You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
about some real reporting Red Star?????? Did any of your liberal reporters read the bill and apply critical analysis?
I don't know why this article was written. People don't want to learn facts. This is a political issue, not a moral or ethical one.
I just don't think they have the correct package in place. So for me, I think the people who are getting hot about any form of healthcare coverage or reform for CITIZENS are off base. But I also believe that the current proposal needs to go back to the drawing board.
It sounds so fantastic doesn't it? What you need to do is actually think through how the private enterprises will deal w/ A) the tax that will be levied upon that small/large business, should that business opt not to provide health care coverage (HINT: that new tax will not create jobs). And B) Competition in the health care market. The Government has no impetus to make a profit (SEE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY). How long do you actually think any private sector health care company; unless they are given massive subsidies, can fully compete against the federal gov't, who doesn't control costs. The 'business of gov't' is run with ZERO RESPONSIBILITY for overruns, etc. Look no further than Freddie and Fannie for what we can expect(just 2 e.g mind you). WHERE DOES THE FAITH AND HOPE THAT THIS GOV'T WILL PROVIDE FOR US COME FROM? I AM BESIDE MYSELF WITH SHOCK AS TO HOW MUCH GOV'T LIBERALS (AND SOME REPUBS) HAVE BEEN AND ARE WILLING TO TOLERATE.
When the liberal college 'bioethics' professors state that killing unborn children through abortion with taxpayer money is also 'unethical' maybe I'll listen to what they have to say and their political hack views may be valid.
...apparently have bio-ethicists in their pockets too. The Dims took single-payer off the table, just as they took impeaching Bush off the table. Instead of a genuine and visionary health care system, we'll have an AIG/banker-bailout system of 'fiat capitalism'. Throw money at the very people causing the problem. Sounds more like an extortion racket than a solution. What serious bioethicist refuses to bring this up? Arguably both single-payer AND consumer-driven approaches better meet ethical criteria over forced subsidy of the very parasitic anti-industries (health insurance industry doesn't actually treat diseases or offer a service)? But then they're Ivy Leaguers and so their ethics is carefully scoped.
You can tout all the wonderful benefits various European countries have with their plans, but ever single one of them is going to fail as the baby boomers retire. Short of massive tax increases (for countries where the tax rates are well over 50% already), they are going to have to trim services dramatically.
It's ridiculous to say what's "moral" in health care. The current state is immoral? Well at least it's not doomed for failure.
How do you figure? We have single-payer medicare (government runs the pot, individuals see their own clinics), and obviously single-payer military (government purchases armaments, tanks, battleships, etc.). In any case, the Boomers are responsible for most of the troubles in their country. The big question is when they'll stop off-shoring jobs faster than they're retiring -- so the now-middle-aged X-Generation can get a promotion or two, go into management, etc. Maybe the Boomers will create sweatshops of Chinese, Mexican and Indian medical professionals to run off-shore clinics?
It's ironic that you would cite Medicare and the military, given that both are notorious for cost overruns and finding ever more creative ways to waste taxpayer dollars. Medicare fraud itself costs taxpayers about $600-$700 million/year. So tell me how Medicare isn't doomed to fail? Tell me how the same government that runs the bloated Pentagon would be able to provide us with unbloated health care. The truth is they can't. The shining example of this is the DMV. Can you remember the last time you received efficient service there?
Seriously, what is it that this plan is attempting to address? Personally, I beleive that the legislation is addressing what is perceived as an unfair system and are attempting to justify or sell it to the vast majority that disagrees with them on the fairness issue by claiming it will address the cost crisis that most are concerned about.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks