 

 

The gist is that there are some people (a minority, but a strong one) who hate the idea of government and would just as soon privatize EVERYTHING, including such "useless" government programs such as the EPA, the FDA, the NIH, the DOT, the Military Services, Education, and anything else this Socialist government uselessly provides to undeserving Americans. To that end, Conservatives are comfortable throwing out any and all "misinformation" necessary to scare ignorant Americans into believing whatever it takes to stop our Government from doing the job it was designed to do... to build and maintain a stable, secure, and successful society FOR ALL! Conservatives only want prosperity and health for some, thus the lies and manipulation of facts. It's sad. :(

[David Rakoczy]

What did you say then, David? You seem to be pretty firmly in favor of continuing a private-sector system, and, as a result, are against the current bill. If I am misreading you, what is your position then?

 

 

I am absolutely against this Bill as are most Americans. I just don't want to be painted as saying we shouldn't help anyone.... however, having a spouse who works for Social Security, I can attest to the TREMENDOUS amount of waste of our (hard earned) tax dollars. Example.. you can now file for disability for A.D.D not the A.D.D. you are thinking of but get this... Authority Defiance Disorder... when your boss tells you to do something you get into an arguement and he either fires you or you quit... :blink: If you are breathing you have this disorder (as far as I am concerned).. the difference is (I'd like to say most of us but maybe it isn't most of us after all).. suck it up and do what is asked because we like food in our stomachs and a roof over our head and we like to buy 'things'... actually work and 'earn'' things.

 

The amount of people standing in line with their hands out is appalling! :o

 

..and to think of the Govn't taking over another 20% of our economy is enough to make most thinking people ill......