Knightheat says:

#20 is right. Why should I be out trying to live my life making a profit? I should let the government tell me what to do and give me a place to live, food, and shelter in return. Wanting more than that is just GREED. Right on #20!

J says:

It’s not about profit or greed it is about excessive profit and excessive greed at the cost of peoples lives.

What all the dipshits on the right don’t seem to realize is that they are already paying for all those that don’t have health care. Just because it isn’t in the form of a “tax” doesn’t mean it isn’t costing you just as much or more. Why not insure them and let them get primary care so that they don’t end up at the emergency room where it cost 100x what it would have if they had instead treated their illness at the early stages. If you are a conservative and looking to lower costs you should be in favor of the public option and health care reform.

The same goes for education and prison. It is much cheaper to spend more money educating someone all the way up to a PhD. than it is to keep them in prison for 20 years because they decided to earn a living the only way they know how.

Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

#21, You sum up the insurance industry position well…insurance company profits are far more important to most US citizens than reasonably-priced health care.

/sarcasm

While I’m just as much about profits as any Republican, applying that to certain essential industries is asinine.

chmilar says:

Rep. Weiner gives a good example of how easy it is to pwn the Fox News Droids.

First, he knows they cannot do much beyond repeating the Fox News Talking Points. Second, he learns the Fox News Talking Points. Finally, he makes sure he has good rebuttal to each Talking Point.

You can see him listening to how each Talking Point is spun out to him, and then he simply has to present his rebuttal, adjusted slightly to address the spin on the Talking Point.

The only difficult part is to stay calm and assured, while also making sure not to be shouted down or bullied. And he does that very well!

Jmrouse says:

#26, so you are under the impression that all health care should be/is dealt with at a hospital level? Was about preventive care? What about someone with diabetes that needs long term health treatment and consultation? Regular doctor visits. Things a hospital is not and should not be taxed with providing. It’s ignorant to say this is a solution and means that we provide healthcare for everyone already.

MikeN says:

So how much are insurance company profits, and how much is spent on Medicare?

Cursor_ says:

This is the republican’s method of reforming healthcare:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Now let’s look at that.

How does buying health insurance across state lines from the same companies that sell insurance in most states and then refuse to pay for many medical procedures help?

To me, these companies already get our money. And many times deny payment for one reason or another. They HAVE to do that as it cuts into profits if they pay out too much. They know the way to keep a balanced budget. You take more in than you pay out.

Good for business, bad for human life.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

Sounds promising doesn’t it. But as someone that has been in large corporations that cut their budgets by negotiating low health care costs at the price of providing less coverage with higher deductibles; I don’t buy that “communes” of individuals, small businesses and trade associations will be enabled to make group options any better than the present big boys that do it.

Again it is still going to the same companies in place that provide insurance. So really all it does is ADD to the pool.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

I see. So the federal government is not trustworthy nor fit for the duty of providing health care for the nation; BUT states are. When many states are looking for the federal government to bail them out in their deficit spending habits.

Does anyone know what specious means?

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued

In 2007, 3% of all suits filed against a doctor ended up in court. And of those 17% ended in the plaintiff’s favour.

Now that’s 17% of 3%. I’ll let you do the math.

Why then is physician insurance so high? Maybe it is because those insurance companies are running their profitable organisations the way healthcare insurance companies do?

So does anyone feel they will get better and affordable healthcare if doctor’s don’t have to pay high insurance and we keep going to the same people that sell insurance now?

Anyone?

Cursor_

Misanthropic Scott says:

#32 – Olo Baggins of Bywater,

MikeN, that’s not a good comparison…what you want is total premiums paid compared to actual healthcare payouts, and total Medicare funding vs actual healthcare payouts.

Excellent point, but not the whole picture. You also have to add in that statistically medicare has far sicker patients, being all over 65. So, certainly the payouts are higher. But, with medicare for all, we’d save money by getting the government into insuring some of the healthier population and thus insuring a statistically healthier bunch than they do today.

aslightlycrankygeek says:

Why is everyone acting like he beat them in a debate? He answered most questions with questions, and the ones he did answer were not really compelling, but seemed to be answering a completely different question. He is obviously good at debate, and sounds good, but if you are really focusing on the question and hoping for a real response, you will not find it.

For example, he is comparing the public option to the government paying insurance companies. Is anyone proposing this? Why is this used for the comparison? The real point the other people were making was that Medicare is going bankrupt and we can’t afford to pay for it now, so how can we afford to pay for it if we expand it to everyone?

If you do not want the government taking over even more of the GDP, you don’t want to have to pay higher taxes, and you don’t want our country even closer to bankruptcy, Democrat shills like this are going to do nothing to convince you that this is what you need.

Stephanie says:

Our Weiner beats your Boehner.