Interesting. Thank you.

Thank you, but I didn’t ask you to play back what it is that you think we lefty liberals want. I asked you what you want, or are you okay with the present situation?

I asked for what your solution is to the problem, not another ad hominem recitation of what those evil leftie Dems are gonna do.

As I’ve said before, I believe that within 10-20 years (more likely sooner than later), everyone will have Medicare. That program already exists and merely need be expanded to cover everyone (including aliens, if the Dems have their way, not only citizens) and absorb VA, Medicaid, Indian Health, etc.. This is probably going to be done when most people see no other logical alternative. (What if more and more genes that predispose people to various diseases are discovered and eventually testing for these are required by insurance companies, with exclusions for conditions associated with whatever genes are found present in individuals?)

Then we will be exchanging the current set of problems we have (insurance company games and lawsuit abuse) for others (bureaucracy and likely, still, lawsuit abuse). We may or may not reduce overall costs initially; eventually costs will rise and health care will be rationed.

I can think of nothing more worthy of serious debate that health-care reform, so I’ll take the bait.

Might I humbly suggest that it is you, in this instance, who want the debate to be framed in a way complimentary to your preceonceived notions while not even bothering to rouse yourself to debate?

As it is, my post goes after Republicans and Democrats alike with special scorn for a Democrat — Hillary Clinton.

I praise the bi-frickin’-partisan compromise hammered out by Romney and the opposition in Massachusetts.

I suggest, while acknowledging the shortcomings of my own arguments, that a near-universal plan is probably the best option under the circumstances.

So let’s hear your specifics to counter my specifics, rather than tiresome left vs. right blather.

If the present system works for you, please advocate why it should not be changed.

If there are aspects of the system that do not work for you, please advocate why they should be changed.

And if you do not believe that Americans are entitled to health care even if it means that taxpayers have to underwrite that care, please explain why.

Bring it on, gang.

If the debate would stop being framed this way and instead be framed in a positive and constructive manner

and in a rational, and in an honest manner …

we’re waiting for the lefties to start doing this.

US vs. THEM

The debate always falls along this line: Social Welfare for America is great and Anyone and everyone who works in the health care industry is evil naer do wells who want to bring about the downfall of America at the expense of little children.

This is hogwash. If the debate would stop being framed this way and instead be framed in a positive and constructive manner in which perhaps millions of people do not lose their jobs. Millions do not loose a good portion of their savings on failed investments in insurance and hospitals and hmos. Millions are not adversely affected but instead they are not affected at all. While:

Millions more are taken care of, given insurance or access to medical care that they can afford then this will be a win win situation for America.

Framed in a positive context it has a great chance to succeed. However as long as it is framed in this overwhelmingly negative and adversarial context…….Good vs. Evil there will never be a solution.

When Democrats and Republicans and their respective supporters learn this lesson then perhaps something will get done in this country. Until then…….no matter who the democrats put in the White House if anything is rammed down *throats* the other party will just stand up and stop it as they always have.

I have seen nothing that actually talks about changing the delivery of health care other than making careers in health care less appealing and maybe off shoring the pharmaceutical industry. . All of the discussion has been on how to maximize the number of people who do not have to pay for health care will minizing the total number of people who will actually be net payers.

Of course, the real question is why does a family of six who makes $55,000 a year need $50K in subsidies to live in the bluest city in one of the bluest states.

I also find it odd that the moderateview has reached doubled digits in the number of posts about free money for the middle class while ignoring the news stories about immigration. How does the left propose to have a massive welfare state while maintaining open borders and unlimited immigration. Do they think that upper middle class whites will compliantly pay ever increasing taxes to fund a welfare state that seems to benefits illegal immigrants and flower children.

If people get the same standard of living being a flower child or working nights, weekends, and holidays in an emergency room, they why would anyone every want to work in an ER again?