Anger, Lies, and Misinformation...

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
the government can't run anything, why would h.c. be different.

And you can't stop defense spending, that's absurd--which is why Obama won't do it.

the government can't run anything,

yeah, Im pretty sure the police in the US is crap, as well as other authorities.
The US army as well, its the worst I've ever seen.

you can't trust the government with anything.

you can't stop defense spending

Im not saying you should stop, Im saying you shouldn't spend so much.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
the government can't run anything, why would h.c. be different.

And you can't stop defense spending, that's absurd--which is why Obama won't do it.

I'm sure that various terrorists and other enemies of the US want to attack us eventually, and if our government (which "can't do anything" ) can't effectively prevent and defend against this, we are in BIG trouble.

So I ask you, why can't the government run anything? What has changed since the days when government was able to put a man on the moon? Do you have any answers? Because if we don't address this, we may eventually be the United States of Taliban.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I'm sure that various terrorists and other enemies of the US want to attack us eventually, and if our government (which "can't do anything" ) can't effectively prevent and defend against this, we are in BIG trouble.

So I ask you, why can't the government run anything? What has changed since the days when government was able to put a man on the moon? D ...[text shortened]... ers? Because if we don't address this, we may eventually be the United States of Taliban.

I'd like to think NASA had something to do with putting a man on the moon.

I'm talking about the red tape, wasteful spending, inefficency, etc that a government run entitlement program would suffer from--this goes for any program...not to mention one as enormous as insurance 300+million people.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
I'd like to think NASA had something to do with putting a man on the moon.

I'm talking about the red tape, wasteful spending, inefficency, etc that a government run entitlement program would suffer from--this goes for any program...not to mention one as enormous as insurance 300+million people.

so you think the government wants to takeover the industry?

Originally posted by generalissimo
so you think the government wants to takeover the industry?

of course they would run a universal health care program, who else would?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
of course they would run a universal health care program, who else would?

having a free option doesn't mean you take over the whole industry.

the people who are already insured will remain with their insurance untouched, correct me If Im wrong.

Originally posted by generalissimo
having a free option doesn't mean you take over the whole industry.

the people who are already insured will remain with their insurance untouched, correct me If Im wrong.

govnt will have to manage, run, and pay for it.

Originally posted by generalissimo
having a free option doesn't mean you take over the whole industry.

the people who are already insured will remain with their insurance untouched, correct me If Im wrong.

Private insurance that doesn't comply with the specifications laid out in HR 3200 would be phased out.

HR 3200 does amount to government take over of the industry. Maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

Then again, maybe healthcare is one of the few examples of an industry that ought to be run by the government. (As you pointed out, police and military are 2 other examples.) I don't really know.

But the "choice to remain with your current insurance" is misleading. It only applies as long as the insurer changes NOTHING about the policy. Effectively, all non-complying private insurance would be phased out within a few years.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
I'd like to think NASA had something to do with putting a man on the moon.

I'm talking about the red tape, wasteful spending, inefficency, etc that a government run entitlement program would suffer from--this goes for any program...not to mention one as enormous as insurance 300+million people.

and NASA is part of the government

and I'm sure the NASA bureaucracy was and is not immune to red tape, wasteful spending, and inefficiency -- but somehow they managed to make things work

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
govnt will have to manage, run, and pay for it.

what, precisely, do you mean by 'it' in that sentence?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
and NASA is part of the government

and I'm sure the NASA bureaucracy was and is not immune to red tape, wasteful spending, and inefficiency -- but somehow they managed to make things work

are you really comparing advances in space technology in the 1960's to running a healthcare program for over 300 million people?

I'm not being literal when i say they can't run it, but it would be a nightmare.

Originally posted by sh76
Private insurance that doesn't comply with the specifications laid out in HR 3200 would be phased out.

HR 3200 does amount to government take over of the industry. Maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

Then again, maybe healthcare is one of the few examples of an industry that ought to be run by the government. (As you pointed out, police and mili ...[text shortened]... cy. Effectively, all non-complying private insurance would be phased out within a few years.

Perhaps it's time to start thinking more about the uninsured in America, and a less about these poor multi billion dollar companies who might lose a little market share. Is the fortune 500 THAT imporntant to you??

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
are you really comparing advances in space technology in the 1960's to running a healthcare program for over 300 million people?

I'm not being literal when i say they can't run it, but it would be a nightmare.

So what can the Japanese do that Americans can't?

Originally posted by bill718
Perhaps it's time to start thinking more about the uninsured in America, and a less about these poor multi billion dollar companies who might lose a little market share. Is the fortune 500 THAT imporntant to you??

So take care of the uninsured at the expense of the rest of us hard working Americans who are currently paying for their own insurance coverage? My "multi billion dollar ins company" loses market share and then raises my premiums.... Im sure that's fine with the uninsured unemployment waif whose is sitting on his couch playing xbox, and waiting for the government to provide him insurance, while i'm working (or posting on rhp...) and paying for my health care. It's the provide me a hand out mentality of the dems that will be their eventual undoing.

Originally posted by bill718
Perhaps it's time to start thinking more about the uninsured in America, and a less about these poor multi billion dollar companies who might lose a little market share. Is the fortune 500 THAT imporntant to you??

What?

Where did I say anything that, in the broadest or most remote sense possible, expressed sympathy for Fortune 500 companies at the expense of ordinary people?

I corrected an incorrect perception that the government would not be dictating care under HR 3200. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I think you are projecting views on me to make my position appear less sympathetic, rather than facing the substance of what I said head on.

What I said in substance is that 2 of the assertions of your OP are inaccurate. If you disagree, fine. Tell me why. If you acknowledge that what I said is valid, then also fine. There's no need to concede anything if you don't want to.

But don't tell me that I said that Canada has a poor healthcare system or that I value the fortunes of multi-billion dollar companies over the uninsured. I simply never said or implied any such thing.