DarkAztek

To be completely honest, I'm not long sure as to why people actually don't like the Obamacare piece that was written up. I understand that a lot of misinformation has been spread but, if you read it, the thing sounds pretty good to me.

Required reading: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/health...healthplan.htm

So. What do you guys believe? Is anyone actually against it? ...WHY?

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

RNB

Wait, aren't the rich still going to be paying for most of it? If so, I am completely against the bill. Plus, the nationalization of health care will limit competition because the price for the care will pretty much be the same.

And again, the national debt will get worse. They can say that we will be able to pay for it, and we may be able to, but that isn't the fixing the core problem of why we have the debt. The debt is due to a wasted war, bailing out companies, and etc. The debt will only go away if we get rid of our nationalized economy and allow the producers to produce as much as they want. Too many restrictions are on the market right now for insurance companies anyways. That is why the cost is so high.

Also, I don't understand why people are mad at insurance companies. Why should they have to give you health care in the first place? Their goal is to make profit, not to help other people. If we want success in America, it needs to stay that way.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Isomorphic

I would love to read the whole bill all 1000+ pages. I have been looking for a pdf version to dl with no luck. Things of such importance are rarely made public until after passed. Sometimes not until implemented.

My major issue against a "Universal Health Care Plan" is that its not truly Universal. Congress has amended the bill so that its purposed coverage does not apply to them. Basically insuring they(House & Senate) receive a greater quality of care. Which would not be my idea of Universal. They are governmental employees in the respect their coverage is offered threw the system(but still contracted out to a private corp) I would figure them to be at the top of the list, because the Universal coverage would undoubtedly replace what the government currently offers.


1) I assume it will be paid for the same way everything else is through taxes. Which I am fairly certain most of that comes from Lower-Middle to Upper-Middle working stiffs. There are a lot of loop hole's for the wealthiest to exploit to save money.

As far as costs are concerned it says it will cost 2 trillion over 10 years. That comes to 200 billion yearly. Its a large amount of money for sure. By comparison the Iraq war at its peak was costing 2 billion weekly. That comes to 104 billion that would be half the money right there. I agree though redneckboy that it would do little to help our national debt, if we just shift those costs to something else.


2) I believe the reason people are upset at health insurance agencies(Besides the fact 5 of the major ones are owned by the same group) Is its in the "Health Business". As you said they are out to make profit. Peoples health is one of the places were you should not be solely a profit oriented institution.

--

Plus the bill is not designed to cover everyone. It is a supplement to give health care to those that are not covered otherwise. Say if you do not make much money and the company you work for does not offer it. If I was a small business owner doubt I would be eligible for the finalized plan anyhow. Now I offer a Plan to my employees to which I only have a handful but, none of them have opted for it. It is very costly due to the fact My company is so small. It would be cheaper if I had more people working for me.

All in all I think it would be helpful to those who make minimum wage or close to it. In my mind Min. Wage should be just that the minimum amount a person needs to survive. Which is not the case. Especially kids I strongly believe that no child should go without health insurance. the parents financial situation or lack of caring otherwise, is not fault of the child.

__________________

maddog

just like Isomorphic, i haven't read the whole bill yet. so i can't give a very informed comment yet. but pertaining on Health Care, I currently work in the Insurance Industry (Sun Life of Canada, Philippines), so i hope i can give a good argument on that.

health care is something very important. it is a good thing that Obama is giving the people a chance to enjoy it. i have been impressed by the statistics in the US and Canada where they say more than 50% of its total population are insured, both life insurance, and health care insurance (got this in one of Sun Life's seminar). but even with this statistic, i feel sorry for the other 50% who cannot afford to have Health Care and Life Insurance. they get sick too.

the 50% of the population are fortunate enough because they can afford to pay for these benefits themselves. but what about the rest of the people. i think what Obama did is a noble thing and he really tries to look after the lesser fortunate people, and not just the upper crust of society.

i hope that that kind of health care will also be provided in our country. unfortunately for us , only 15% of the total population can afford to pay Life Insurance, and Health Care. some are forced to have health care plans deducted from their minimum wages (some below minimum wages).

__________________


I HATE IT WHEN INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE ...

RNB

What I mean to say is that the health care will come from taxing people more, whether or not they are going to pay for it? If that is true, I am completely against the bill. If it is not true, then I really don't see the need for the government in this sector anyways because all it is is a government run insurance company.

And you base this on what idea? Everything in life should be done so that you may profit from it. It is better to make your own existence better than someone else's simply because that isn't your life. Do you expect everyone to act as though other people should be put first? If so, you expect everyone to take on the mind of a slave.

If you strongly believe that no child should go without health insurance than why don't you spend your life trying to raise money for every child in the world so they can have health insurance? I understand that it isn't the child's doing when parents decide no to pay, but why should every child in the world matter more than your own life?

I am not egalitarian, and I don't believe everyone deserves certain things. I will not help out a child that is of no value to me. If I see a poor child who I think is a diligent worker and such, then I probably would give him some money so that I may reward the good. However, I can't be expected to care about people I don't know.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Isomorphic

Let me say first, I do not mean for this come off sounding like a debate about the capitalist nature or some philosophical standing.(Though you seem very intelligent and I think they would be a awesome discussions to have with you) I feel that they are concepts intertwined with the subject matter.

May I ask would you be in any more favor of Health care reform if the cost did have to be shouldered be the American citizenry as a whole?

I ask because I was crunching some numbers and came up with something and wanted to know what you thought. The government already pays out 800 billion yearly in the form of tax credit to the Insurance companies for providing "Health and Human Services". Now Employee Health Insurance Costs are $1,543 to $3,354.4 yearly (or 3354.4 / 12 = 279 a month in prems, 1543 / 12 = 128 a month in prems.) That comes out to an average cost of 2448.7/year(204.05/month).

My thinking is instead of paying out that 800 billion directly to the Corporations as a tax credit. Pay it to them on behalf of the people. There are 300 million(give or take) citizens of the USA. 800 billion divided by 300 million gives us 2666.6. Which happens to be just about the average yearly cost of a Health plan. The Insurance companies would still make their profit, and people would be insured. Only thing that changes is that the money would make one more change of hands. The cost to you and me would not change because the money is already being payed out.(Note: This is not the solution Obama and his advisers are pushing for)

I agree there is no exception of caring. However in IMO much of the suffering currently in the world. Along with many of the atrocities perpetrated though out history. Have directly stemmed from the "Me First Philosophy". I have always believed that much of what separates us from the animals and makes us Human our "Human nature", and psychological characteristics that all normal human beings have in common Compassion, altruism, or similar positive aspects of the human existence. Unfortunately as you indirectly said there are just as many negative aspects to our Humanity.

I have absolutely no meaningful answer for this. All I can say is every child means more to me then my own life.

How exactly would it be detrimental to your "Life" to care about someone else?

The first part of this also caught me completely off guard and, I find difficult to respond to. Let me try and put it this way. That child you or someone else would deem to be of little or no value. Might be that little girl or boy whom grows up to cure cancer or aids, *perfect cold fusion or invent a method for *frictionless motion(* these are obviously far fetched and just for illustrative purposes). It reminds me of the old adage "Children are our future". The possibility of achieving some major break through, make a kid of limitless value.

To the second part. The first thing that comes to mind is a incident at a Wal-mart. An elderly lady and her granddaughter were ran over on the cross walk right in front of the main entrance. Dozens and dozens of people saw it happen even more saw them laying mangled on the asphalt. No body stopped to help them. Everyone walked around them and went on about their business. The security cameras showed it took almost 5 mins before anyone even stopped to see if they were still alive. The Me First philosophy can quite literally mean an unnecessary and undeserved death sentence for someone.

Does your simple convenience mean more then the life of another?

----

If I may I would like to purpose question within a scenario.

Say a single mother makes 7.50/hour (more then min wage in my state) 300/week 1200/month (before taxes) Now The average for federal, Social security and Medicare withholding is 23%. 1200-23% of its self is 924. I wont even comment on local and state for this argument.

Now in my city the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment is 750 a month utilities not included. Add that with a 200 dollar car payment(a crappy car by the way) another 150 for car insurance. 100 for all utilities (a very conservative number).

750+200+150+100=1200 That is before Health insurance, gas for the car, food, diapers formula ect. 924-1200=-276. That single mother is in the hole -276 and that is before The state and local taxes, not to mention all those other standard expenses for daily life.

This woman is not a bum or drain on the community. She is a tax paying, contributing member of society.

My question is how is someone in that situation otherwise suppose to get Health Insurance for herself and her kid?

Abraham Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people, for the people"

__________________

DarkAztek

Just to stir the shit...

RNB: The problem with private practices running an industry is blatant corruption and false prices. Do you have any idea how much a bottle of pills actually costs most companies to make? It's astronomically smaller than what they charge. Essentially these people are profiteering on the needy. This isn't about WANTING a good prescription, this is about NEEDING one.

The system as it stands now is horrific. Have you ever had to pay your own health insurance before? Ever had to deal with the different companies who have a doctor scrutinize you to say whether or not you are a high risk for life insurance? Guess how much a single bag of saline solution costs? $50. I recently broke some bones and the casts and shit totaled somewhere around $800. Thank goodness I didn't need an ambulance or else I'd be indebted another $1000!

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Isomorphic

^Nice stirring

The drug companies claim that pharmaceuticals can do wonders for people: lower their cholesterol, end clinical depression, reverse osteoporosis, eliminate allergies, calm your children and many other similar promises. But if prescription drugs are so good for people, where are all the healthy medicated customers?

There aren't any to speak of. There's nobody taking twelve prescriptions who has a clean bill of health. In fact, the more prescriptions a person takes, the worse their overall health. And if you approach the healthiest people you can find in a local fitness center and ask what prescription drugs they're taking in order to be so healthy, they'll give you a rather confused look they don't take prescription drugs!.

So how is it that the pharmaceutical industry can be claiming to make people healthier in the first place? And what happened to common sense here? A rigorous scientific view of the whole situation can only conclude that prescription drugs are, in fact, making people sicker. It's like a massive clinical trial, and the results of the trial are rather obvious: we're swallowing more drugs than ever, and we're getting sicker. In fact, the more drugs a person takes, and the longer they take them, the more rapidly their overall health deteriorates


The prescription drug situation

Right now, "prescription drugs are killing 100,000 Americans each year and injuring more than two million." (Those are the statistics I pulled from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and that figure doesn't include the 40,000 or so who are killed each year by over-the-counter pain medications). These are staggering figures it's like having twenty-five 9/11 attacks each year, but instead of terrorists flying the airplanes, it's pharmaceutical company CEOs. There are more deaths and injuries caused each year by pharmaceuticals than in any U.S. war or conflict since World War II.

And yet pharmaceuticals continue to be marketed as miracle drugs that can help people be healthy. But as I've mentioned, there are no extremely healthy people taking lots of prescription drugs!

__________________

RNB

They are concepts intertwined with the subject matter. I am glad you recognized that because most of the US does not.

Yes. One, because the government is not more efficient than the market. Two, because I know the rich will be the ones that will have to pay for it. Three, I have no problem with the present way insurance companies are running things. I do have a problem with the government mandates and such that make insurance companies raise up their prices.

The government should stop favoring certain businesses over others. Providing "health and human services" (human services, wtf?) does not entitle you to any more money than you earn.

The y have not stemmed from true selfishness. They stemmed from irrational selfishness. They stemmed from selfishness that was integrated with religion. They stemmed from selfishness minus they fact that they did not think about their own long term happiness. They only thought about the short-term happiness. They have stemmed from altruism.

I don't care so much about what separates us from animals. I care much more about what will benefit my existence, since I only have one. My life, in a physical and spiritual sense, is my highest value. I do believe that rationality is what separates us from animals. We aren't given instincts so we must use our rational mind.

I will demonstrate with an example. I am an aspiring student who wants to make something of his life. I see a child crossing the street about to get hit by the truck. I save the child, but then I am hit by the truck. That is how it is detrimental to my life. Not just physical, but it also completely ruined my chance of a good existence.

If the child dies I most certainly believe that he would not have cured AIDS. There is no alternate reality. Plus, I could cure AIDS or Cancer if I really wanted to. That child has no more of a capacity to learn, to will, and to act than I. The same goes for you. You have the same capacity as that child to do these things. That child has not proven himself to the world, and you (theoretically) have.

First off, it depends on who walked by. If they valued their time more than the life of two humans who are of no value to them, then they should not have helped them. I would have helped the people not out of self-sacrifice. We all experience the human condition together, so there is a sort of human "bonding." If I was just walking out of Wal-Mart I would have helped them. It would have been due to my Me First philosophy though.

[QUOTE]Does your simple convenience mean more then the life of another?/QUOTE]
If the simple convenience is of more value than, yes. If not, then no.



What does she produce in society? If she just works a day job then I have the same respect for her as I do the other millions of people who do the same and are of no value to me. She could have went big and became successful. She chose to work her day job and be a single mother. In the political arena, she probably is a drain on me because she would vote for more benefits.

The question is irrelevant. I don't care how she gets health insurance. I don't care if she gets health insurance. She can go to charity if she wants. That way, people who can afford to pay for her, will do so voluntarily. Charity can also be selfish. You see someone who could be of value. Pay for their way to college. Then they produce. People who will not produce do not deserve charity.

I could care less about what any American president said. I care about the philosophy.

False prices. I will tell you a false price. Minimum wage. They use force to fight the force that the government imposes on them.

Also prescriptions shouldn't be awarded to people based on whether they need them. They should be traded for aka. you pay for a good prescription, you get a good prescription.

I don't like the current system. The government needs to stop favoring certain businesses and practices, they need to allow the insurance companies to compete. They need to open up that industry to small businesses because right now they have a lot against them.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Isomorphic

^Well met.


Thank you, I am also pleased you understand the "Isomorphism" Between these concepts.


I agree with this 100%


I hate to make such an assumption but, the United States as a hole might not be the right country for you. According to you not every person is entitled to life(specifically those of no value). Which is one of the founding principles "philosophies" to which this country was founded. You hold to the idea that a person of no value to you is meaningless, and thus their life is inconsequentially extinguishable. That sounds very simalir to the fascist structure of thought. Now I admit the the definition Fascism is highly debatable. It is however agreed upon that Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict(whether public, private, national, international, economic, or militarily) whereby only the strong can survive by being wealthy, healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves against those of less value.

Now you have the right to have these beliefs and I will not think Ill of you for them. Because Liberty is another founding principle "Philosophy" of the US Thus you are free to exercise it.

Now about this word Value you prescribe to people. By what process is this value assigned? What exactly is the criteria for moving up from no value? Is there a definitive benchmark for ascending or descending through these values? Where can I find a Pie chart, Bar graph or a spread sheet, that will tell me the worth of my life?(I hope it is not as simple as my net worth) By what standard are we judged? This is vital information I would make public so those to whom will be left for dead, as to not inconvenience the upper echelons. Is the only way these faceless, worthless individuals can be considered to have had some value in their life, is only if they commit suicide therefore freeing up precious resources, for those of us that have proved their worth?

She produces exactly the same as me you and everyone. Paying taxes should be considered valuable. You are looking at the woman as a single entity. If she does not pay her $3300 a year in taxes no big deal right? What if a million people don't pay, or 10 million or 100? Her personal worth should not be calculated solely on such a small scale. It is in conjunction with the larger organism that we all make up.



That "I don't care" ideal could also be harmful to you. By denying someone a basic necessity, thus allowing something bad to happen to them. You may quite literally Limit the number of strings in the fabric of possibility. Through an undetermined amount of degrees we are all in some way or another connected.

Charity: I am not sure what your financial background/situation is like, or the scope of your social network.(Nor would I expect you to elaborate on either) However I use to have a business relationship with the largest luxury home builder in the delmarva area.(Nothing major by any means, I was simply contracted for hardscaping/landscaping services, and to perform Lawn maintenance on the model homes) But during that time(in addition to external research) I noticed a tendency within people that the more money you have the less willing you are to be "charitable" with it. Most specifically in what some would call "Old Money" (Note: this is only an observation) The clothes and toys ect. that fill your local goodwill was mostly donated by the middle-class.(Note: This is a statistical fact)


Maybe im to tired but, I do not understand. Can you please expand on this thought?

Continued in next post....

__________________

Isomorphic

Continued....

First I would like to say I agree with part of this. The system is flawed extremely so. The Federal mandates you speak of that are imposed on a company, increases their operating cost. Thus forcing said company to raise its prices to equal it self back out.

Leaving the market to its own devices however could be catostraphic. Most specifically in the corporate sector to which all Insurance companies belong. A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons who own it or the persons who manage or operate it. The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. The people who own/operate it are not legally liable for any unethical practices they operate by. I do not want rant about my misgivings of corporate America. So I will stay specific to Health Insurance.

My problem with allowing the market to decide. Is the market can not be totally trusted. I will explain why I say the is with a. UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, Cigna. The 5 largest Health insurance companies in the country are owned by the same individual/group.(Many corps. exist only to own other companies thus further distancing the top shelf from and liability). I have no definitive proof that these companies are one in the same. But according to The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers Medicare, and According to Congressional Quarterly HealthBeat News. These 5 separate entities all own shares of stock in each other. There is no competition anymore. Corporate law has created the loop holes needed for Monopolies and Trust's to exist once again.(Albeit under a new name) Opening the door for Price Gouging(which use to be a felony)

There was an investigation into a few of the aforementioned companies. At the center of the investigation is Ingenix, Inc.(which by the way is a subsidiary of Unitedhealth) The nation's largest provider of health-care billing information, which serves as a conduit for data to the largest insurers in the country, including Aetna, UnitedHealth and CIGNA to name a few.

Ingenix was found to operate a defective and manipulated database for most of the major health insurance companies used to set reimbursement rates for out-of-network medical expenses. It was also found that Unitedhealth dramatically under-reimbursed their members for out-of-network medical expenses by using data provided by Ingenix. By distorting the "reasonable and customary" rate, the insurers were able to keep their reimbursements artificially low, forcing patients to absorb a higher share of the costs.

The NY Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, called it "an industry-wide scheme perpetuated by some of the nation's largest health insurers to deceive and defraud consumers."

$50 million will be paid by UnitedHealth which will be used to create a nonprofit organization that will determine reimbursement rates for patients with money due to them. Added to that will be $20 million from Aetna as part of a separate agreement the company has reached with the NY Attorney General.

In addition, UnitedHealth will shut down its medical billing information service and pay $350 million of customer stolen funds to settle class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the American Medical Association, health plan members, healthcare providers and state medical societies.

And these are just the bad practices that have come to light. How many more are still unknown to us? We need more transparency from the insurance industry so we can know how they do business. Allowing them to hide most of their practices behind the veil of 'trade secrets' is what allows such bad practices to continue and why it often takes years to bring any of them to light.

The only way to achieve such transparency is health care reform that guarantees people the choice between a public insurance plan and private plans, along with national regulations that require nothing more than openness from the private insurance plans. A government-run plan that makes all its decisions and methodology open and available for public comment, competing alongside the private health plans, is the best way to drive more accountability in the insurance industry

__________________

Isomorphic

Health care reform won't include a plan to kill the elderly

Some attacks on health care reform are so ludicrous that I hardly think they need response.


There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill or elderly as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from conservatives that Obama would pursue a, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals.

In actuality it would merely provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services. Such as assistance setting up of Wills and Estates.(Something every elderly person should consider) The bill aslo has language authorizing consultations with professionals on whether they would like sign a D.N.R. or to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. All of These consultations mentioned above would be 100% voluntary.

__________________

Miburo

@Shadowwolf-Sarah Palin's blog is your primary source of information on the subject then, I take it? =D

I'm all for this plan. Most non-shitty countries in the world have a government health care system. We currently pay the most for health care (1 out of every 6 dollars spent or some crazy shit like that), which is more than other non-shitty countries pay. Yet our overall health is shittier than most non-shitty countries. You'd figure the people who pay the most would have the best health? Something is fucked up.

Also, I've seen Obama compare it to the post office. It's a good analogy. You don't see people flipping out and crying socialism and shit about the post office, despite the fact that it's a government funded program similar to the proposed health care thing. Really, this health care thing is nothing to get upset about in that regard.

And there is the whole 'shit load of people without any health care' thing. I don't have any health care at the moment, so I personally wouldn't mind an affordable alternative myself. = )

Oh, and good shit, Isomorphic.

RNB

Quite the contrary, I believe everyone has the right to life. However, the right to life isn't just life in a physical sense. It is also life in the sense of one's existence. One has the right to live their own life without having it robbed from them. Where does this right come from? It comes from humans being rational and choosing what is best. Instead of warring with each other all the time we have chosen to give each other rights, or double standards, that make sense for us all in the long run. Every right stems from this right to life.

If you can find a way to get health care to individuals without violating everyone else's right to life, then do it. However, don't cross their boundary. It is better for us all.

I believe that there is existence is worthless. A person who is of absolutely no value is the epitome of evil. It doesn't mean I wish to take away their right to life. That would be irrational of me because then I am saying that I also have no right to life. Therefore, he can take my life on the basis of self-defense and would never be giving up his right to life.

I have a major difference with fascism. Hitler said that people who were not of the Aryan race were evil. I am saying that those who choose to be worthless are evil. The difference is in the fact that I believe people are responsible for their choices. Hitler attacks something which cannot be chosen. I attack something which is chosen. People choose to be irrational and worthless.

Value is based on what is good and what is evil. What is evil is what destroys your life. What is good is what progresses your life. I mean life as in the literal, and as I said earlier man's existence. What is of value to you is what would make your life better. What is not of value is what makes your life worse. Moving up in the scale of value is doing things which progress your life. You have to think in the long term though. Robbing a gas station might help you in the short term, but that money was not earned. Slowly, you would turn into a materialist. Instead, you could earn that money through work. Not only would that money have its material goodness, but also the spiritual aspect of what it is worth. You will be happier in the long run.

The people who I say are of no value are of no value because they do the jobs that everyone else can do and do not create. Manual labor is not a bad thing. There are people who do manual work and are of value to me. However, that is because they put their whole mind and spirit into their work. They produce. They don't just give the minimum. The producers benefit us all. Everyone else is a leech.

Of course, how much value you are worth would be based on a hierarchy. It isn't a numerical value.

They have to make their life truly worth something. They can turn their life around if they wanted to. They just choose to not do so. They ruin their existence when they do this, and ultimately they end up leeching off the producers.

We don't make up a larger organisms. We are all individuals living our own existences trying to make it the best it can be. That is the reality. To form us into a collective is ignoring this. Man is an end in himself.

She might pay taxes, but I would rather not have taxes. I don't want her money and I don't want her to have mine. I want to have money that is earned.

If I am not making as much money as I am comfortable with, is paying some lady's health insurance really in my best interests? Remove "I" and substitute it with the name of many Americans.

The moderated mixed-economy is a huge problem in your observation. Our government gives handouts to companies based upon whether the government wants that company to survive or not. The "capitalism" we have in position does not reward hard work and good business. It rewards fraud, political power, and thievery.

Minimum wage is a regulation our government has put on businesses. The government says that all work should at least be worth this much money (minimum wage). What if the work isn't worth that much, though? What establishes the worth of work? The only objective system is the trade between a business and worker. That way, the worker agrees to a price along with the businessman. Both compromise.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

RNB

They are liable though. If they do something the investors don't like, the investors should pull out.

The second bold statement is how I would address the first bold statement. This isn't a free market at all. The government is running it.

The best way to reform health care is to make the insurance companies accountable. I will agree with that. However, the market should be what controls them. The government should get rid of the mandates and all the regulations it has on the insurance industry. Small insurance companies can't survive because of them. If the government creates a public option, it is already favoring its own business over the other insurance companies. That is exactly what got us into this problem. The only way to fix the health care problem is to liberate the economy.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus