Health Care Bill

[Narei Mooncatt]

Ok, simple enough. Who's for or against the current health care bill going through the U.S. Congress?

To keep it short, I'm against. If I choose not to be insured, I get "fined" by the government. For people to be covered that can't pay, it requires others to have more of their money taken from them to pay for the "zero-liability" citizens (those that either use as much or more in government services than they pay in taxes), putting responsability on one group to provide for another against their will. I can't remember the name of the website, but I heard on the radio there's one out there that went through the proposed bill and discovered that non-U.S. citizens will also be covered, which is even worse. It will effectively eliminate competition because when you put any business against the government in this way, the government will always come out ahead. We've already seen the horrible track record of government funded/ran social progams touted to help us for years and years. Face it, there will be rationing in the government system. In the private sector, you can try many different places if you need help with treatments/bills and "shop" for the best options for you. In a government ran system, you don't have that option unless you move to another country. I've already heard of many small business' (you know, the ones that government always tries to help out?) that are dropping healthcare and/or shrinking their work force *because* of things like this, which means even more people going into the system that can't pay for it.

It's already late for me tonight, but I noticed this topic hasn't been brought up yet and wanted to at least start it and see where it goes. As a side topic, I have another question to those that would support this bill or any government ran healthcare system. Would you also be in favor of "sin" taxes and limits on junk foods, and even limits on healthy foods (since you can just flat out over eat). These would be taxes meant to curb people's eating habbits and more or less force you to eat only a certain kind of food to help promote a better living. This would apply to energy drinks, coffee, candy, soda, anything fried or fast food, and anything else deamed by the government as "unhealthy". And would you also start outlawing bad behaviours like smoking and drinking, promiscuity, etc, because those can negatively affect your health. If they pass this kind of bill, then to be fair, these things should happen. If you're gonna rob someone to pay for someone else's healthcare, then you had better put some terms on the receiver of that care to make sure they are living as well as can be and not being a junky that just sucks money from the system. Of course...you know that kind of policy would never happen.

[CiceroKit]

I am very much for this bill... though it doesn't go far enough. In 2003, I was in a middle-management role at a local paper. One of my co-workers, who btw made the same amount of money as I did, opted not to enroll in the health insurance coverage offered through work. I asked him why. He told me that since our employer did not pay over 80% of the premium, he could get Badger Care (yes, he had kids and we are in Wisconsin). I was appalled! Here was someone who made good money, the same amount as me, and I, as taxpayer, had to pay for his health insurance even though he was offered the same coverage as me. I don't mind footing the bill for healthcare when someone isn't offered insurance through an employer, but as long as the employer is paying at least something towards the premium, the employee should have to take it. We all pay more at the clinic due to people who are uninsured. This bill is a step in the right direction, and it could lead to a better solution. We need health insurance for all. I have had to live without it before, and it is the path to financial ruin my friends. Most of the people who file for bankruptcy in this country do so because of debt incurred by medical expenses.

There are all sorts of myths that right-wing pundits still want us to believe, but the chief one seems to be that there will be a lack of choices or that one will have to wait to see their doctor of choice. My question is this: How is that any different than what we have in place now? I have had to wait and wait, with serious health issues, before I could get in to see my own doctor. I have had a lack in choices because with PPOs and HMOs, your health care provider may not be "in network."

We are the last developed nation to have public healthcare. I only wish this were socialized healthcare or a single payer plan. It is not. The bill is compromised.

BTW, I am in favor of taxes on junk food and, especially, soda. We tax cigarettes to the hilt, but do they do anymore damage than eating high fat, high sugar, low nutrient value food? No. The biggest epidemic we face is obesity. Sweden has done more than applied a sin tax, they have prohibited the sale of certain foods. It would never go that far in the U.S., but I think it should. That is my two cents worth.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I'll give you points for being consistant on agreeing to the sin taxes and such as well. My biggest complaint is the whole rights vs responsibilities arguement that I've used many times in the past. They are trying to say one person has the right (according to Dems, not the constitution) to health care, but someone else has the responsibility to pay for it. And the people getting taxpayer funded care also will not have any responsibility placed on them for their lifestyle choices. You can't have that and call it fair by any means. I've heard the argument about bankruptcy because of health expenses, but you have to look at what's causing many of these treatments. Yes, there are things like cancer and bad genetic luck, and true accidents. But a huge portion of our healthcare costs are incurred by our own bad choices. Be it lack of exercise, eating/drinking too much, and other risky lifestyle choices. We are all taught how to treat our bodies right, but it's still up to us to put it into practice. You can't just say we are lower than other countries in health without looking at *why* we are lacking. Though when it comes to the actual care we can get, I'd want to be no other place than the U.S. to find treatment.

He told me that since our employer did not pay over 80% of the premium, he could get Badger Care (yes, he had kids and we are in Wisconsin). I was appalled! Here was someone who made good money, the same amount as me, and I, as taxpayer, had to pay for his health insurance even though he was offered the same coverage as me. I don't mind footing the bill for healthcare when someone isn't offered insurance through an employer, but as long as the employer is paying at least something towards the premium, the employee should have to take it.

Under a socialized system, you'd still be paying for his and many other peoples care through much higher taxes on everything. I will say his mentality is a major problem in the U.S. Too many of us have become lazy, and will take something they see as free from the government over paying out of pocket anyday. They don't realize that someone does indeed pay for it, and the government trying to right this mentality by offering even more programs doing this sort of thing is counterintuitive at best. I do believe in a state by state way of figuring local social program needs like Badger Care (though I just moved here so I don't know any specifics on how it works), but I say they need to tweak their requirements so people don't see it as an incentive to get on a welfare program like that. If you do make enough to provide adequate insurance for yourself, then I don't think the gov should be giving you a blanket program. Now, how to cover kids is a matter for another debate, since I don't think you should be having them if you can't afford them in the first place.

Now, if you were without health coverage and couldn't pay for something up front, then I would be more "ok" with a system that got your treatment and then deducted later through higher taxes on you personally or lost wages over a period of time. But most places you can find a doc that will take payments over time anyway. 

[Traumerei]

I have not thoroughly examined the health care bill enough to get a decent opinion on it, however... If a citizen is not insured, are we not already paying for their medical expenses, as tax payers? How is this much different from the way it was before? I believe we already offer some sort of health care programs to those who can't afford it, and I know that any physician has to help a citizen in need, even if they can't pay.

[Narei Mooncatt]

How is it different? I'll try to explain it how I see it:

It is known that medical expenses are placed on the consumer to offset the cost of those un-insured and unable to pay. Right now, though, we are free to do as we wish with how we want to cover ourselves. We may not always have the money to do so, but we can do other things like trying to improve our lifestyles. Unfortunately, right now we have people that *choose* not to cover themselves because they know someone else will pick up the tab like in CiceroKit's story. They don't see it as other people having to pay for their care, they just see it as "free care". And as such, there's no incentive for these people to try and live better to limit their health care needs, so they go buy junk food all the time instead of healthier foods. They don't exercise more than their thumbs as it clicks the remote or the game controller.  Those of us that do pay for ourselves (and thus for those that can't/don't as well) can shop around for the best insurance rates, the best valued doctors, can choose the meds we want to take as long as we can afford, and there's inherent cost control on the part of us, the consumer.

But we've become a lazy society. Many people would rather give up their options and just look to the government to put them on a program. Usually, these programs are sold on helping people be more free to do other things and people will fall for it hook line and sinker. When you get put on a government program, you don't get any choices. You do what government allows you to do. You are not more free, but are less free. You've lost more of your independence because you're becoming reliant on government to provide for you. Look at domesticated animals. We've basically bred the survival instincts out of them because their idea of hunting is walking to a food dish. Any time you give more of yourself up to the government, you become more slave to the master. I'd rather live an independent mediocre life than a rich government funded one because the government can take it all away and you're left not able to fend for yourself.

That's also a big reason not to trust government. Are there any federally funded social programs that have actually WORKED? (more localized programs I believe can, but I'm refering to nation wide issues) Look at social security going bankrupt (and just talk to any elderly person about their SS checks and how small they are). Look at the trillions spent to bail out everyone recently. Look at welfare in general. Look at how the government will send millions in aid overseas instead of passing it out here first. Look at universal healthcare in other countries, where treatments are rationed and prices on everything are sky high to pay for it. And then look back to how we as a nation are lazy junk food eaters. The more government offers programs for "free" social services, the more people will take the lazy way out. The more the productive people will have to pay to cover those that don't cover themselves. And with more burdens put on business' to force them to pay more of their employee's care, the more they will start laying off, cutting production, moving over seas, lowering wages, etc. All it takes is a little bit and a little bit there and the next thing you know, you've been domesticated without even knowing it.

Sure, they say you'll still have your choice and will be competitive now, but I bet you that it wont. You can't compete public vs private sector. If the government decides they don't want to pay as much as a doctor or pill company needs to charge to stay in business, they will just pass laws and regulations to either limit their profit motive or limit us, the independently insured/covered so that they can't make money off of us. Rules like saying a doctor has to have a certain percentage of patients that are governmentally covered in some perverse affirmative action type system. Well, if they can't make enough to cover the bills from the undercutting of the government without making regular patient rates skyrocket, then they'll have to shut down and/or go bankrupt.

Let us also not forget that usually when someone tries to rush a deal, it's a bad one. I don't care if it's the President, or if it's the used car salesman. If they're trying to say we need to do something right now if not sooner, then my gut tells me something's up. It's taken us years to get into this quandry, don't expect some magical government intervention to fix it over night. Remember, government has been the cause of a lot of these problems to begin with. And in doing some reading up on this bill, if the reports are correct, it will prevent new Health Savings Accounts. Something I'm vastly in favor in. They allow you to be able to cover your own health care costs at better rates, and lower premiums and remain independent of traditional insurance policies and practices. They would allow you to go into a regular doctor visit and pay cash from your account more or less. This would be in direct conflict with any government plan, so of course they would want to eliminate them.

[Yip]

I haven't read it so I can't speak of this bill in particular.

However, it seems to me that a good healthcare system would be one where for the patients pay less the healthier they are, and the healthcare professionals get paid more the healthier the patients are. For a system like this to be possible, it'd have to be run be a third entity. Therefore in principle, I support the idea of government sponsored health care.

----
Narei: Seems to me that many of your arguments on this are flawed.  First of all, the basic idea is everyone chips in so everyone can afford it. You seem to be apposed to this very principle which makes me wonder, do you support social darwinism? Basically, it's the idea that the rich and powerful in society should flourish while the poor and weak should be allowed to die. If you don't support that idea, then I don't see why you'd oppose the basic principle behind government sponsored health care so much.

Second, your argument about domestication is, as I see it, quite simply a straw-man. There is no reason that this particular thing would lead to people being unable to fend for themselves should they lose it. Things would just go back to how it is now. (now for a topic like say, welfare, I might accept your domestication argument as valid, but it doesn't fit with this issue.)

The funny thing is, the best point I've seen so far against any government run healthcare is what Traumerei said which was, as far as I can tell, not meant as an argument against it. He asked: "if a citizen is not insured, are we not already paying for their medical expenses, as tax payers?".  What I take from this is, if it's true that there is already a system to cover those that are unable to pay, then government run version may not be necessary.  I strongly believe that the government should only exist to do those things that we as individuals cannot. Proper health care for everyone seems to me to falls under this category. However, if those that can't pay are already bring covered, then perhaps government involvement may not be necessary to achieve the desired result.  I can't say for sure as I don't understand the current system enough to know if a government run version could be better.

[Traumerei]

I believe that, as far as health care goes, the government should grant us all basic support. You know, the things that insure we don't die. Since they are already doing this for everyone, there will be little difference if we are all given the same program or not. Like it or not, you are paying for others medical expenses. This matter will not change if the bill passes. Perhaps UHC sounds more socialist than government funded health care for those who cannot afford private health care? I can assure you, it will achieve similar results (aside from fixing some major flaws in the current system, such as limited doctor's visits).

[Narei Mooncatt]

Narei: Seems to me that many of your arguments on this are flawed.  First of all, the basic idea is everyone chips in so everyone can afford it. You seem to be apposed to this very principle which makes me wonder, do you support social darwinism? Basically, it's the idea that the rich and powerful in society should flourish while the poor and weak should be allowed to die. If you don't support that idea, then I don't see why you'd oppose the basic principle behind government sponsored health care so much.

I don't support that idea, and I think you're stretching what I said too far. While it may not be the best possible system, as it is right now we can still get treatments even if we can't afford it. Be it through payment plans over time, charity, or absorbed costs paid by others (similar to how a store has to include a bit of profit margin to cover a certain amount of theft). And as I mentioned in my post, I do support localized programs that are not federal programs because it's not forcing people to pay in to it without an out (such as moving), and I believe that you can better judge your needs at the local level instead of some buerocrat(SP? I just woke up XD ) in D.C. or some regional office how to dole out helathcare. If you don't like a federal program, tough luck buddy, because you're locked in whether you like it or not. The arguement for this system saying that rationing wont happen is a lie. Now, if one place can't help you for whatever reason, you can try another. If the government is in control, they're gonna judge your treatment based on cost and how much success there may be. It could take away the right for a 90 year old person to buy a med if they wish to extend their life another 6 months because it's too expensive. We place a high value on extending the life of sick people, which is something I'm proud of and don't want taken away.

Second, your argument about domestication is, as I see it, quite simply a straw-man. There is no reason that this particular thing would lead to people being unable to fend for themselves should they lose it. Things would just go back to how it is now. (now for a topic like say, welfare, I might accept your domestication argument as valid, but it doesn't fit with this issue.)

First off, how many government ran programs have you seen where they went "Well this isn't working, let's go back to the old way for now?" I haven't seen that, only "we need to throw more money at it is all." Now, re-read what I wrote about domestication. I didn't say we are fully domesticated. But look at how much control we've given over to the government already and how massive a shift this will be as well. Domestication doesn't come in one fell swoop. It comes little by little so that the masses don't even realize it's happening. Take our public school system. You're basically being put in a government run education system which has the risk of simply indoctrinating you to believe an agenda, which makes it up to the parents to insure their kids are learning properly. Parents now days don't keep an eye on things as they should as it is. We take public education for granted, but it wasn't always like that. That was another step towards domestication. Once you start down a path, the next step doesn't seem any worse at all. So you take it. Same with the next, and the next, and the next. That's what's happening with the Liberal government. Only they seem to want to run full steam at it.

Like it or not, you are paying for others medical expenses. This matter will not change if the bill passes. Perhaps UHC sounds more socialist than government funded health care for those who cannot afford private health care? I can assure you, it will achieve similar results (aside from fixing some major flaws in the current system, such as limited doctor's visits).

This is why I prefer HSA's. When you have the leverage to go in and pay cash for a doctor visit, you can get quite a discount. And if for whatever reason you want to go to another location and pay them for care, you can. You'd have a better way to shop around for what's best for you. Effectively it would cut out some of your "paying for others". Given our government's past ability to not be able to run a simple social program for it's life, I would disagree with you saying it would achieve similar results as it does now, because I haven't seen anything they can show to prove their spoken intentions. I also look at how other governments run their systems and how medical tourism is nearly an industry all its own as people come over here to get needed treatments because their own government has determined it not to be cost effective or you're likely to die on the waiting list because the line for treatment is so long. For the sake of argument, let's say this does go through and it starts out with similar results. Do you honestly think it'll stay that way?

Look at how money is allocated and used by the feds. Social Security goes into the general fund, so they can take it out and use for other things. The highway trust fund is millions short because they've basically stolen from it to fund non-road projects (the highway trust fund is where your fuel and road use taxes go). Bugets always run over and projects are behind schedule. They've thrown trillions out in bailouts in poor judgement (and illegally if you ask me) only to see many of these companies still go under. Based on that, I'd expect no different from a UHC policy. I would expect them to either rob other funds to pay for it, rob from the UHC fund itself to pay for other things and/or rationing and extreme cost cutting that can lead to lower coverages and longer wait times for treatments. And when they see it not working, they'll try to reform it and throw more money at it, taking more from the productive people in the form of higher taxes instead of giving it back over to the market.

[Yip]

Narei: Seems to me that many of your arguments on this are flawed.  First of all, the basic idea is everyone chips in so everyone can afford it. You seem to be apposed to this very principle which makes me wonder, do you support social darwinism? Basically, it's the idea that the rich and powerful in society should flourish while the poor and weak should be allowed to die. If you don't support that idea, then I don't see why you'd oppose the basic principle behind government sponsored health care so much.

I don't support that idea, and I think you're stretching what I said too far.

I'm just trying to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to the basic idea of everyone chipping in so everyone can afford it. Being able to opt-out completely undermines this principle.  I asked about social darwinism because it's the logical extension to what you were saying: those that can afford health care shouldn't have to pay for those that can't. In other words, those that can’t should have to fend for themselves.  I didn't really think you agreed with social darwinism (or at least I hoped you didn't), but it is the logical conclusion to what you were saying. Which makes me wonder if you’ve thought this through completely.  I don’t mean this as a personal attack or anything, but your arguments seem to be all over like you are just throwing out any argument you can think of whither it’s sound of not and your arguments don’t seem to make a lot of cohesive sense.  Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but it makes me suspect that you greatly afraid of government control of anything.

The issue should be looked at in it's own right and not fearing that it's part of some government take-over conspiracy.  The question is, in an ideal system should the government support basic health care.  If so then that's the path we should take since we should always aim for the ideal even if will never truly reach it.  This seems to me like the best way to make sure no one ever has to go without needed care.

I'm sure we can both agree that a government is necessary for the country to function. And I agree with you that our government does far more than it should. And yes this is something to be concerned about. However, that in itself is not a good reason to oppose government sponsoring something where there is no other good way to achieve it.  For example, should the government control the military? Yes, because it’s the only way it works effectively.  I believe basic health care is the same way. If there is a better way to ensure basic healthcare for everyone that doesn't require the government, I'm all for it. But that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing for.
 

Second, your argument about domestication is, as I see it, quite simply a straw-man. There is no reason that this particular thing would lead to people being unable to fend for themselves should they lose it. Things would just go back to how it is now. (now for a topic like say, welfare, I might accept your domestication argument as valid, but it doesn't fit with this issue.)

First off, how many government ran programs have you seen where they went "Well this isn't working, let's go back to the old way for now?" I haven't seen that, only "we need to throw more money at it is all."

The domestication argument implies leading the people towards being too reliant on the government. Whither or not the government is unlikely to abandon a failing program is completely irrelevant to this point. The question is whether the people are willing to abandon it if it's failing. As I said, there is no reason this would lead to people being unable to fend for themselves should they lose it. Whether they are unlikely to lose it is irrelevant. It still shows that the domestication argument doesn't apply to this issue.

It also seems to me that you take this as all or nothing. Either the government completely controls all aspects of health care or it controls none. That seems very unrealistic to me. I see no reason why there wouldn't be any middle ground.  I support the idea of government sponsored basic health care, but not beyond that. The government sponsoring basic health care will make sure it's available to everyone. How else could this cover everyone if it's not federally sponsored? You support local programs because people can opt-out of them. But that's precisely the problem with them: they can never be all encompassing to provide basic coverage for everyone.  As I said, being able to opt-out makes the very principle behind it break down.


Now, having said this, I do find it likely that a government sponsored program may be, at least to start with, implemented poorly. But that doesn't change the fact that being sponsored by the government is probably the best the way to make sure everyone is covered.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Maybe if I explain a bit more where I'm coming from, you'll understand my arguments better.

• I believe the government should be able to make regulations (i.e. set safety standards) that we abide by.
• I believe in helping my fellow man, but I don't believe I have the right to *FORCE* anyone else to do so even if I think they should (which is what the government option boils down to and my biggest beef against these types of plans)
• I believe giving donations to charities instead of government allows said money to be used more efficiently because they are the ones truely doing it for nothing more than the goodness of their hearts
• I believe that if you rely on a government to run such a program, they will be more concerned with dealing care to get more votes and be overall become less efficient
• I believe when you force someone to pay for someone else, it is giving the receiver a free pass because we wont/can't force them to change their behaviours. And the people having their money taken from them will not get so much as a thankyou.
• I believe that our government has a very poor track record and that an "ideal" system would be anything but except to those that are receiving their benefits with nothing required in return
• I don't see this as a massive conspiracy, and I do think people wanting this are wanting the best. I also believe that the masses are gulable, seeing this as an easy out by the smooth talkers in D.C. that do suffer from delusions of granduer
• I believe in competition, and thus a pull-out option. Without that option, the people *can't* abandon the program as you suggested if/when it fails. Just look at the potential better returns if Social Security was privatized and how quick the politicians were to tuck tail and run from it. It would be giving more independence to the people if it passed.
• I believe it wrong to force companies to incure more costs that will in turn result in lesser wages/benefits/employees under the guise of helping said employees. It's already happening, and will continue to do so the more these plans are enacted.
• I believe that we have signifigant proof that the feds can't run a massive program like this based on their track record and that many of them were sold in the same way: That it would lower our costs/burdens and help us all.
• I believe the Healthcare industry needs a massive overhaul but I think we should first fix the known problems (such as frivolous lawsuits and overbearing doctors insurance and regulations) and take a more hands off approach so the market can correct itself
• I believe that if the government breaks it, then the government shouldn't try to fix it

Hopefully that helps you and others understand my debating more. Sure, we may all get healthcare under this plan, but I don't think it will be *good* healthcare.

[Yip]

...Without that option, the people *can't* abandon the program as you suggested if/when it fails.

When I said that I was illustrating why your domestication argument is invalid. For the point I was making, it's irrelevant whether or not the people are able, but only whether or not they are willing. Whether they are able is essentially restating that the government will not abandon it. And that says nothing about whether or not it leads the people to domestication.


As to your objection to "forcing" people to help and them being able to opt-out, should people be allowed to opt-out of paying taxes?  For example, I've never personally needed legal services and yet a portion of my tax dollars go to funding the legal system. Should I be able to opt-out of this since paying taxes and being forced to chip in to cover these costs is equivalent to being forced to help others that benefit from the system?

[Narei Mooncatt]

First off, I want to clarify something else about my views on localized programs. I don't just prefer them because you can move away from them and opt out. I also believe that you get more efficiency with localized programs. You've got local people making decisions about things that matter to them and has a more personal touch (especially at the city level). Who tells the low end worker how to do his job better? His direct boss, or some 3rd party orginization that sees him only as a number and an expense? While not a direct comparison, the idea is the same and it's too late for me to think of a better one. 

Now, back to Vararam: The way a program like this with no opt-out option is a step towards "domestication" is because once it's in place, the later generations start to take it for granted. To them, it's always been there and always will be there. At some point it will become less of "giving in" and more of "why work for it when I can get it free", and then expecting it as if it's the only thing to have and willing to fight for this supposed right. Exactly how long that takes is a matter of debate, but it *will* happen. Take drivers licences or even the internet for that matter. Many people see these as rights and that they are owed them, but in actuallity are only privlages you have to work for. Even better: Public Education as I mentioned in an earlier post. That is not a right, but has been going on long enough that the masses can't afford private schools (usually seen as the best education) because that money is being taken via property and local taxes to fund the public one. And to make matters worse, most places don't allow vouchers to shop for the best school for your kids. If you're stuck in an underperforming school with bad teachers, you can't go to a better one of your choosing unless you're rich.

In regards to opting out of taxes all together, that is flawed by definition. Everyone knows and is universally agreed that to have a functioning government, we have to pay for it through taxes. Even the most anti-tax people would agree to that. It's how much and what it's used for that is the problem and I agree that we pay in too much and the government spends too much already. Speaking of your legal argument, we are promised by our constitution specifically the right to a fair trial. Yes, you can try to defend yourself in court, but I'm sure you've heard the phrase "A person that serves as his own attorney only has a fool for a client." When it comes to court cases, you need someone that knows the laws regarding your situation. And I suspect that the amount used for funding public defender attorneys is far down the list of government spending. It's definately not 1/5 of our economy as most anylists claim healthcare is.

[Yip]

...And I suspect that the amount used for funding public defender attorneys is far down the list of government spending.

For clarification, I said legal system. That's far more than just the public defender attorneys. It would also include everything from judges salaries to upkeep of the courthouse and so on. At any rate, whether it's a large or small percent of the total doesn't change the concept I was illustrating. And this was meant simply to illustrate that we already do this (chip in so all benefit) for some things. You can site reasons that the legal system is necessary, but that just goes to show the point I was making: sometimes being "forced" to chip in so that all can benefit is a necessary and good thing. Perhaps where we disagree is that I believe basic health care should classify as a necessity, the same as basic legal protection and a host of other things.

You say opting out of taxes all together is flawed be definition, but being forced to pay taxes is by definition being forced to chip in for the benefit of all, which you seem opposed to. I'm simply pointing out that this is not always a bad thing. (I used the opt out of tax example precisely because I don't see how anyone could honestly think that taxes aren't necessary at least on some level.)

As for drivers licenses and the internet.... first of all I don't see where the internet is at all relevant. Secondly, drivers licenses, are you saying you think they shouldn't be government controlled? How would that possibly work?  And honestly, so what if people get used to having basic healthcare available even if they can't afford it. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

My main objection to your arguments is that you throw out all these complaints, but complaints do no good unless a better way to achieve the result is found. As I said I'd be all for a non-government solution, but I don't see how that'd be possible and still allow for everyone to receive basic health care.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Perhaps where we disagree is that I believe basic health care should classify as a necessity, the same as basic legal protection and a host of other things.

I do think healthcare is a basic necessity, but I don't think it's something that should be left up to or mandated by government, just as buying food or housing.

You say opting out of taxes all together is flawed be definition, but being forced to pay taxes is by definition being forced to chip in for the benefit of all, which you seem opposed to. I'm simply pointing out that this is not always a bad thing. (I used the opt out of tax example precisely because I don't see how anyone could honestly think that taxes aren't necessary at least on some level.)

Agreed, but you use the benefit for all argument. In the legal system, the courts et al are open for anyone to use when/if they need. Please explain how the people paying for the proposed health coverages are benefiting when that money is going to cover people that are not paying for it? All they have is an extra bill, so it is *not* a benenfit to all. Only some at the expense of another.

As for drivers licenses and the internet.... first of all I don't see where the internet is at all relevant. Secondly, drivers licenses, are you saying you think they shouldn't be government controlled? How would that possibly work?  And honestly, so what if people get used to having basic healthcare available even if they can't afford it. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

The net is relavent to the comparison that over time, people will consider things they take for granted things that are common and confuse them with being a right and that everyone should have it when it isn't. Of course Licenses should be government controlled for a host of reasons. I said it was a privilage, that doesn't mean government should be hands off. If people get used to this program, then other people that *can* afford it will move into the system. Hannity did a report yesterday on how Hawaii had a similar program for children and about 80% of the people on the plan were people that previously had coverage paid for by their parents and it was canned 7 months in to it due to the fund being crowded out. Mass I believe is another state that went to socialized type care and last I heard they were suffering budget issues and doctors were moving out in droves because it wasn't working. If this goes national, this is what we have to look forward to, and when people get used to it, they wont prepare for paying their own coverage. Instead, they'll whine and complain and demonize rich people even more and want more of their money to prop it up again.

My main objection to your arguments is that you throw out all these complaints, but complaints do no good unless a better way to achieve the result is found. As I said I'd be all for a non-government solution, but I don't see how that'd be possible and still allow for everyone to receive basic health care.

Just because something may not be the best, doesn't mean this drastic of a change will be better. I think the proposed system will be worse and I would prefer our current system over it. So really I don't have a burden of suggesting a better way. I did already make a comment about some adjustments to the current system that I do think would make it better. Adjustments though, not an overhaul.

[Yip]

Agreed, but you use the benefit for all argument. In the legal system, the courts et al are open for anyone to use when/if they need. Please explain how the people paying for the proposed health coverages are benefiting when that money is going to cover people that are not paying for it? All they have is an extra bill, so it is *not* a benenfit to all. Only some at the expense of another.

First if all, I can't speak about the proposed bill specifically because I as said I haven't read it. I'm talking about the idea of government sponsored basic health care in general here.  Second, the system I envision would be available to anyone that needs it, just like the legal system is there for anyone that needs it. Most of us will never need it, but we all pay into it so it's there just in case we do. It's exactly the same thing. The system I envision would be a safety-net, and that safety-net would be there for anyone that needs it. You talk as if the government is specifically going to find some deadbeat and assign his bills to you. That's a gross over-simplification of the system, much like explaining the big bang as everything just poofing into existence.

The net is relavent...

Since you were arguing about people becoming too reliant on the government, no it's not relevant. It's not even close to relevant. As an example of how people can become used to things: ok, sure. As an example of being domesticated: not even close.

Of course Licenses should be government controlled for a host of reasons.

Very well then. So you admit that even if a system may lead to "domestication" as you claim, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented.

Just because something may not be the best, doesn't mean this drastic of a change will be better.

As I said, I haven't read the bill, so I can't say for sure. It's possible after reading it that I might agree with you. I generally don't support major shifts in the law without having an understanding of what they are really doing, even if I think the basic idea behind it is a good one. I know that all too often they'll tack in crap that has no business being there. (in other words, I wouldn't support this bill specifically until I've had a chance to look it over.)

[Narei Mooncatt]

The system I envision would be a safety-net, and that safety-net would be there for anyone that needs it. You talk as if the government is specifically going to find some deadbeat and assign his bills to you. That's a gross over-simplification of the system, much like explaining the big bang as everything just poofing into existence.

I like the idea of a safety net, but in the proposed system, richer people would be double paying. Once in taxes for the "safety-Net", and again for their own private care that they would more than likely use. Those in the middle that can afford their care are more likely to drop it and rely on the safety-net when they didn't really need it, which puts a bigger burden on everyone. No, the government isn't going to intend to make me pay for a deadbeat's bills, but this is the U.S. government we're talking about. The plan in general is likely to be riddled with in-effeciencies, corruption, and people on it that shouldn't be. Again, just going by what I've seen with government ran programs, I will be skeptical of *any* plan that allows people to get benefits because of the chance for corruption (not just political, that is).

The net is relavent...

Since you were arguing about people becoming too reliant on the government, no it's not relevant. It's not even close to relevant. As an example of how people can become used to things: ok, sure. As an example of being domesticated: not even close.

The argument I was making with the net comparison is that how people can first become used to things, then they come to rely on them (for whatever reason but is the natural progression), then they come to think of them as a right that they are owed by default. The net isn't seen as a right by the majority of the people, yes, but there are those that think it is. This particular point seems to not be going anywhere and the licensing one is the more relavent of the two.

Of course Licenses should be government controlled for a host of reasons.

Very well then. So you admit that even if a system may lead to "domestication" as you claim, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented.

No. A licence doesn't domesticate you, it helps you be more independent. You have to get a license because it's proof that you've taken the proper course to know the rules of the road and how to safely drive a vehicle (true, following and doing is another story) and also registers you into central databases so that you have a trackable record to allow past offenses to be seen and help deal punishment if you're in the wrong. Domestication would be the opposite, where everyone could drive by default and then government coming in and putting blanket restrictions on everyone limiting when, how fast, where to, how many people in a car, etc. We do need things like speed limits for safety reasons, and those are not set to be restrictive in most cases.

It's possible after reading it that I might agree with you. I generally don't support major shifts in the law without having an understanding of what they are really doing, even if I think the basic idea behind it is a good one. I know that all too often they'll tack in crap that has no business being there. (in other words, I wouldn't support this bill specifically until I've had a chance to look it over.)

That's how I wish our politicians would do things as well. *points to the 1000 page stimulous bill that couldn't be read before the voting* And for people like me and you, it's unlikely we'd be able to vote for anything because it'll be so full of legaliez that the common man couldn't understand what's really in it.

[Yip]

I like the idea of a safety net, but in the proposed system, richer people would be double paying. Once in taxes for the "safety-Net", and again for their own private care that they would more than likely use.

To be far, what you said before about medical bills being inflated to cover the cost of free care is essentially the same. I don’t see a way out of it. The only way any kind of system, government run or not, would be able to work to provide basic health care for everyone, it will entail those that can afford it paying more to cover the costs of those that can’t. It’s the nature of the problem, and I see no way out of it short of “if they can’t afford it, let ‘em fend for themselves.”

As for those in the middle burdening the system, I don’t see that as a problem as they are still paying into the system.

... I will be skeptical of *any* plan that allows people to get benefits because of the chance for corruption (not just political, that is).

True, but I think that’s going be an issue no matter how it’s set up. For example, as I understand, the current system contains a lot of people that seem to be more interested in making big money than helping people.

This is why I said before, a good health care system would probably be one where individuals pay less if they maintain good health, and medical professionals would get paid more for people staying in good health. The idea is to try to weed out the leeches from either side.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure of a feasible way for something like that to work.

No. A licence doesn't domesticate you, it helps you be more independent.

So it’s at best irrelevant. Either that or it goes against your point as it means getting used to things doesn’t necessarily lead to domestication.

That's how I wish our politicians would do things as well. *points to the 1000 page stimulous bill that couldn't be read before the voting* And for people like me and you, it's unlikely we'd be able to vote for anything because it'll be so full of legaliez that the common man couldn't understand what's really in it.

That’s another topic. But I want to say, I agree with you there.

[Narei Mooncatt]

As for those in the middle burdening the system, I don’t see that as a problem as they are still paying into the system.

The advertized idea behind this bill (notice I said advertized, not the actual plan) is to save us money and insure everyone. For that to happen, it would require the least number of people to be on it as possible. If the standards are too loose or loopholes left open, then it allows people to get on it that have no business being on it. Even if they are paying into the system, it's still going to increase its buget requirements. And as for your earlier point of this being the same as inflated cost to cover others, the big difference is where the infaltion is coming from. Why include a 3rd party that has no proper background in medicine to manage it and dictate how the industry should be ran? It goes back to the idea that you're being forced into this by government without given a choice.

For example, as I understand, the current system contains a lot of people that seem to be more interested in making big money than helping people.

And this is one of the areas I would look in to for improvement. I wouldn't try to eliminate the profit motive, but I would look in to claims that poor treatment happens because the doctor or whoever was more interested in making a buck instead of treating the patient.

This is why I said before, a good health care system would probably be one where individuals pay less if they maintain good health, and medical professionals would get paid more for people staying in good health. The idea is to try to weed out the leeches from either side.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure of a feasible way for something like that to work.

I'd argue that by the mere fact that you're staying healthy, you are paying less in the form of less healthcare expenses.

No. A licence doesn't domesticate you, it helps you be more independent.

So it’s at best irrelevant. Either that or it goes against your point as it means getting used to things doesn’t necessarily lead to domestication.

No, the point was getting used to things leads thinking you are owed them as if it were a right. People talk of a "right to healthcare" all the time, but there is no such actual right in our country to it. We have the right to acceess to it if we can pay for it or find other ways of getting it, but being a right would do things as this plan is touted to do: Take more money from the more productive people to cover the non-productive with no way around it and no limits placed on the people receiving the benefits to help control these costs.

[Yip]

And as for your earlier point of this being the same as inflated cost to cover others, the big difference is where the infaltion is coming from. Why include a 3rd party that has no proper background in medicine to manage it and dictate how the industry should be ran? It goes back to the idea that you're being forced into this by government without given a choice.

So what? It's okay if you are "forced" into it by some other entity, as long as it's not the government? Your "biggest beef" you listed before was:
I believe in helping my fellow man, but I don't believe I have the right to *FORCE* anyone else to do so even if I think they should.
This "forcing" goes on with either scenario, and quite frankly, the argument was much stronger without that last line. So...

Why include a 3rd party that has no proper background in medicine to manage it and dictate how the industry should be ran?

I think that's a very good point. It should be ran by an entity that understands the needs of proper health care, medicine and so on. Although it'd also be best if this entity didn't get it's funding from patients.

So to refine what I was saying before (which I alluded to in other posts bet never made it properly clear), I support the idea of government sponsored basic health care. I'm not so keen on the idea of government controlled health care. In that case I'd agree with you that they'd probably screw things up.

I'd argue that by the mere fact that you're staying healthy, you are paying less in the form of less healthcare expenses.

I'd agree. The main problem is on the other end. For those that make their money from the healthcare industry, from a purely financial standpoint, it makes sense to not cure the people too much.  I think the only reason the current system works as well as it does is because there are a whole lot of people that devote there lives to making things better for everyone else.  But it's really asking a lot to expect them all to be that way.

No, the point was getting used to things leads thinking you are owed them as if it were a right.

So people get used to things that make their lives better. But you specifically said that drivers licenses don't make us domesticated but make us more independent. I think the problem is we're looking at it differently.  I'm looking at it from the prospective of the ways it could work, and you're looking at it from the prospective of the ways it could go wrong.  And I'll admit that in some ways it could go wrong, the domestication argument could be valid. But you talk about it as if it's valid for all cases, and it's not.  Now, rather it's the case for the proposed bill, I can't say. (it's really making me think I should take a look at the thing, though reading legal documents is not exactly my idea of fun.)

[Narei Mooncatt]

And as for your earlier point of this being the same as inflated cost to cover others, the big difference is where the infaltion is coming from. Why include a 3rd party that has no proper background in medicine to manage it and dictate how the industry should be ran? It goes back to the idea that you're being forced into this by government without given a choice.

So what? It's okay if you are "forced" into it by some other entity, as long as it's not the government? Your "biggest beef" you listed before was:
I believe in helping my fellow man, but I don't believe I have the right to *FORCE* anyone else to do so even if I think they should.
This "forcing" goes on with either scenario, and quite frankly, the argument was much stronger without that last line.

Wrong. In the open market, you can choose what you want to do. And should someone feel so strongly about not wanting to pay for others bills, I suppose they could forego their own healthcare all together. With a governement plan taking it out in taxes preemptively, it's eliminating any choice. Like I said, look at where the inflated costs are coming from. One is through the market being dictated with supply and demand and competition. The other would be artificially through the government. There is a difference. I don't know if that matters much to you, but it does to me.

So to refine what I was saying before (which I alluded to in other posts bet never made it properly clear), I support the idea of government sponsored basic health care. I'm not so keen on the idea of government controlled health care. In that case I'd agree with you that they'd probably screw things up.

Thanks for clarifying your view on spnsored vs controlled healthcare. I'd be more in agreement with you here if it weren't that I would see sponsored healthcare becoming controlled health care. Let's say the only thing government said was you had to pay a certain percentage of your wages to a healthcare charity (CMN, Red Cross, Cancer Society, etc). I'm sure most would agree that a charity would spend the money more wisely and that this option would be about as hands off as you could get from government. It would be government sponsored in the since that government is requiring the donations (as long as you're making them, you wouldn't pay any additional taxes or penalties), but it wouldn't neccessarily be controlled because the government isn't providing it or telling you where to donate. At first. Even in this scenario, you'd eventually have lobbying groups complaining that they are not getting their fair share, or that they deserve more than others for some reason. Of course they're gonna turn to government, which could pass rules on how your donations are to be made. This would now make it controlled. Not Completely, but it is eliminating/restricting the private sectors choices. So I would be leary of even sponsored healthcare just because of the political bickering that could result.

I'd argue that by the mere fact that you're staying healthy, you are paying less in the form of less healthcare expenses.

I'd agree. The main problem is on the other end. For those that make their money from the healthcare industry, from a purely financial standpoint, it makes sense to not cure the people too much.  I think the only reason the current system works as well as it does is because there are a whole lot of people that devote there lives to making things better for everyone else.  But it's really asking a lot to expect them all to be that way.

Again, I agree with you there to an extent. If I just shelled out hundreds of thousands in school costs and spent a decade of my life to become a great doctor, I would expect to be able to charge a good amount for my services. Same with pharma that is spending millions on R&D. True, there is an arguement to be made that there is some feeling of symptom control over being healthy. It still comes back to market controll. I'd rather deal with a market where I can choose who and what I want on my own (or you could say choosing the form and amount of corruption I'll tolerate, LOL) instead of a single payer/UHC type system that takes away my freedom to choose and limits my healthcare. I don't see that happening right away in this plan, but I would expect it to come about eventually.

Now, rather it's the case for the proposed bill, I can't say. (it's really making me think I should take a look at the thing, though reading legal documents is not exactly my idea of fun.)

Good luck. I saw the two house's proposals in their binders on tv and I wouldn't be able to read either in a year if I read it straight through *WITHOUT* trying to comprehend it.

[Epsy]

UPDATE: End of life counseling has been removed from the bill due to the lie being perpetrated by namely one Sarah Palin that this would create a "death panel" which would decide who would live and who would die (specifically diseased children and the elderly).

What end of life counseling really stated was that "Medicare would pay for you to meet with your doctor or other healthcare provider (not a government employee) about wills, power of attorney, and to identify what resources are available to the individual in the event that they are not able to communicate their wishes later in life. The resources that they are to allowed to point to have to either be fully established programs or at least a program that a panel of medical doctors and administrators have approved, which is decided on a general basis and not on a per individual basis. In helping to identify what resources are available to the person, they can mention severity of care needed on types of drugs administered in that situation. Nothing said in the meetings preclude the individual from changing their mind while on the hospital bed. They just need to know what decision you believe you would make if you were in that situation to best serve you." (quotation from a friend who summarized it better then I ever could)

So yes, the house and senate democrats have completely buckled and allowed the opposition to frame the debate on a lie. Shame on every politician who promoted this complete and outright lie. Not only does this make it seem like the likes of Sarah Palin were telling the truth (they weren't), but it pretty much ensures that UHC won't pass because democrats refuse to take make a stand.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I have to agree about Palin's facebook post (or whatever it was). That didn't sound like a politician speaking, and definately not what I ever expected to hear from her. I don't know what got in to her, but she needed to pick a better set of words. Now, even if these councilors are not government employees, it is still the government that would foot the bill and they will have a lot of say in how treatments happen. Yeah, it might offer "established resources", but they will still only be resources the government approves for you by way of telling doctors "We're not paying for this or that other treatment." Medicare has already had a bad track record of cutting payments to providers, which is part of why lots of hospitals and doctors wont accept any new medicare patients. They can't afford to do so. Your friend also mentioned of said resources: "which is decided on a general basis and not on a per individual basis." As it is now, the patient and doctor can work one on one for the patients specific needs right off the bat and not have to pick from a limited pool that may or may not have an option best for that specific person. Even if it does, it still goes back to the government would be paying the bill, so they would be the ones dictating how much treatment the patient is allowed to get and when it's time to give up and consider end of life care. True, not a death panel per se, but in the end it's going to be the government deciding when it's your time if you are on their plan. There are always new (albeit expensive) treatments on the horizon. Under our current system, you have every right to seek these out, especially if nothing else is working, and do every thing in your power to try and extend your life. Under a government run system you don't. That's what seperates us from most of the rest of the world and why so many people come here from countries with UHC's. That, and they can't afford to wait 6 months for a simple MRI that can be had in the U.S. in the same day you ask for it. Heck, even though nothing is wrong with me, if I had the cash I could go to the local hospital and say I wanna know what my insides look like. It'd likely be considered wasteful spending, but it's still my right to do so if I wish.

So yes, the house and senate democrats have completely buckled and allowed the opposition to frame the debate on a lie. Shame on every politician who promoted this complete and outright lie. Not only does this make it seem like the likes of Sarah Palin were telling the truth (they weren't), but it pretty much ensures that UHC won't pass because democrats refuse to take make a stand.

The healthcare reform proposals are finding more and more people against them every day. How many times have you heard people and reports of the country at large being against things like the war in Iraq and critisizing Bush for going against the will of the country and claiming it to be an illegal war? Well guess what, this is pretty much the same thing. The country is at large against this now, only the Congress is still at a point that they can listen to the people. I thought this was supposed to be a good thing? Wasn't it supposed to be a great sign of patriotism to be defiant of the governemtn when Bush was in office? Or is this just more of the usual two way media perception? That it's only a good thing if you're defiant against the conservative right and the Dems should be able to ram 1000 page bills down our throat all day long without ever expecting to know what's in them? And just as people were calling the Iraq war illegal, I'm calling any sort of federal UHC/Single Payer/Government Ran healthcare system illegal because it is not a specific power granted to them by our constitution. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to take a stand on anything unless it falls under one of their powers and only then if it has public support. I'm not trying to compare the Iraq and health care issues, just pointing out the parallels in the public outrage against them and tactics used. These raucous town hall meetings? Again, nothing new. Just look to Code Pink and Andrew "Don't Tase Me Bro" Meyer.

Also, if you want to say the right is promoting lies, it's not in the places I get my news and views. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't follow the fringe groups and that seems to be where they are coming from. But lieing to get a point across is nothing new and both sides have their idiots. The left has been doing that for years as well. From their own political party lieing about their plans and trying to cover it up/backpedal (Remember, Obama is on record at least twice saying he wants UHC, but now they're all scrambling to say he never said that), to activist wannabe's staging fake hate crimes to draw attention to non-existant problems. I.E. people vandilizing their own property or hurting themselves and reporting it as a hate crime as if someone else did it for no other reason than to start a debate and get people riled up about it when it wasn't even an issue. Andrew Meyer was also like this in a way as well, by blatently not doing as he was asked and forcing an otherwise calm situation to escalate. And then the likes of MSNBC that openly made insulting coments about politicians on the right under the guise of being "reputable news reporting". 

Naomi, I'm not saying your displeasure in Dems reconsidering these proposals is misplaced. If you believe what you said, then I can't likely change your opinion. I just want you to understand that your party has just as much of a dirty record when it comes to these sort of things and that you shouldn't be so suprised that it's happening to them now that they are in power.

By the by: MSNBC (and NBC) is owned by G.E., which also has a huge financial stake in the health care reform. It hasn't been mentioned much lately, but remember the big uproar not long ago over privacy concerns when we found out the reform proposals would mandate online electronic medical records? Guess who's at the forefront of that technology? G.E.[link] You have to admit, you can't say there's no way (MS)NBC doesn't have at least some bias for said proposals considering how much G.E. stands to gain from something like this.

[Epsy]

The healthcare reform proposals are finding more and more people against them every day.

I've rarely heard anyone criticize the healthcare reform bill without using a lie to do it - whether its the "death panels" "euthanasia" or anything else. I'm not even all that much for UHC, myself, as I am rightist when it comes to economics. But it'd be nice to see average every-day Americans say they are against it just because they don't want UHC, instead of this crap about death panels.

I thought this was supposed to be a good thing? Wasn't it supposed to be a great sign of patriotism to be defiant of the governemtn when Bush was in office?

It was a good thing - and it still is. The difference here is that specific people on the right, especially the likes of Glenn Beck, seem to specifically want to stir up violence. I'd say promoting a lie that Obama is going to kill your child with his UHC bill is attempting to stir up violence, and considering the fact that people have started bringing guns to town hall meetings...Well, it doesn't look good. Although the left has been just as idiotic when criticizing the protesters, stating that they are like Nazis or whatever. How ridiculous is that? It's not helping the situation.

Naomi, I'm not saying your displeasure in Dems reconsidering these proposals is misplaced. If you believe what you said, then I can't likely change your opinion. I just want you to understand that your party has just as much of a dirty record when it comes to these sort of things and that you shouldn't be so suprised that it's happening to them now that they are in power.

Oh no, I agree. Except I don't remember Republicans actually backing down after such an obvious lie was promoted (course I wasn't into politics back then), which makes the democrats only slightly more pathetic.

You have to admit, you can't say there's no way (MS)NBC doesn't have at least some bias for said proposals considering how much G.E. stands to gain from something like this.

Of course MSNBC has bias, as do CNN and Fox. But you are barking up the wrong tree as I've actually watched more Fox News in the past 6 months or so then I have MSNBC or CNN. I'm not the same "Obama can do no wrong" liberal as I was a year or so ago

[Narei Mooncatt]

The difference here is that specific people on the right, especially the likes of Glenn Beck, seem to specifically want to stir up violence.

Again, something that has also been done on the left as well, so there isn't much more difference than who's doing the stirring. I don't listen to Glenn Beck often. He does have a lot of good principles, but I agree he and others sometimes sensationalize more than they should. Part of the problem from my perspective is like I said in the news source thread/poll: Cable news channels only stick to a subject for about 3-4 minutes and have to "discuss" the high points in that amount of time. So instead of explaining exactly why they feel something would happen, they have to hit you with attention grabbing lines like "death panels". It's not really a left vs. right thing, just a time limit and ratings thing.

Barking up the wrong tree, though? Care to elaborate, because I'm not too sure I know what you mean by it. I agree that most news networks tend to be at least somewhat biased (their opinion people aside like Glenn Beck and Hannity). It's that MSNBC has been the leader of the bias pack and has been for a while now.

[Epsy]

The difference here is that specific people on the right, especially the likes of Glenn Beck, seem to specifically want to stir up violence.

Again, something that has also been done on the left as well, so there isn't much more difference than who's doing the stirring. I don't listen to Glenn Beck often. He does have a lot of good principles, but I agree he and others sometimes sensationalize more than they should. Part of the problem from my perspective is like I said in the news source thread/poll: Cable news channels only stick to a subject for about 3-4 minutes and have to "discuss" the high points in that amount of time. So instead of explaining exactly why they feel something would happen, they have to hit you with attention grabbing lines like "death panels". It's not really a left vs. right thing, just a time limit and ratings thing.

Barking up the wrong tree, though? Care to elaborate, because I'm not too sure I know what you mean by it. I agree that most news networks tend to be at least somewhat biased (their opinion people aside like Glenn Beck and Hannity). It's that MSNBC has been the leader of the bias pack and has been for a while now.

In your entire post you seem to be making assumptions about my views on MSNBC or whatever that are not true, hence the "barking up the wrong tree". Also, arguing which station is "more biased" is really, really silly, and this topic isn't the place for such a discussion regardless.

I wouldn't call "death panels" an attention grabbing line. I'd call it an attention grabbing lie. If they were just using it to grab attention then they would debunk it instead of actively stating it as truth when it clearly isn't. And its not like I'm only ragging on Fox News, but this topic is specifically about health care and I think this is an important thing to talk about in this topic.