Curse

Tullzinski · Aug 27, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Does this sound familiar?

The issue is not whether the country can afford health-insurance legislation, but whether we can afford not to have it. Health-care costs are exploding, bankrupting middle-income people, young married couples and (stripping) older retirees of their life's savings. If we do not pass our health-insurance proposal, we are going to end up spending $300 billion by 1983.

With our comprehensive health-insurance plan, the on-budget cost in 1983 is $28.6 billion (more than Federal costs would otherwise be). Four years after the plan is fully implemented, there is a crossover period after which our approach would actually save the consumer and the taxpayer money as compared with doing nothing at all.

The total amounts that will be expended on health care will be less with our proposal than without it, because of the budgetary restraints, the prospective budgeting, the cost controls that are included. I think basically what I'm talking about is freeing the American people from the fear of financial ruin from sickness and illness.

This is from the Ted Kennedy(RIP) back in May 1979. It was bull$hit then and it is bull$hit now. They failed to fix it then and will fail to fix it now. What really blows my mind is how it is the SAME &%$#ing arguments, even down to doctors doing "unnecessary tonsillectomies " &[email protected] unreal! People STILL fall for this $hit today, the same old tired arguments.

Here is the link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/211843?tid=relatedcl (with the unnecessary tonsillectomies reference on page 2)

It is not that long an article read it and make your own decision about if this is the same thing now as back then.

How many chances are these fools going to get? Nothing they have done has ever fixed the "problem". In spite of government intrusion we still manage to have the best damn health care in the world. The big question is not if we need the democrats health care plan, but if their health care plan is going to finally destroy the best, most advanced, cutting edge, widely available and affordable health care system in the world?

The majority of americans do not want this garbage!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

The funny thing is, those with insurance that are happy with their current plan... fine, keep it. No one is forcing anyone to change anything. There will just be a new option for those without medical coverage.

Raj
Listen to our president closely in one breath he says that health insurance is broken and we need this plan to fix it, but then he states that you get to keep you current insurance. This the same insurance that is BROKEN according to him! If that alone is not enough to make you question this whole thing then nothing is.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 27, 2009, 08:04 PM // 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

Listen to our president closely in one breath he says that health insurance is broken and we need this plan to fix it, but then he states that you get to keep you current insurance. This the same insurance that is BROKEN according to him! If that alone is not enough to make you question this whole thing then nothing is.

Health insurance is broken, cost for coverage go up 15-25% every year and the coverage you get go down. If you are happy with your plan and don't feel it is broken you may keep it, for those whom the system is broken they would have an option that they do not have now.

bhavv · Aug 28, 2009, 02:38 PM // 14:38

I can say that both socialist and the US healthcare systems suck.

I graduated from uni like a lot of people with a 3% miss off the grade I needed to go into post grad education. I carried on working in a supermarket, and unknown to me as to why at the time, I couldnt work more than 30 hours a week and was getting epic cases of severe dizzyness and sensations of almost passing out and falling over while at work and also a lot of days in the morning, also sometimes combined with severe stomach pain with occasional vomiting and liquid poo. I ended up losing my job due to too many absenses and at the time had no idea what was wrong with me. I had also been losing hearing since my teens and seeing specialists for this for 5 years, and didnt think that this had anything to do with my other symptoms. I continued seeing doctors and waiting for treatment, untill after 6 months unemployment, I became eligible for sickness benefits.

I went to the jobcentre to ask for a health assessment and to claim for incapacity benefit. After my health assessment they told me I didnt have to work untill my symptoms improved.

Up untill here is the benefit of socialised health care. You work, you get a long term sickness, you lose your job, you get looked after.

Next comes the genuine truth about how shockingly poor the healthcare system is. I googled 'Hearing Loss, Dizzyness, Vomiting' shortly after losing my job. Up came a condition called 'Menieres Disease'. I asked my GP about this in my first following appointment and he referred me to the ENT. At the ENT clinic I picked up a leaflet on Menieres Disease written by some deafness charity that provides such information on these disorders, and in that leaflet was listed all of my symptoms in the exception of stomach pain (not just mild or moderate mind you, the type that stops you from being able to bend from the waist or fall asleep at night without taking 2-4 acid reducing pills, and that causes more pain and liquid from both ends whenever you eat).

ENT doctor referred me for an MRI scan, the results of which showed nothing wrong. I waited 3 months for the scan, and 3 more months for the follow up appointment (6 months wasted), to be told 'There is nothing wrong with your brain or auditory nerve, your ears look physically healthy, we do not know why you are losing hearing, it could be caused by anything and there is nothing more we can do to help you'. When I asked about the Menieres Disease, he would just reply 'This isnt Meniers, it could be anything'. This happened while waiting for my health assessment and incapacity benefit claim.

So I then had to wait another 3 months to try at another hospital. When I went in, I were a little angry this time and told them 'I have had a health assessment and they told me I couldnt work untill I find out what is causing this and get it improved'. This time I got diagnosed with Menieres, and were prescribed the medication for that disease.

Now unfortunately, the medication leaflet had stated not to take it if you have stomach pain, a reason which I shortly found out why when my stomach would end up far worse off and this time would actually curl up and not straighten after taking these medicines. I went to A+E (for a second time with stomach pain actually, the first was before everything here), and following that to my GP. Both ran some simple tests and told me it was nothing serious, diagnosed IBS, and to just stay on the acid reducing pills. In total, some of which arent mentioned here, I have been to 3 seperate GPs and 2 different A+Es with this stomach pain, but they pretty much do nothing whatsoever. I have asked 4 seperate times now for autoimmunity tests, and get laughed at each time and Im told 'its not autoimmunity'.

Shortly over this time I also developed recurring swollen painful tonsils / lymph nodes in the throat with a thick white phlegm but no sign of tonsillitus or infection. This is a symptom of an overactive immune system, the thick white goo being a sign of dead white cells. I am in my 10th - 11th month of incapacity and am waiting for my next health assessment to discuss this before going back to my GP. A quick google job gives me a good reason to suspect Crohns Disease, which is caused by autoimmunity, and also that the hearing and dizzyness maybe autoimmune hearing disease instead.

If I do get diagnosed with autoimmunity, and immunosuppressant drugs do work and allow me to start working again, then I will be suing the doctors for misdiagnosis and refusals to give me autoimmune testing earlier. If I dont have autoimmunity, then I dont know what the bejebus is causing the symptoms, and will have to remain on benefit untill I have surgerry to place a meniettes device in my ears. I am currently waiting for that surgery, but the waiting time is very long because it is not a life threatening disease.

It will soon be 2 years since I lost my job in November 2007, and I am still waiting for treatments and diagnostics, even though I manage to diagnose myself months before the doctors can tell what is wrong with me, I just get laughed at when I go to them and ask if it could be what I assume. I were right about my ears and I am 90% sure I also have Crohns Disease, but the doctors wont listen to me about this. I am not wasting any time myself, I am waiting for my health assessments, and NHS treatment, but I have to wait 3 or 6 months in between each single appointment.

Antares Ascending · Aug 30, 2009, 04:29 AM // 04:29

Seems to me that all previous plans are near bankrupt. This doesn't bode well for a plan by a government that hasn't goten it right yet.

Reform: working to remove the bad elements of a program ( or thing) while keeping the good parts.

Change: throw the whole thing out, good and bad and start over?

I'd like to see present programs fixed. Not a whole new set of problems.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 10:04 AM // 10:04

1) Do we know that costs are actually exorbitant? People usually compare medical costs against what a given patient is able to pay, but this seems curious to me - why aren't we comparing what the patient is charged to how much the care costs to administer? Hospital stays and surgeries can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, but how big is the profit margin? Many people point to exploding health care costs as proof of greed and corporate exploitation, but consider just how much care people are getting now, as compared to just a decade prior. We now treat more conditions, for longer periods, and more successfully; costs are naturally going to be higher - people who had then-untreatable conditions simply died.

2) Does lowering health care costs require nationalization? To me, these seem unrelated. There's also the issue of whether lowering certain costs, such as prescription drug prices, may do long-term damage in the form of reduced innovation. Yet other costs result from the tension between doctors and patients that is difficult to resolve (malpractice insurance premiums) - putting caps on damage awards or otherwise limiting litigation hurts patients that are harmed by incompetent doctors, whereas the constant threat of litigation significantly raises health care costs and makes medical professions less attractive for students.

3) Insurance is a way of distributing cost. Even in a situation where insurance became a non-profit industry, premiums would still be high given a sufficient number of people receiving sufficiently expensive care. How much of a burden is reasonable for one individual to place on society, and how should the burden be distributed? If a life could be saved, but at a cost of $10M, should it be done? How about $100M?

4) How does nationalization avoid the tragedy of the commons? Nationalized health care, by isolating people from the costs, prices medical goods and services (far) below market value, which promotes overuse. Particularly in the case of people who are sheltered from the higher tax burdens imposed by nationalized health care, what incentive is there for responsible use of health care resources? At least in this respect, nationalization would seem to increase costs.

imnotyourmother · Sep 01, 2009, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evasion Twenty

I win

That...THAT... ^ I laughed my AOff!!!

Oh oh oh.

Look they are going to ram this down the throats of Americans cause they can. That is the first thing. Second thing is that they are going to ram this down the throats of Americans cause the MEDICAID and MEDICARE are OUT OF MONEY. Its BANKRUPTED. There will be no money left by the time OBAMA gets out of office.

here is the thing. Obama can not hand this thing off to the next poor sap cause there is no money left before he gets out of office. Its broke. The Governments have been sifting off the fund for years doing what Madoff just got 500 years in jail for our clowns in the white house have been doing without fear of Jail.

Clinton used some of those funds for his pet projects and called it reform.

The guys are crooks in the government cause there is no fear of getting caught. Why do you not think that Gitner (wrong spelling) does not want the federal reserve to be audited.

I work at a BANK. I am audited get this TWICE a YEAR!!! we can not say.. well you know we gave other countries MILLIONS of US tax dollars away so we do not want you to know that cause its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION to GIVE money from the FED to groups OUTSIDE THE US. Its TREASON. but don't audit us???? WTF.

If we said that we would be closed by the government and someone thrown in jail for NON COMPLIANCE. GET REAL

And the DEBT is 9 trillion. Look folks.. we can NEVER pay back 9 TRILLION. NEVER it is mathematically impossible to pay that back at the current tax rate. WHY do you think there is a 2 trillion DEFICIT????

Or the banks could not fail cause the FDIC would have to pay off the people who lost their money so that they could keep their homes?? WTF is going on?? We should have let the banks failed...paid out the BILLIONS to the people that LOST the money cause of MISMANAGEMENT of the funds and then they would have PAID off their houses and had something left!!.

Instead we let the American people go tits up and the banks post record profits and the people are on the friggin streets.

WAY TO GO YOU MULE OBAMA.

What the heck is the FDIC there for if not for the RECESSIONS??????? we are all idiots and deserve to have our pays wiped out and our savings vanish cause some idiots let OBAMA to power cause he is NOT WHITE???? WTF is going on with Americans??????

So now there is Heath care for the MASSES? No if there is 600 Million people without heath care then there should be a "PLAN" for those people and ONLY those people. You wreaked the one that you have do LIVE with it.

I just had a thought. There is no fear in the government anymore to do the right thing. No morals. No Scruples. No sense that a creator is watching His creation. Nothing. Confucius once said. "To be able under all circumstances to practice five things constitutes perfect virtue; these five things are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness." Do you see that coming from our government? I think not.

He also said...The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved.

It seems like we are in a state of disrepair.

What we need is a 10 to 15% hike in taxes across the board to pay off this dept. There is no way around it. WE MUST pay our debts.

Winterclaw · Sep 01, 2009, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Car dealerships waiting for half a million from the government.

Now why did I post this here? Imagine someone who is dependent on uncle socialist for his health care being told by the government insurance agency he can't get treatment because uncle socialist is behind on the payments. Imagine that person trying to get medical treatment which he could get now and being rejected by the doctor because the government owes the doctor half a million dollars and he can't afford to take non-paying customers right now. He'd really like to help you and save your life, but his payment which was supposed to be there in 10 days is probably going to take another month or two.

Call me heartless, but I think being in debt is a little better than being dead.

I don't care if some old fart died of brain cancer (there's one of life's little ironies), some SOB got his grandkids to cry about the issue, and now some commies in disguise are using said old fart's death as a rallying point. The idea was bad before, it is still bad, and if that old fart wasn't rich and was forced to be on this program he'd have been dead half a year ago.

Until we figure out why health care costs so much and find a way to get those costs under control using good old fashioned capitalism we are going to run into a system where everyone is going to end up paying twice as much for health insurance as we are now because a huge government bureaucracy is going to turn everything into a SNAFU. However the government is not going to do that if they take over. What they are going to do is make doctors take a pay cut so the good ones will abandon the field and then throw money everywhere else, in effect forcing costs to go up.

Again, I'm not against people getting health care, I'm against the government trying to help and turning the system into a colossal failure that's going to make things worse than they are now.

mrmango · Sep 01, 2009, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Winterclaw, that's called the exception or a scenario that still isn't worse than what we have now. It's both actually.

Honestly, this isn't even an argument from educated opinions of Libertarians, it's just people scared of something that isn't likely to happen, and the mere thought of it distracts from the failing system we have now.

Winterclaw · Sep 03, 2009, 01:51 AM // 01:51

So it's 100% positive what I said will never happen? Truth of the matter is if it can happen once it can happen again. Eventually the US debt is going to get to the point where it's difficult to keep paying the bills... or printing money fast enough to pay the bills.

Or something worse could happen intentionally.

Burst Cancel · Sep 03, 2009, 08:04 PM // 20:04

Quote:

Healthcare is essential to a decent quality of life, this shouldn't even a debate. Corporations run your country.

The second sentence does not follow from the first; furthermore, your first argument is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that health care isn't essential to a decent quality of life - the argument is about implementation and who is going to pay the bill. These are non-trivial problems.

Quote:

Stupid people voting against their best interests.

It's funny that you talk about American "selfishness", when your own statement is the epitome of selfishness. Politics would frankly go a lot smoother if opinions and policy weren't so blatantly self-interested. It might surprise you, but some people are actually willing to argue against their own self-interest because they're focused on the bigger picture. "What's best for me" has never been a defensible mechanism for policy making.

And what of the rich and powerful? If arguing for their own interests is corrupt, and arguing against their own interests is stupid, what are they supposed to do?

Quote:

Your government healthcare costs 10 times more than European nations, and are inferior, because of your corrupt mingling of government and corporations.

More conclusory statements with no supporting evidence. But okay, even assuming, arguendo, that what you say is true, it does not follow that the only or best solution is nationalizing health care. Many factors that contribute to cost, such as the costs of developing new drugs and treatments, that have little or nothing to do with whether insurance is public or private. Government programs are not exactly renowned for their cost efficiencies.

Ultimately, your post is highly emotional, inflammatory, and largely without substance. It is exactly people like you that make rational policy discussion difficult or impossible.

Snow Bunny · Sep 03, 2009, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skuld

Edit: I have trouble comprehending how selfish the average citizen of the USA is.

I share virtually nothing in common with my fellow citizens. The average American citizen cares nothing for me, so why should I care anything for them?

People from others countries have very little right commenting on our culture or politics when they have very little idea of the cultural complexities this nation faces.

Europeans enjoy taking the moral highground, pointing out our fiscal irresponsibilities and our completely disparate macro-culture. Guess what Europe? You're a continent full of homogenous states whose laughable claims to culture diversity within individual states fall flat, especially in consideration of your criticisms of the United States.

Guess how Europeans treat immigrants? I'll tell you - they sequester them into ghettos and make them pariahs; the French treatment of its Muslims is the norm, not the divergence. In California they come in, have a child, and suddenly have access to a world of social benefits you can't even dream of - welfare for all of life's necessities, and the emergency room has to accommodate them if they can't pay their medical expenses, so long as they show up.

Europeans have enjoyed cultural singleness for so long they can't grasp why politics and cultural unity are so complex in this country. The United States is so culturally fragmented it marginalizes the significance of the word "selfish". The guy on the street, put into my house with free reign, would rob me blind, so why the hell should I care about him?

Health care is coming up as a debate when this nation can ill-afford it - there may exist a causal correlation but I don't wish to risk making that argument.

Also - our healthcare costs are so high because doctors perform extra-operations because they're terrified of malpractice lawsuits coming from the very patients they're treating. I guarantee you that SIGNIFICANTLY raising the entrance bar for malpractice litigation would drive costs down. It's not our corporations - that's an easy and lazy argument to take. It's easy to blame faceless corporations for the woes of the world, but sometimes you have to look in the mirror and realize it's your own fault.

I suppose I conclude my arguments thus - we are caught in a prisoner's dilemma. I have significantly more to lose than my neighbor (neighbor as in fellow American), and since my fellow American would soon as exploit me if I so allowed him to, why should I sacrifice for him?

Seriously, don't call me selfish when you don't live here. I'll keep defending this until someone can provide better arguments, seeing as the "think of other people argument" certainly doesn't take my own happiness into account.

A11Eur0 · Sep 04, 2009, 03:32 AM // 03:32

sorry but when I'm told that I can't be successful without being REQUIRED to provide for those who choose not to work as hard or take the risks I take, without any choice in the matter, that's totalitarianist fascism, socialism and borderline Communism. I'll fight that to the death. My family and I come first, last and only. Sorry, but if I want to help someone in need and feel I am in the position to do so, I will do so to a degree that they know I'm doing them a favor and they appreciate it. If they start in like they're entitled to me giving them something out of pocket, they're SOL.

mrmango · Sep 04, 2009, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

sorry but when I'm told that I can't be successful without being REQUIRED to provide for those who choose not to work as hard or take the risks I take, without any choice in the matter, that's totalitarianist fascism, socialism and borderline Communism. I'll fight that to the death. My family and I come first, last and only. Sorry, but if I want to help someone in need and feel I am in the position to do so, I will do so to a degree that they know I'm doing them a favor and they appreciate it. If they start in like they're entitled to me giving them something out of pocket, they're SOL.

It's not that people on any form of welfare aren't hard working or even risk takers. It's not totalitarian, it's not communist at all, and it's only socialized if everyone has access to it.

Fril Estelin · Sep 04, 2009, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Question to the opponents of the reform: how do you explain that socialized healthcare systems exist and work well in various countries of Europe (I know France and the UK well) and that it wouldn't work in the USA?

Burst Cancel · Sep 04, 2009, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Question to the opponents of the reform: how do you explain that socialized healthcare systems exist and work well in various countries of Europe (I know France and the UK well) and that it wouldn't work in the USA?

You are begging the question. Specifically, you are presupposing that socialized health care "work[s] well in various countries of Europe", which opponents of nationalized health care do not accept as fact. Opposing camps in the reform debate do not agree on how "works well" is even defined, which, essentially, is the heart of the argument.

In short, by asking your question you've actually side-stepped the health care debate entirely by ignoring the ideological and/or philosophical basis upon which each camp has built its position.

I also suggest that you read (or re-read) Snow Bunny's last post.

In turn, I have a question for our friends in Europe who raise the "selfishness" argument: would you be opposed to Europeans using their tax dollars to pay for the health care of Americans? If so, why? Does "selfishness" stop at a country's borders?

bhavv · Sep 06, 2009, 07:32 AM // 07:32

European tax money also goes towards paying millions in aid money to countries in the form of disaster relief, and also help with development in poorer countries.

But why would America, supposedly one of the worlds largest economies need any money from europe for your health care?

Someone asked before, would you americans deny police or fire brigade services to people in need of them, but that could not afford to pay in the case that these services were not free?

Why exactly are you so selfish that you oppose to socialised health care in your own countries so that everyone can get the healthcare they need to live a healthy life?

The poverty gap in America between the rich and the poor is far far greater then it is in europe, I dont see why the rich should get to decide on matters which concern the poorer majority who can hardly afford to pay for their healthcare in the USA.

As far as 'hard work' standards are concerned, how do you know that a person on a low wage is not working hard? They could actually be working much harder then you are yet still earning a small fraction of your income.

This article here also suggests that Americans work 'too hard', sacrificing quality of life and family in desire for greed of income:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/pf/work_less/

I cant really understand someones need to want to work over 40 hours a week, and also their ignorance to not realising that some people may actually be physically incapable of doing so, but selfishness is what controls their view on the matter, as opposed to actually being concerned about peoples health.

The more healthy people you have, the more people can work, so free healthcare does have its advantages.

Also, if you are concerned about your own family, then how exactly do you work 50 hours a week and raise your children? I dont really believe it to be possible for both parents to be able to work this long and raise kids.

PS, someone also commented on treatment of Muslims in France.

In France, muslims are treated far better than gay people are in the USA. In all of Europe, gay people are treated far better than they are in the USA.

Just because a secular country places a law stating that religious garments cannot be worn in school or at work, or that the face cannot be covered in public is not mistreatment of muslims - they are still allowed to live in France equally and the same as everyone else.

And like the majority christian American public and employers really treats muslims and atheists any better then they are in Europe, not. I have heard of several gay people who are denied jobs in the US, rules made by several employers stating that they only recruit people with a family, and also about employers trying to fire disabled staff because they are unfit for the job - all of which are illegal in most european countries and such treatment over here would make a person rich from compensation.

A11Eur0 · Sep 06, 2009, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Ok this has turned into another "America sucks" thread by people who have never stepped foot on United States soil, and have never experienced the freedoms afforded the United States Citizens protected by the United States Constitution, thus are ill-equipped to really understand the feelings most United States Citizens feel about having their hard-earned money taken without cause or reason to pay bills for lazy sacks of shit sitting in trailer parks and housing projects, selling dope to grade schoolers, driving brand new Mercedes' on 24" chrome wheels all the while buying candy and cigarettes with Taxpayer-funded food stamps, starving their children forcing those children to go out and steal to survive. Yes that's a huge run-on sentence. RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO off if you don't like it.

This is not the whole of the United States, but it's very common, and it's common because these socialist federal-aid programs exist and are poorly managed in the first place. If any of you think the US Government can get this infinitely larger health care system to work any better, you're fools.

And if you don't live in the United States...kindly shut the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO up and mind your own business. You don't see Americans just up and trash talking people from other countries without reason (besides the French).

Burst Cancel · Sep 06, 2009, 07:04 PM // 19:04

The selfishness "argument" is a non-starter. Are you going to pretend that there are no poor people in Europe? That there are no people, even in developed countries, who are in greater need of your resources? Why are you allowed to have any discretionary income at all? The money you spent on computers, internet service, TV, etc. could have been given away to charities to feed, clothe, and house those who are far less fortunate then you. If you are willing to spend money on leisure and luxury, what basis do you have to call others selfish?

While I believe that generosity and self-sacrifice are desirable and praise-worthy qualities, I do not believe that anyone should be forced, as a matter of law, to be generous and self-sacrificing.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to insulate people against costs (see: tragedy of the commons). Price is a natural regulator, and flexible prices are necessary for the efficient use and distribution of limited resources. I voluntarily left my previous health care insurance plan because the pricing system encouraged me to act irresponsibly. I paid the same insurance premiums whether I used health care services or not, and the co-pay (i.e., out-of-pocket expense) for doctor's visits and medication was negligible. As such, there was essentially no financial incentive for moderating use of health care resources - visit as many doctors as it takes and try as many medicines as it takes to make you better. Is it any surprise that health care costs are extravagant and rapidly increasing under such a system? Again, you simply cannot insulate people against costs.

What particularly bothers me about the health care debate (and indeed, most left-vs-right debates) is that most arguments are almost entirely emotional, rather than rational. Empathy and emotions are the basis for charity, not policy.

Eskimoz · Sep 07, 2009, 04:12 AM // 04:12

If you don't want it.

Don't get it.

What is so hard about this debate?

Shursh · Sep 07, 2009, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

If you don't want it.

Don't get it.

What is so hard about this debate?

There's a lot more to it.

That being said, I'd advise that you go back and (re)read through the entire thread to familiarize yourself with the opposing arguments and the actual workings of a "public option".