A question for conservatives on health care reform?

Question

I understand your argument. "The money's not there", "we can't afford it". I get the fiscal standpoint. My question is, why can every other industrialized nation in the world afford to cover everyone? And why lie about the healthcare systems of those other nations? People live much longer lives there, a much lower infant mortality rate. The scare tactics just aren't true. So what, just don't fix healthcare? Keep letting it cost a fortune and eventually bankrupt us?

Conservatives, I'm ready to listen to your ideas and the ideas of your representatives in congress, but right now all I'm hearing is that the president is Hitler somehow and that "he's a liar" and that you're "angry". Can I hear some of those ideas now?

Answer 1

take the waste and profit out of the current system and bingo, it's affordable.

Answer 2

This bill HR3200 seems to me at least has been read by way to few people. To summarize it up it is not reform in the least but a bail out for insurance companies and the pharmaceutical ones as well. To think that the conservative people of this country don't want to see people be covered and live long lives healthily and so on and so forth is preposterous! First we have to discover why is health care so expensive how is it this country had one of the best most affordable health cares in the world, to what we have now? Governments intervention into the health system, take a look into HMO's this very same "reform" was suppose to lower the cost of health insurance and more people would be able to afford it and live healthier lives! We'll it worked at first, but after a while the quality of health insurance deteriorated and the cost became more while preventive care was being depleted. So reform is not adding a whole bunch of new government programs and regulations but depleting the programs and unnecessary regulations that destroyed health care in the first place

Answer 3

Every other industrialized nation can afford UHC because they pay an exorbitant amount in taxes. Most of the Western World is also far healthier than the US, and so the system isn't crippled with chronic illnesses and overdiagnosed "syndromes."



But money aside I still do not support Obama's compulsory health care. Here's why:



#1. It will dictate to doctors what they can charge. What is the incentive to learn new techniques? Where is the incentive to become a doctor at all when you know that you will spend most of your life making pittance, trying to dig yourself out of debt from your student loans. As it is right now, it takes most doctors 10+ years to pay them off. Yet more rubbish from the government who seems to have no qualms with living in the red.



#2. Now the government is deciding which claims qualify. If a multi-billion dollar industry denies 45,000 people into the grave each year, why would our bankrupt government be any more magnanimous. Additionally, now the government knows many private details about your health. What's to stop them from using this to their advantage? What happens when a known political dissident applies for a heart transplant?



#3. If healthcare is free, what is the incentive to get healthy. Patients are unlikely to curb their overuse of ER clinics and dependence on prescription drugs if the government is simply footing the bill, so healthcare costs are actually likely to rise.



#4. The healthy will have to burden the costs of the obese (1/3 the country), smokers (1/5 the country), and various other ailments that arise from lifestyle choice.



#5. Because of #4, the government is then likely to pass greater restrictions on things such as fast-food, cigarettes, alcohol, even tanning beds leading to a reduction in personal freedoms.



#6. In most countries with socialized healthcare, the wait-time for any procedure is astronomical. If you have a hernia, you may be waiting three or four months (in which, depending on your profession you may be unable to work) for treatment because your claim has to go through so many channels before it is approved.



Oh yeah. And we can't afford it.

Answer 4

Well... first off those "other industrialized nations" aren't doing all that well either.. they have serious problems fully funding the program... and don't tell me you haven't heard of problems in those systems. And the supposed longer lifespans and lower infant mortality have more to do with life style than any benefits of "health care" The Government health care that we have now is in severe trouble and is on the verge of bankruptcy... there is no denying that fact

Secondly, the largest problems with our currant health insurance system are directly caused by Government Mandates (both State and Federal) and an out of control Tort system. (which also effects a vast swath of commerce) Addressing those problems would go a long way towards reducing the cost of insurance and therefore making it available to a much larger percentage of the populace.

Coverage of the indigent could be handled separately.

Answer 5

This is America: the land where you are on your own--in exchange, you don't have to pay huge taxes like so many citizen of other countries. I have to say that the health care system in Germany and France have worked since I can remember(my mother was from France, my dad from Germany, I grew up over there). There were flaws, there was abuse--but no citizen ever went without--it is practically the law over there that you must have insurance--and if you are well off you can opt for private insurance. The bottom line is that Americans don't know what amount of taxes Germans pay: if you are low income it's 25%, middle class 33% and higher, upper middle class to rich: a whopping 56% of your income goes to the government. The benefits the people get in exchange are great: health care, night and weekend medobile medical service, free education(yes, even in Universities),excellent public transportation-the works.It's a matter of prioritizing. The GOP had been running this country often enough to implement a health care system that worked--but their priority was money-big money. Supposedly tax credits to big companies create jobs--a joke, because the jobs pretty much went overseas, to India,Africa, or the Phillipines.Obama's priority is the American worker--and so the GOP is crying now that we cannot afford it--we really can't, not after the GOP ran up the deficit like crazy. But guess what? If a health care provision similar to European ones will get implemented, it will pay itself. If you work overseas, you have to pay 1/3 of your health insurance, the employer pays 1/3 and the government pays 1/3, in addition, if you get sick or have to go to the hospital, you have to make a co-payment--which is usually 27Euro in Germany. Dental care is included in this. Yeah, I can hear them cry that Germany or France have "social" medicine--however, France is ranked as the number ONE when it comes to happy and healthy people--all with their "social" medicine.

Supposedly the GOP wants "real" reform. A lot of people have made that statement. My question is: can we really afford to wait any more? We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not have health insurance for all, the pharmarceutical industry is running the show here, prices for insurances went through the roof already, deductibles and exclusions everywhere--and people die because they cannot afford to get treated. I know someone who had a massive heart attack and no health insurance. She went from a "full of life" person to a totally subdued one. On top of that, the government tried to deny her disability. She can't work any more, she can't pay the horrendous bill(over 100.000 dollars), and she depends on getting disability to be able to get treatment. None of those who oppose a health care program for all has ever been in such a situation or ever been without insurance. I paid on my son's surgery for years and years--because the insurance company denied him insurance due to "pre existing" health issues. The money wasn't the issue, the insurance companies were the issues. So I'd like to tell anyone who opposes a health care program for all to figure out how they would go about saving their child if that child was denied health insurance--or figure out how they would get life saving treatment if insurance just dropped them to save money. It doesn't take much to look at it from a different perspective--and so I say: Obamacare is better than nocare!!

Answer 6

First of all... If that is all you have been hearing then you are NOT listening! They can provide this by taxing the people at a MUCH higher rate than we are. Their life expectancy is higher than ours because they do not have their youth gunning each other down in the streets EVERY NIGHT! The average gets lowered dramatically when teens and 20 year olds die on the streets in masses! Infant mortality is higher because of drug addicted mothers... and in many cases these are children having children! Most of those going bankrupt because of a health issue are already in over their before the medical issue... it is gust the straw that breaks the camels back!

Answer 7

Your question begs a different branch for every sub question under it. FORGET about all those other country's, your just gonna get pro's or con's endlessly, moot topic. So let me begin by saying again that 80 - 85%of American households do not want Obama coverage, they can't possibly all be conservatives,but they are all in a democratic Republic & should be listened to and considering their numbers and the fact that this current White House dismisses their voices IS something for alarm. Didn't Tony Blair say A simple way to take measure of a country is to see how many want in and how many want out. Now I don't know if this quote originates with Mr. Blair or if he simply was repeating it, I do know that it's truth is hard to deny ESPECIALLY when applied to the USA.. The insults are on both sides. We have made our voices heard it is up to the PRESIDENT to come up with a plan that will be acceptable to all, so far he has chosen to ignore us. YOUR question should really be directed to him. MR. PINK have you checked out the ghettos that are sprinkled across nearly every city in the US? THAT is the product of liberal handouts , THAT is how your liberal friends inslaved an entire class of people in return for votes and allegiance to the Dems. Tell if you will the plus side of that situation? I dare you to tell me of other country's around the world that that consider 'Ghetto's ' as helping the poor. You can't, because there are checks and balances and work ethics and accountabilities considerered, REGARDLESS of race.( and SWITZERLAND IS a shining example of that) The LIBERAL left ( not the Conservatives)would consider it an violation of rights or Racism were these standards to be enforced. So your complaint is with whom?

Answer 8

The Px,insurance,and medical companies are being paid off with money belonging to seniors.you will be prohibited from buying foriegn Px drugs.You will be forced to buy insurance or pay a fine.businesses will recieve tax credits to drop existing coverage to go with govt run healthcare.........republicans are angry because we are called racist,and we should not question obama's authority.we are also called obstructionists.it is not just about health care.obama has taken over other industries as well.This is about" We the people".Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because of the freedoms and control we as americans are giving the govt.The govt cant even run walter reid,F.E.M.A.,social security,not to mention katrina.Yet,liberals want the govt to have more power and responsibility?Dont you think they should earn that trust?how long have we watched the govt loot our economy by shipping our jobs over seas,not securing the border or imigration reform. I am ok with universal health care.just not through the govt.Why cant 46 million americans pool their money together and create thteir own insurance coverage matched by donations,grants,and charity?

Answer 9

Based on what you said in your faux question--I don't think you understand anything nor are you willing to listen. Until you can prove otherwise, calling others liars doesn't work. This bill doesn't address the real issues, it overwhelms the system and advocates more control over every aspect of your life-not the least of which being how much of your paycheck you take home. Instead of you making random blanket generalizations, how about you prove to us where this so-called reform actually works? It seems to me you have adopted the useless comeback of "Well...do you have somethng BETTER??". Since WHEN do you accept the worst possible option of something simply because nothing better (in your opinion) has been presented? That's childlike logic. Think....this is your future. Well...at least it's MINE, and that of our children, and well...



It's apparently up to the rest of us to care about it since so many of you are still stuck on "I know you are ....but what am I" Pee Wee Politics.

Answer 10

It is NOT the resonsibility of a nation to " cover everyone's " health insurance premiums any more than it is a nation's responsibility to " cover everyone's " life insurance premiums or disability insurance premiums or auto insurance premiums, etc.



FYI - It IS ridiculous to believe that, as Obama claims, Obamacare will render REDUCED health care costs with BETTER quality medical care for 47 million MORE patients with far LESS Physicians than we have now.



Does ANYBODY really believe that, as Obama claims, " We can pay for this health care reform bill just by trimming waste from Medicaid and Medicare " ?



Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the Federal Government MUST pay for health insurance premiums for people who , unlike the majority of working stiffs in Amerca, are too lazy and too shiftless to pay for their OWN health insurance premiums.

Answer 11

A bad bill is a bad bill no matter who presents it, this is a bad bill. It doesn't even come close to addressing the problems and the long term cost keeps growing. The fact is the plans proposed in this bill do not solve the problem at all, is it too much to ask for a plan that is going to actually solve the problems?

Answer 12

When every other industrialized nation is run in the vein of socialism, where sales occur only twice yearly and opportunity is nearly non-existent for entrepreneurs, I question the validity of their healthcare systems, particularly that of our neighbor, Canada, who sends their citizens to our hospitals for the pure advantage our free market offers over their very closed market.

When we are talking about less than 10% of the population being in question, the fix is not one that affects 100% for the sake of that 10%.

Fixing insurance and the billing methods is perfectly fine with me, but you all have to stop believing that Obaama is the first one to come up with EMRs and other things he touts as his own. He's no genius, he's no doctor.

Answer 13

There is no viable argument on the conservative front. They just can't stand the idea that some very few people will get something for nothing. That's it. That's their whole problem with social programs in general. People getting something for nothing. They think that as soon as you put out the opportunity for people to get help, they'll abuse it and never stop. They also believe all the crap stories about ''Europe'' (I love that one, as if it were all one country with the same government). It's socialism, communism, it doesn't work, people aren't free... crap, I've lived in the US half of my life and in various European countries the rest. It works great. There are a few cases in countries like Sweden, who I'll admit have gone too far with social assistance, but you can easily look to so many other good examples of the system working great. Switzerland being my favorite example. Very conservative, highest salaries in the world, one of the best education systems, one of the top 3 health care systems, plenty of social programs that are designed with checks and balances to prevent cheating, huge military... the list goes on. France, Germany, the UK, Denmark, Norway... and that's just in Europe.

I appreciate their consern over money, the deficit is staggering, but not insurmountable. It's just sad. Conservatives are doing more harm than good on this one.

Good luck getting an intelligent answer out of them.



Wow Frederic, I stand corrected, although I doubt you're a republican. Well put.

Answer 14

First, i circulate to could call you on your mindless repetition of left wing lies and propaganda. "exploitative industry that places revenue over human beings's lives" - the U. S. medical coverage industry has an properly-known income margin of two.2%, which makes medical coverage the 87th maximum worthwhile industry in the U. S.. I guess that may no longer something that liberals went around telling human beings.. became into it? - US inner maximum coverage companies have been much less in all probability to reject costly cures than the two medicare or properly-known wellbeing care structures from the two Europe or Canada. back, no longer something that liberals informed you approximately.. huh? they do no longer look to be precisely the evil, grasping bastards liberals cause them to out to be. what's the conservative plan? For starters, we could examine why the value of wellbeing care is so intense. that's not coverage companies ( see the two.2% income margin ). Obamacare does no longer something to lessen the value of wellbeing care, no longer something. All that's doing is shifting the burden of paying for it. reckoning on which estimate you circulate with 10% to 20-5% of the value of wellbeing care is at as quickly as regarding courtroom situations. merely approximately each and all the money from those courtroom situations finally ends up in the wallet of legal experts, no longer quite each and every person who actual suffered any medical malpractice. you prefer a place to initiate.. that's it. Cap malpractice courtroom situations and/or cap the quantity a lawyer could make from one in each and every of them. Liberals flat out refused to

Answer 15

They can't and are cutting it particularly on the old.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html



In addition, our infant mortality rate is because we are next door with a porous border to countries where many have little prenatal care and our immigration posture rewards those who come across the border about to give birth by awarding housing benefits, food benefits, medical benefits and subsidized education for the children. This situation doesn't exist in Europe. Other countries don't 'clock a child in' to the system for tracking until the end of their first year. Further, looking at Denmark is like looking at Maine. Could Maine have universal health care? Probably. The US is a very different story.

Answer 16

We don't need GOVT to offer us a plan, what we need is GOVT to just step in and fairly regulate the Insurance Companies. Cut down the High cost of premiums and cut down the high cost Doctors have to pay for Malpractice Insurance. Govt doesn't have to show a profit(as we all know), so how can Private, profit based Insurance Companies compete? Just make the Insurance companies play fair across the board and leave the Govt Insurance alone.

Answer 17

You might want to listen to some other sources of information, as it sounds like you're only getting one side.



Here's reforms that I support that make health care more affordable and available, and save, rather than cost money.



1) Open up competition by removing laws that restrict interstate insurance sales. There are 1300+ health insurance companies in America, but if you live in California, for instance, you can only purchase insurance from 6 of them due to state law. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and should exercise that power. If Obama wants more competition, why doesn't he support this reform?



2) De-regulate health insurance so insurers can sell a wider variety of policies. Right now, every state has strict guidelines on what care insurance has to cover. As a result young healthy people can't buy high deductible, catastrophic only policies. Millions of the uninsured are just those kind of people who don't want comprehensive insurance. Having catastrophic only coverage means you simply pay out of pocket for routine stuff like doctors visits and routine prescription drugs.



3) Expansion and improvement of health savings accounts, wherein people can use the saved money to either pay for health care costs directly, or buy insurance of their choice, rather than choosing only among the insurance provided by their employer. This would also sever the tie between employers and insurance, as the employee would own the policy and keep it if they leave their job. The HSA would add a free market element to health care purchase decisions that would lower costs.



4) Medical malpractice tort reform. By some estimates, the annual cost of MM liability insurance, and defensive medicine practiced to avoid lawsuits costs as much as $200 Billion a year. One suggestion is to set up a medical malpractice arbitration fund paid for by a tax on insurers. Potential claims would be adjudicated by medical experts, and law suits against health providers would be illegal. The current system is basically a jackpot system that funnels a lot of money to trial lawyers.



5) Make all health care expenses tax deductible, not just when paid for by an employer, when they exceed 7.5% of AGI.



6) Administer govt run health plans like medicaid and medicare through tax credits that allow seniors and poor to go out and buy their own policy rather than being stuck with the one policy offered by government. For those of you in Rio Linda, a tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A tax credit is available to anyone, not just those who owe taxes.



My suggestions, don't cost anything, in fact they save money and get more people covered. One problem with health insurance, be it government or private is that a third party is paying for your care, so you have no incentive to shop around for a good deal, and providers have no incentive to become efficient. Just look at the cost of treatments like laser eye surgery and plastics surgery that aren't covered by insurance. That surgery has improved, and come down in cost 80-90%. Had it been covered by insurance, Lasik surgery would probably still cost $5000 per eye.



Obama and Democrats don't support any of these reforms. Not one of them. It is Democrats and Obama who simply want to expand the status quo.



Again, you need to find a news source other than MSNBC or whatever source it is you're currently using. You're being misleading with your life expectancy claim. It is a fact that if you exclude deaths due to accident and homicide and causes not related to health care such as lifestyle and diet, the U.S. has the highest life expectancy in the industrialized world. There are also significant differences in how different countries define "live birth" which explain your purported higher infant mortality rate in the US.



The Obama plan does nothing to control costs and thus will certainly lead to rationing of care like is found in every country with national health care. Health care is not a right, and the government providing health insurance is clearly unconstitutional, per Article I, Section 8 which clearly spells out which powers are given to congress, and the 10th amendment which makes it clear that powers not specifically delegated to congress fall to the states or to the people.



Let freedom work in health care and you will see great things happen. I'll finish by sating that when Medicare came into being in 1965 it was estimated it would cost 12 Billion per year by 1990. In actuality it cost 108 Billion that year. Keep that in mind when you think about avoiding bankruptcy of the country and its people.

Answer 18

Your question is valid and you make a good point. Many conservatives complain about the health care plan, but fail to bring about any ideas on what can be done to let it rival even some third world countries health care plans(some of them have it better than many Americans when it comes to down to it).

Answer 19

Let's put it in terms you might understand.



Children: Mamma... we want some toys. Children need toys.



Mamma: Yes, I know they need toys but we don't have the money to pay for them right now. Maybe we can fix some of your old toys.



Children: NO--every other kid on the block has new toys, so we demand it.



Mamma: Where am I going to get the money?



Children: I don't care about that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Answer 20

Why do people from other countries with socialized health care, that can afford it, come here for a major operation?

Answer 21

other industrial nations don't spend as much as the US does on foreign relief, the United states government spends more on others health care than it does on it's own people....did you know that you can get "free" US government health care if you move to parts of africa?.....

Answer 22

Why ? Inferior health care...and you are made to believe they love it...as they flock to America to save their lives.

Answer 23

Theres more to the issue than just the cost. Theres the issue of freedom, of privacy. And the issue of the government screwing it up. Its bad enough as it is, but bringing government into the equation can only make things worse for us, not better.



"And why lie about the healthcare systems of those other nations? People live much longer lives there, a much lower infant mortality rate."



We dont lie. It has to do with their culture, their diets, etc. Not their health care system.



U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One



American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.



American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.



Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.



For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596



_______________________________



Prostate cancer deaths fall four times faster in US



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/prostate-cancer-deaths-fall-four-times-faster-in-us-810380.html



_________________________



And here's our ideas:



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html



That's when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying -- a copy of H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the health care bills -- there are more than 30 -- proposed by members of the Study Committee.



Why use the props? "To say in a quiet and respectful way, 'Here are our ideas,' " Price says. "To say to the president, 'You're not being honest with the American people when you say that there haven't been ideas put forward, and that you've listened to them, because you haven't.' "



____________________________



A search of the LexisNexis database of newspapers, magazines, television programs and major blogs finds about 3,000 mentions of the major House Democratic bill, H.R. 3200, in the past six months. (Those are just the stories that refer to the bill by its House number; there have been thousands more stories referring generally to the Democratic legislation.) A similar search found 60 mentions of H.R. 3400, the Price bill.



Another Republican bill, H.R. 2520, the Patients' Choice Act, by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, received 12 mentions in the same time period. And two other bills, H.R. 3217 and H.R. 3218, the Health Care Choice Act and the Improving Health Care for All Americans Act, by Rep. John Shadegg, together received 20 mentions.



The virtual embargo on reporting Republican legislation has allowed Democrats and their allies in the media to keep up the "Republicans have no plan" attack.



_______________________________



Just for the record, in case you want to check them out, these are the bills proposed, so far, by Price and his allies in the House: H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.



"It's frustrating," Price says. But Republicans believe that in the end, the public won't buy the administration's line. "The American people are smarter than that," Price says. "They know there are alternatives out there. That's what August was all about."



____________________



Mr. Pink writes: "They think that as soon as you put out the opportunity for people to get help, they'll abuse it and never stop."



Gee, now why would we think that?



[WI] Still Paying Toubled Day Care Provider (Your Tax Dollars at Work!)



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2343870/posts



"I've lived in the US half of my life and in various European countries the rest. It works great."



No it doesnt. Even the europeans are admitting it.



"There are a few cases in countries like Sweden, who I'll admit have gone too far with social assistance, but you can easily look to so many other good examples of the system working great. Switzerland being my favorite example. Very conservative, highest salaries in the world, one of the best education systems, one of the top 3 health care systems, plenty of social programs that are designed with checks and balances to prevent cheating"



Lie. Health care fraud occurs in Switzerland as well as all other European countries:



Healthcare Fraud: Auditing and Detection Guide by Rebecca S. Busch



(Health Care Fraud In Interrnational Markets)



"Switzerland, known for its watches, had providers sanctioned for billing 30 hour days"



http://books.google.com/books?id=A5tuFffBGQYC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=switzerland+health+care+fraud+-obama+-tax&source=bl&ots=7zFg_OOAtw&sig=QYJL-rwohlqgAElLjw3ozX4Ya7A&hl=en&ei=d2m2StvlDJ-F8QaXzrGtDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=true



"huge military"



The Swiss, a huge military? Thats laughable.



"the list goes on. France, Germany, the UK, Denmark, Norway... and that's just in Europe"



A failure everywhere its tried.

Answer 24

Then call Pelosi and tell her to stop blocking the republicans voices and bills.

Answer 25

Youth and inexperience, you only believe what you want to hear....

Answer 26

Hi Hooper. Good question, I respect your civil and reasonable presentation of the issue. I decided to take the time and write a detailed answer because your question warrants more then most I have seen.



One Conservative point of resistance about national health care would mean more big government. FDR started a lot of socialism which included social security. This was started as a trust, and it was changed over to a portion of the general budget to fund LBJ's war on poverty and Vietnam. The Trust originally was loaded with cash from the decades of payments after WW2 during that burst of economic growth and high employment rate. Congress took that trust money and spent it, it's gone now. For awhile they were handing out 4 year college degrees with that retirement/safety net fund. This is but one example of why Conservatives do not want government involvement with their health care... Health care is a mater of life and death sometimes for themselves and their children. So, the government being responsible is not going to happen. A new political wind blows into congress every two years: This creates political instability and abuse.



The next point is "why can every other industrialized nation in the world afford to cover everyone". Norway's health care is really good, but they are paying for it by the huge amounts of funds coming in from their offshore oil sales. The other countries have a socialist economy, ours is based on capitalism. Hence, a problem. England has had to resort to taxing the pensioners, which means their retired people. They are socialists and have run out of really rich people to tax. Margret Thatcher said “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”, (paraphrased). See the first link.



I heard that socialism is just the next step toward Marxism and then onto communism. I can see that in theory, but Europe has had it for generations and there is no sign that their socialism has started to progress into communism. What it does create is stagnate economic growth. Greed is an important part of progress, be it individual people or an economy. The incentive of working hard and being smart gets stripped away when what extra we make gets taxed away and given to people who take advantage of the system. Aesop's fable "The Grasshopper and the Ant" has a significant human nature attached to it, and socialism removes that incentive.



Conservatives see socialism encroaching on our American way of life, and it is coming from the left. We are becoming a welfare state, much like that of known socialist countries who have nationalized health care. It is not fair that what we work for gets taken away to pay for people who would rather make babies and live in government subsidized housing at the working peoples expense. It just isn't fair.



So, I believe that national health care is likened unto the Alamo, the last stand against socialism. Just like the Alamo where the Texans were out numbered and out gunned, we Conservatives face the same daunting fight because of a filibusterer proof liberal congress. Conservatives can clearly see the folly in trusting the US government to care for the people. The spirit of Conservatism is self reliance, not government reliance. The government takes our spirit of work, self reliance and independence and uses it against not only us, but and the nation's well being too. When so many people have their hands out to take from the government, it is a rot within our society. I think things are coming to a head.



Scare tactics and lies: The world health organization has rated the US lower then some other industrialized nations. We have a diet of Doritos's .and McDonalds, so people living longer based on that is probably true especially the oriental countries whereas their diet would make the Surgeon General envious. Our higher Infant mortality has to be connected to diet, but also realize that many US people will choose life of a fetus when it is known that the child will die later on due to birth defects; these folks believe that child deserves all the life that is allotted to them. Many other countries do not have our sense of morality about abortion, (our meaning a substantial amount of people). So abortion rate comparison has not been done as far as I know. This reduced defective fetus abortion in the US would be a contributing factor to our higher infant mortality rate.



The spiraling costs of health care: This is true. There are many reasons, one would be that there is an entire industry based on suing health care providers. The next direct consequence is unnecessary medical procedures to avoid being sued. And the following consequence to avoid being sued is the substantial amount of time physicians spend documenting and doing legal paperwork to help in their defense in case they get sued. My mom went in for a hip replacement and there was something like a short novel's worth of paper to sign in many places, otherwise no surgery. Then with that huge volume of paper is the storage and filing costs to keep all that paper for many years. Imagine how much paper a hospital has to keep from one years worth of procedures?



Then the hospitals and doctors have to absorb the costs of no payers and pass that onto the people that do pay. free emergency rooms for one and all! Free clinics paid by tax dollars to assist the hospitals from some of that burden of their ER being used as a primary care facility.



These listed reasons for the high cost of health care is not all encompassing. There is more, but for the sake of the length of my answer that will be it.



People do suffer under the existing situation. In the 80's I was working for a small shop and they had a group plan. I came down with a condition and they legally dumped the whole shop. I was left with no health care insurance due to pre-existing conditions since Lincoln National was able to bail from their agreed responsibilities. Not fair.



Senator Clinton did try do get national health care, but it was voted down. She did say taxes would go up and I respect her for her honesty.... But that honesty doomed her plans. Mr. Obama (meaning him and his alliance) is trying to get national health care now, but he has a different strategy.... misinformation and disinformation, in other words lying. I know you did not want to hear that, but it is true. There was a huge uproar about including illegals in the national plan, so they dropped it. Obama's solution is to legalize the illegals to include them in the health care reform. A bit sneaky and underhanded way to do it.



Conservatives do not trust Mr. Obama. He wants to socialize health care and will keep working on the angle until he can find just the right form of disinformation to get it.



There is one solid point that very few Conservatives have been talking about. Lawmakers have exempted themselves and their political allies the unions from their health care reform bills. Would that not raise a red flag for any rational human being? Lawmakers exempting themselves from the very law they create? Is it no wonder that Conservatives do not trust Mr. Obama and the 111th congress? I do not know if the lawmakers have exempted themselves from the new flavor of bill, but the very idea that they would equates directly over into the realm of "weasel".



You said the Conservatives say: "he's a liar" and that you're "angry". Yes, both are true. Mr. Obama does lie, and the liberal media does support him doing it. He promised a transparent government where all bills would be presented to the people prior to congressional vote. The stimulus bill passed into law, unread by the people and congress. Pelosi added 300 pages to the climate bill at 3AM for the next day's vote, it passed unread by congress and the people. Mr. Obama (his name includes his alliance) buckled away from our people paying for the including of illegals, but will make them all legal to include them. Is that not trickery? Disinformation? And hence lies? Yes.



Yes, we are angry... but for me, I'm not really angry at Mr. Obama and his alliance because they are simply pushing what they believe in. I am angry at the liberal lapdog media that promotes anything he has and presents him in the best possible light. I am angry that people actually believe everything they hear from Mr. Obama's lapdogs. I have watched other media sources and they are right in some respect, but they leave out key bits of information that transforms the story into something entirely different.



I make some Conservatives mad at me because I agree with national health care, but I do not agree with ObamaCare. I have tasted the insurance greed sting first hand. Lincoln National took me on per their agreement, something came up and they dropped me because of a medical condition.



From a businessman's point of view, I look for efficiency and cost cutting. The 31 more government bureaucracies for ObamaCare is ludicrous. We have health care processing insurance companies already, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Give them a flat percentage for their fees and a bonus if they have efficiency, and then get rid of the profit base from the health care insurance industry. Make it a single payer. Include the unions and the lawmakers in what ever the people have. Lawmakers can't have any extra little gravy bits that the people can't have. No illegals and no law suits. Nationalized health care must be tied into a constitutional amendment to avoid distortion by future lawmakers like what happened to FDR's social security Trust Fund by LBJ. All this equates to affordable, efficient, fair and no new taxes.