IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

You're still using ad hominems without addressing what he said. Your point of argument is baseless without proving him wrong.

Exactly which assertion are those?

This is absolutely no different than current health insurance. Not even a little. The idea that the 'advisory board' won't be answerable to Congress is a joke, there's no proof that is true.

The idea that the government is 'asserting power' over physicians is a lie. It's no different than how private insurance companies decide what they will and won't pay for.

These same people would be dead or dying without the Medicaid in Maryland. I haven't seen any actual credible evidence that rationing will be a real problem under this bill; this is an assertion, not a fact.

I think this is written by someone who can't remember what it's like to be young and has no clue what they are talking about. Also, there is no explanation of what the 'hidden taxes' are.

None of this also speaks to the 'deficit-neutral' nature of the bill. The fact that taxes will be raised to pay for it doesn't make it add to the deficit.

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

This is absolutely no different than current health insurance. Not even a little. The idea that the 'advisory board' won't be answerable to Congress is a joke, there's no proof that is true.

It's up to you to show us how congress will control this "advisory board?" Assuming they will control them is not good enough.

Quote:

The idea that the government is 'asserting power' over physicians is a lie. It's no different than how private insurance companies decide what they will and won't pay for.

If the Advisory Board can limit medical services or drugs based on their assumptions, who will have the power to refute this board?

The bill will extend Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level individuals that will lead to rationing. In Maryland, 17,000 Medicaid patients are currently on a "waiting list" for medical services.



These same people would be dead or dying without the Medicaid in Maryland. I haven't seen any actual credible evidence that rationing will be a real problem under this bill; this is an assertion, not a fact.

Now, you agree that there will be "rationing?"

The mandatory purchase of health insurance under the bill will create havoc, because it won't take long for younger-healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay the $750 tax rather than the $5,000 premium. There are also hidden taxes for those earning less than the $250,000 Obama says will not be taxed.


Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

I think this is written by someone who can't remember what it's like to be young and has no clue what they are talking about. Also, there is no explanation of what the 'hidden taxes' are.

So, it's your contention that all young-healthy Americans will opt to pay the $5,000 insurance premium over the $750 penalty? Exactly, where do you get your info?

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

None of this also speaks to the 'deficit-neutral' nature of the bill. The fact that taxes will be raised to pay for it doesn't make it add to the deficit.

If the "extra taxes" collected by the wealthy goes to pay for health care, what happens to the ever-growing federal deficit? Who's going to end up paying for both>?

A member of congress says that the Advisory Board will not be accountable to anyone. Do we believe you or a member of congress?

It's written by Tom Coburn, a practicing physician for 25 years.

I don't care about motivation; I care about learning facts. Your ad hominems do not address the issues raised by Coburn. This is your chance to educate us about facts and evidence or rational reasoning.

You say Coburn is out to defeat health care reform; I am too based on the fact that I see nothing in the current bills that will provide for cost savings - that will make it cost neutral.

Adding 30 million more patients cannot be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy while our country's deficit continues to grow.

That's not an acceptable trade-off. I still haven't seen the amount of tax revenues that will be collected to pay the premiums/subsidies for the 30 million more patients, and what the actual cost will be.

Here are some more "claims" made by WSJ in their Opinion section:

"Congressional Democrats have loaded up their health bills with provisions raising taxes on the middle-class by stacks and stacks of dimes. And Senate Democrats on Tuesday made clear they won't be bound by the President's vow: 54 voted to kill Idaho Republican Mike Crapo's amendment to strip the bill of taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and individuals earning less than $200,000. new levies on small business (many of which file individual tax returns) that don't offer health care to employees; new tax penalties on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts; and higher taxes on medical spending, including restrictions on medical itemized deductios...." "...by 2019 more than 42 million individuals and families - 25% of all tax returns under $200,000 - will on average see their taxes go up because of the Senate bill."

My question: where are the savings coming from?

So what did Dr. Mengele claim that refutes Coburn?

I'm not interested in "that kind" of challenge. Go masterbate by yourself.

He's an asshole who contributes nothing to this debate.