Obama Mercy Hospital

[Philly Mike]

the point of a company run by the government (if it actually gets to that) is that it is there to help the people and not turn a profit. unlike your average every day HMO that usually ends up basically trying to rip you off at every turn.

[Mad Dog]

Rip who off? The Hospitals or the Patients?

[sunshyne]

lol or the tax payers paying for the "government run company"

[Philly Mike]

Rip who off? The Hospitals or the Patients?

they try to rip off both.

I can't believe you've never had a hard time getting a service or anything like that covered that was needed for your health by any of your health plans.

[Mad Dog]

Not my insurance, but I have BC and BS. My Ex's health insurance sucks though. They are starting to get real fed up with it and are real close to dumping them. But If this insurance company was owned by the Feds they would be stuck.

[Philly Mike]

Not my insurance, but I have BC and BS. My Ex's health insurance sucks though. They are starting to get real fed up with it and are real close to dumping them. But If this insurance company was owned by the Feds they would be stuck.

well i guess with BCBS it all depends. I had them before, and they fought me with every bit when i needed to get my wrist taken care of because of tendonitis. i was able to get the cordizone shot no problem, but when it came to therapy they tried to tell the doctor what I needed and not what she wanted for my situation. Now that I think of it (and I actually just thought of this as I am typing this.) I believe it was somewhere else in this argument that people were worried about the government telling the doctors what to do.

The whole idea of the fedral health plan is to have it as an option and not as the only choice. I don't think they would take it that far.

[zdunklee]

Not my insurance, but I have BC and BS. My Ex's health insurance sucks though. They are starting to get real fed up with it and are real close to dumping them. But If this insurance company was owned by the Feds they would be stuck.

well i guess with BCBS it all depends. I had them before, and they fought me with every bit when i needed to get my wrist taken care of because of tendonitis. i was able to get the cordizone shot no problem, but when it came to therapy they tried to tell the doctor what I needed and not what she wanted for my situation. Now that I think of it (and I actually just thought of this as I am typing this.) I believe it was somewhere else in this argument that people were worried about the government telling the doctors what to do.

The whole idea of the fedral health plan is to have it as an option and not as the only choice. I don't think they would take it that far.

That is exactly what BCBS does to a lot of people. I have known people that have had to fight for effing chemo to be paid for...health insurance companies are a joke, but you can't afford not to have insurance or you are even more screwed because of the prices hospitals charge to make up for the underpayment that they get from insurance companies.

[sunshyne]

the problem with health insurance is it is a "middle man" there is little connection to the patient and billing. On the radio station I listen to in the afternoon they were saying how having a baby used to cost a couple hundred dollars, now it costs around 15,000.00. Granted, the care is probably better than before, but my question is... all the people on welfare, all the illegal immigrants, all the people without health insurance, they reproduce like rabbits, who the hell is footing the bill? Medicare, and the people that pay for insurance.
I still haven't seen where the government stepping in the way they are saying is going to help anything. And until I am proven otherwise, I will not be a supporter of it.

You know what I would support? Closing and regulating the borders, booting all the illegals back to whatever country they came from, tightening down on medicare claims, and limiting welfare extremely. But our current government will not do any of those things because the people I just mentioned are the ones that vote for them.

[Wiener Poopie]

I lol at people against universal health care, lolololololololol….

[sunshyne]

why

[Wiener Poopie]

why

Because they obviously don’t fully understand it and are very pessimistic or just selfish bastards.

[sunshyne]

So please, enlighten us, why do you think that this Government run healthcare will work.

[Wiener Poopie]

Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries.

So you must be one of the pessimistic folks I spoke of? I don’t need to explain how it will work; you need to explain how it won’t.

[Philly Mike]

Well in the point of proving it here is a little article to show you how good things could work if it were all government run.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/yoyogibear/2008/07/03/mythbusting-universal-health-care-other-countries-japan-with-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blo ... with-costs</a><!-- m -->

low costs to employer and employee. and still a very open supplemental market.

[sunshyne]

call me pessimistic if it makes you feel better, maybe you should read the posts previous to when you posted.

There are plenty of reports stating that your so called social medicine does not work in those "wealthy" countries that have it. In England, I have a friend that had lung cancer. The government choice was to put him on the back burner because there are SO many people in line for the "free" healthcare that he would have to wait. In England they have "health Brokers", basically people that you pay to find a care giver that will see you, if you spend more $, you see someone better, and someone sooner. I'm glad to see that their health system works so well.
In Canada, there was a woman that was forced to deal with a broken wrist for two weeks before she could see a Doctor to set it and put it in a cast.

I'm not against people having healthcare, I don't think that anyone should be left to suffer or die.
However, I feel that the only people that are going to benefit from this are people that are already on government aid for healthcare. And the unintended consequences on the entire health system could be pretty bad.

I was on Cobra, after I finished college, paid a lot of money for it too, but it was good healthcare. The person I was employed by paid for my healthcare that I had. Cobra only lasts for so long, so i had to find healthcare from a different company. No one would cover me because of my preexisting conditions, which are listed under cancer.

Here in TN we have TennCare which is basically medicare. Government run. Even with the HIPPA act, and being my last and only resort, they wouldn't cover me. The TennCare system is abused by people that don't need it, use it to get prescriptions that they sell, make false claims and like welfare use it because its free and they don't have to work for it.

So instead of begging the government to take care of me and saying, "oh its okay if you don't take care of the tumor growing back inside my effing head", because that was one of the limitations that were to be placed. I moved to Nashville area, got a job with health insurance, and because of the HIPPA act, I was able to get health insurance that covers everything. I'm on medicine now that would normally cost 50.00 a PILL that I take three times a week and with my health insurance costs me $15 for 16 pills. And sometime, when I decide to have children, any problems I have getting pregnant that happen because of the tumor, will be covered.

So, excuse me for not feeling like people should depend on the government for everything.

Maybe I am pessimistic, maybe I don't think that people should be taken care of like little babies all their lives, maybe I think that people should have to work for what they earn. Maybe I haven't felt like the Government run programs that are in place now work worth a damn. The only things the government runs that work is the military and the post office. They should stick to those, and maybe fix the other programs already in place before implementing another one.

I read the plan for the healthcare, I listened to Obama on the TV. It sounds great, looks good on paper, I just have no confidence in the government controlling it well, and less confidence in the leeches in society.


PS, maybe you should learn about people before jumping to conclusions about them.

[Wiener Poopie]

Your right Sunshyne, we don’t live in the greatest country in the world, no other country has had policies fail, and everything in America will turn out the same or worst than other countries.

[zdunklee]

Sunshyne, I have to say you keep talking about "free" healthcare, and from all the articles I have read, there has never been a mention of it being free at all. We already have a system in place for basically free healthcare. This healthcare would be a government sponsored plan that you do have to pay for, but they won't deny you for pre-existing conditions. I also read where there is now talk about having a everyone must have healthcare mandate on the federal level much like auto insurance in most states, which could really be bad for some.

I'm not going to sway either way really until I hear the exact plan they end up with, it has potential to be a great plan, but at the same time could fail miserably. I still think it is at least worth a shot either way.

[Philly Mike]

Sunshyne, I have to say you keep talking about "free" healthcare, and from all the articles I have read, there has never been a mention of it being free at all. We already have a system in place for basically free healthcare. This healthcare would be a government sponsored plan that you do have to pay for, but they won't deny you for pre-existing conditions. I also read where there is now talk about having a everyone must have healthcare mandate on the federal level much like auto insurance in most states, which could really be bad for some.

I'm not going to sway either way really until I hear the exact plan they end up with, it has potential to be a great plan, but at the same time could fail miserably. I still think it is at least worth a shot either way.

Well out of the proposals i have seen it is similar to the one that Japan has. The only difference is that I think you will also have a primary choice along with the freedom to choose a supplemental. So I don't see what is wrong. and anyone that doesn't fall under the guidelines for the regular insurance would be able to fall under the guidelines for the free healthcare.

If you look that is kind of how things are now, except for the fact that we do not have an actual low cost alternative as in japan, and this is the part that would help people. If you are making minimum wage and your only choice is a healthcare plan that costs almost 100 a month just for you, that is more than likely going to be a choice that a person opt's out of the insurance, but under a Japan-like plan you would have to pay about 23 to 40 bucks a month. This is a fair cost. Every state has it's own free health care program that can be obtained for people who fall under the certain level of income. Now the problem with the way we have it set up now is that there are people who have jobs that offer an obscene healthcare plan that isn't worth getting, or healthcare plans can turn people away, which is pretty rotten.

As far as mandating healthcare the main thing I see pushed with this is something that states are starting to do on their own. This is mandating healthcare for children. That is an understandable rule to have it like that, especially with the SCHIP program and this I don't think anyone should disagree with because well it's about kids.

[zdunklee]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

[Mad Dog]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

Your kidding me right? Requiring everyone to have health insurance? What, maybe next we could get a fine or get jail time for not having health insurance? How would the government enforce that ? Or maybe they would threaten fines and jail time for CEO's of major Health insurance companys for not letting those who cant pay their fair share on their health insurance plans. See the toliet bowl of Health Care we are currently swirling down?

[Philly Mike]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

Your kidding me right? Requiring everyone to have health insurance? What, maybe next we could get a fine or get jail time for not having health insurance? How would the government enforce that ? Or maybe they would threaten fines and jail time for CEO's of major Health insurance companys for not letting those who cant pay their fair share on their health insurance plans. See the toliet bowl of Health Care we are currently swirling down?

It all depends on how they have the plan set out. if it is reasonably accessable to everyone then it is reasonable because such a requirement would lower hospital costs.

[Mad Dog]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

Your kidding me right? Requiring everyone to have health insurance? What, maybe next we could get a fine or get jail time for not having health insurance? How would the government enforce that ? Or maybe they would threaten fines and jail time for CEO's of major Health insurance companys for not letting those who cant pay their fair share on their health insurance plans. See the toliet bowl of Health Care we are currently swirling down?

It all depends on how they have the plan set out. if it is reasonably accessable to everyone then it is reasonable because such a requirement would lower hospital costs.

I dont get that either? The Obama Administration estimates that there are 47 million uninsured americans. If this is an accurate number (and I have massive doubts) How can you save money by adding a 47 million people to the roster? The numbers don't add up and I smell a rat.

[zdunklee]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

Your kidding me right? Requiring everyone to have health insurance? What, maybe next we could get a fine or get jail time for not having health insurance? How would the government enforce that ? Or maybe they would threaten fines and jail time for CEO's of major Health insurance companys for not letting those who cant pay their fair share on their health insurance plans. See the toliet bowl of Health Care we are currently swirling down?

It all depends on how they have the plan set out. if it is reasonably accessable to everyone then it is reasonable because such a requirement would lower hospital costs.

I dont get that either? The Obama Administration estimates that there are 47 million uninsured americans. If this is an accurate number (and I have massive doubts) How can you save money by adding a 47 million people to the roster? The numbers don't add up and I smell a rat.

Because then a company is actually paying that bill instead of it more than likely not being paid. It is the same as requiring auto insurance, do you have a problem with that as well (you should because it is the same thing), or would you rather have higher insurance rates for your car because the guy who rear ended you didn't have insurance or money to pay for your damages?

It is a known fact that insurance rates are higher for autos in the few states that still make it optional to have.

[Philly Mike]

Mike, if I can find the article I will post it, but I read one a couple days ago that says they are now leaning towards requiring everyone to have healthcare, not just children.

Your kidding me right? Requiring everyone to have health insurance? What, maybe next we could get a fine or get jail time for not having health insurance? How would the government enforce that ? Or maybe they would threaten fines and jail time for CEO's of major Health insurance companys for not letting those who cant pay their fair share on their health insurance plans. See the toliet bowl of Health Care we are currently swirling down?

It all depends on how they have the plan set out. if it is reasonably accessable to everyone then it is reasonable because such a requirement would lower hospital costs.

I dont get that either? The Obama Administration estimates that there are 47 million uninsured americans. If this is an accurate number (and I have massive doubts) How can you save money by adding a 47 million people to the roster? The numbers don't add up and I smell a rat.

Because then a company is actually paying that bill instead of it more than likely not being paid. It is the same as requiring auto insurance, do you have a problem with that as well (you should because it is the same thing), or would you rather have higher insurance rates for your car because the guy who rear ended you didn't have insurance or money to pay for your damages?

It is a known fact that insurance rates are higher for autos in the few states that still make it optional to have.

exactly!

[professorpinasheep]

Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries.

So you must be one of the pessimistic folks I spoke of? I don’t need to explain how it will work; you need to explain how it won’t.

A little late to respond, probably.. but do you really consider the US to be a "wealthy" country at the moment? A double-digit unemployment rate (Hell, it's almost 15% here in Michigan), a troubled economy, and a mounting national debt (that will only shoot higher with the implementation of a government run health care system) all make me very pessimistic when it comes to the success of something like this.

[professorpinasheep]

Because then a company is actually paying that bill instead of it more than likely not being paid. It is the same as requiring auto insurance, do you have a problem with that as well (you should because it is the same thing), or would you rather have higher insurance rates for your car because the guy who rear ended you didn't have insurance or money to pay for your damages?

It is a known fact that insurance rates are higher for autos in the few states that still make it optional to have.

The problem here, to me, is who's going to be paying the bill. You do realize that our national debt is around 12 trillion dollars and increasing every day, right? The amount that each person (man, woman AND child) "owes" in order to pay it off is preposterous.

If you sold a car to someone, would you be willing to take a personal check from them even if you knew they were overdrawn, up to their eyeballs in bad debt, and is experiencing spotty employment? If I were a hospital administrator, I'd be leery of trying to collect money from an entity like that. I don't see how it's a major improvement over what we have now.. either way, it's going to be difficult to collect payment.

[zdunklee]

Because then a company is actually paying that bill instead of it more than likely not being paid. It is the same as requiring auto insurance, do you have a problem with that as well (you should because it is the same thing), or would you rather have higher insurance rates for your car because the guy who rear ended you didn't have insurance or money to pay for your damages?

It is a known fact that insurance rates are higher for autos in the few states that still make it optional to have.

The problem here, to me, is who's going to be paying the bill. You do realize that our national debt is around 12 trillion dollars and increasing every day, right? The amount that each person (man, woman AND child) "owes" in order to pay it off is preposterous.

If you sold a car to someone, would you be willing to take a personal check from them even if you knew they were overdrawn, up to their eyeballs in bad debt, and is experiencing spotty employment? If I were a hospital administrator, I'd be leery of trying to collect money from an entity like that. I don't see how it's a major improvement over what we have now.. either way, it's going to be difficult to collect payment.

Difficult is still better than impossible like it is now, a hospital can't do anything but send a bill to collections and if the people are poor already that means nothing and is just an added cost the hospital ends up dealing with.

[professorpinasheep]

Difficult is still better than impossible like it is now, a hospital can't do anything but send a bill to collections and if the people are poor already that means nothing and is just an added cost the hospital ends up dealing with.

Right.. but our government isn't any more well off, is it? So, either the government "makes" more money (thereby dramatically increasing inflation) or cuts more services in order to fund this one. With a system like this in place, there's going to be a LOT more money needed to be taken in to pay for it.. so people will be bringing home a lot less money after taxes even as the price of everything from gas to food to entertainment rises at incredible rates. That doesn't sound sustainable to me.

And if, as I've heard, it's electable to have government coverage, do I have to pay that much more in taxes after I've already have a chunk taken out for my own insurance coverage from my employer? Because that really doesn't sound good to me.. maybe I've got it wrong though. Perhaps someone could set me right.

[Philly Mike]

Difficult is still better than impossible like it is now, a hospital can't do anything but send a bill to collections and if the people are poor already that means nothing and is just an added cost the hospital ends up dealing with.

Right.. but our government isn't any more well off, is it? So, either the government "makes" more money (thereby dramatically increasing inflation) or cuts more services in order to fund this one. With a system like this in place, there's going to be a LOT more money needed to be taken in to pay for it.. so people will be bringing home a lot less money after taxes even as the price of everything from gas to food to entertainment rises at incredible rates. That doesn't sound sustainable to me.

And if, as I've heard, it's electable to have government coverage, do I have to pay that much more in taxes after I've already have a chunk taken out for my own insurance coverage from my employer? Because that really doesn't sound good to me.. maybe I've got it wrong though. Perhaps someone could set me right.

People are going to pay for their own government health insurance, why would there be any extra taxes like that. The free insurance program will still cover about the same amount of people as it did before anyway and those are run by the states themselves anyway. and as far as the government not being better off, it is't really worse off either, and more people will be able to afford health insurance they otherwise wouldn't be able to get. The point of this isn't to make the government better off it is to make it better for the people themselves that need health insurance. That's the big picture here. It isn't to generate more money or take over the entire health care system in the country. They are trying to actually make it so it is easier for people to actually have health insurance. Any other costs that would be added by running this health insurance will be what is taken from the budget that the government pays the hospitals themselves and those numbers are already in the billions. The reason they can do this is because the hospitals will be saving on those billions because people will actually have the health insurance and the insurance company will be paying the bills of these people that would otherwise be uninsured.

[professorpinasheep]

People are going to pay for their own government health insurance, why would there be any extra taxes like that.

Because people wouldn't pay for the entire coverage, just like employees who receive coverage don't. If they did, they'd see a lot more taken out of their paychecks. The government is going to have to foot some of the bill, and if it's any more than they spend now (which would have to be, otherwise there wouldn't have been 350 billion dollars in the spending package for it) on public coverage, taxes will have to be raised to cover the deficit.

The free insurance program will still cover about the same amount of people as it did before anyway and those are run by the states themselves anyway. and as far as the government not being better off, it is't really worse off either, and more people will be able to afford health insurance they otherwise wouldn't be able to get. The point of this isn't to make the government better off it is to make it better for the people themselves that need health insurance. That's the big picture here. It isn't to generate more money or take over the entire health care system in the country.

I should've been clearer, I guess, about "making" money. I wasn't assuming the government's objective was to make a profit. What I meant was they could print more, come up with more "stimulus" money out of nowhere (or China's pockets again), etc. When the government spends money it doesn't have, inflation will increase dramatically.

They are trying to actually make it so it is easier for people to actually have health insurance. Any other costs that would be added by running this health insurance will be what is taken from the budget that the government pays the hospitals themselves and those numbers are already in the billions.

So.. the government will have more money because it's paying more out? I'm not understanding that.

The reason they can do this is because the hospitals will be saving on those billions because people will actually have the health insurance and the insurance company will be paying the bills of these people that would otherwise be uninsured.

Yes, they'll have health insurance that is subsidized by the government. The government will need money to do that. So far, I've seen nothing that shows me this is a sustainable, workable model.

[Wiener Poopie]

A little late to respond, probably.. but do you really consider the US to be a "wealthy" country at the moment?

The exact reason now is a good time to begin implementing the process. When American citizens choose food over medication!

[professorpinasheep]

The exact reason now is a good time to begin implementing the process. When American citizens choose food over medication!

I can understand that argument, but it's too late. Our healthcare system should've been overhauled a few decades ago, and every President has dropped the ball or passed the buck (Repubs AND Dems included). Same with thing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. The pols never made the tough choices or put in the work that we expected them to. On the one hand, I'll admit it's somewhat refreshing to see the PotUSA trying to do something about it, even if I don't agree. On the other, however, I'm of the pessimistic opinion that we've dug ourselves in too deep. By implementing something like this, we're likely to drive ourselves further into debt that we'll never have even a glimmer of hope of getting out of. I'd be happier if there was some evidence that this program would be sustainable, but I haven't really seen that yet.

[Philly Mike]

Because people wouldn't pay for the entire coverage, just like employees who receive coverage don't. If they did, they'd see a lot more taken out of their paychecks. The government is going to have to foot some of the bill, and if it's any more than they spend now (which would have to be, otherwise there wouldn't have been 350 billion dollars in the spending package for it) on public coverage, taxes will have to be raised to cover the deficit.

Companies more than likely will pay part, as in japan's health care setup. The big difference in the way it is worked now is because of the lack of a profit incentive

I should've been clearer, I guess, about "making" money. I wasn't assuming the government's objective was to make a profit. What I meant was they could print more, come up with more "stimulus" money out of nowhere (or China's pockets again), etc. When the government spends money it doesn't have, inflation will increase dramatically.

So.. the government will have more money because it's paying more out? I'm not understanding that.

Yes, they'll have health insurance that is subsidized by the government. The government will need money to do that. So far, I've seen nothing that shows me this is a sustainable, workable model.

[/quote]

Okay maybe I didn't explain this part clear enough the first few times I tried.

Here's how things work now.

Hospitals now get a few hundred billion dollars every year to subsidize the services that people end up not paying them for. (bills, ER costs, etc. basically things they bill people for and never get paid)

Now this is a lot of tax payer money that is going to all of these hospitals every year anyway.

So what this plan is intending on doing is taking a big chunk of this money going to the hospitals and putting it towards the health care program. The hospitals will not need the money if almost everyone in the US is covered. The fact that the insurance is more affordable will assure that more people have it, and the ones who can't afford it will get the free plan. This method will create lower bills to people and the hospitals will be getting paid by the insurance companies, and on top of it there may be less ER bills anyway because of the fact that more people covered will create more of an awareness of preventive care.

You asked where the money comes from. It is coming from money that is already being spent on hospitals, but instead of making it so that it is being used after damage is done it can be used more efficiently and also be there to help people because it can be used for preventive care instead of just being used for bills that are driving hospitals into the ground.

[Mad Dog]

I hope it works..........


Cause if not its going to be a BOON DOGGLE :crazy:

[professorpinasheep]

So what this plan is intending on doing is taking a big chunk of this money going to the hospitals and putting it towards the health care program. The hospitals will not need the money if almost everyone in the US is covered. The fact that the insurance is more affordable will assure that more people have it, and the ones who can't afford it will get the free plan. This method will create lower bills to people and the hospitals will be getting paid by the insurance companies, and on top of it there may be less ER bills anyway because of the fact that more people covered will create more of an awareness of preventive care.

You asked where the money comes from. It is coming from money that is already being spent on hospitals, but instead of making it so that it is being used after damage is done it can be used more efficiently and also be there to help people because it can be used for preventive care instead of just being used for bills that are driving hospitals into the ground.

I think it's safe to say we're not going to agree on this issue, so this'll be my last response.

I can't buy the argument that "hospitals won't need the money" if almost everyone is covered. They'll still need the money. They'll just have to try to collect it from another entity that's (in)famous for red tape. Hospitals and doctors need money to cover ridiculous malpractice insurance and the rising cost of everything else, from food to medication. That won't change.

I have a problem with the fact that it's going to increase the taxes I pay. Before you say it won't, remember that you said yourself that more people will be covered. That means more money will be required, and money doesn't grow on trees. Yes, it'll lower the bill that the patient sees.. but it will raise the payment you see coming out of your paycheck.

Another problem I have is with the "preventative care" argument. It's often not cost-effective, and if the government wants to use such a huge chunk of taxpayer money, it damn well better be cost-effective.http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/17/pre...index.html is one article that can be cited. There's a few more from the AP that I've read as well.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But hey, I hope it goes as well as you say it will.. because the alternative if they follow through (remember, the Dems are having a hard time getting enough "for sure" votes even though they control Congress with a filibuster-proof majority) and fail won't be pleasant.

[Philly Mike]

fine by me, we can call it as it is, I mean I didn't expect to change any minds anyway. Was fun while it lasted though

Anyway I have enough faith that even if this doesn't go too well things will work themselves out. That is how things have been and that is how they will be. Yes things get screwed up here and there but hey that's the way of the world. As I have said before it won't be the end of the world.

[sunshyne]

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-De...h-Plan.pdf :lol:

[Mad Dog]

So I saw this new artical on Health care reform and wondered what everybody would think of it. Good thing this is the Touchy Subject thread hock:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/healthcare_reform_just_got_stickier.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07 ... ickier.php</a><!-- m -->

[sunshyne]

You can try this one on for size too. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13158 Tell me this bill isn't about government control.

[Mad Dog]

So what does the spite board think of U.S. taxpayers being forced to pony up and pay for abortions, assuming that the Healthcare Reform bill passes with abortion payment language in it?