He no longer has any moral standing of any sort. He's simply looking out for #1.

He Knows the public option is a sham. It will be optional? For what 6 months ?2 years? When you control the triggers you can make them as hard to pull as you want. Government is not the answer to your problems.

You think the corporations are doing such a great job? You and Lieberman just LOVE the insurance comanies, eh?

I heard an astounding fact today: the insurance companies since you Cons took over think they have to make a proft of 30% on the health care dollar WE pay them,when they used to make only 7% on the dollar, and were rich as hell then too.

Oh yes, the corporations are working just fine if you love PIRATES.

It is a very neat trick to blame the Democrats even when you sit there praising Lieberman for filaburstering a bill that is so conservative, the public option in it means almost nothing.

You people are human devils, You are SATAN on earth if anyone is or ever was.

if its one thing i know its that you don't know what liebermann is thinking.

on the other hand, the public option is up and running in many states and is working.

you are the most uninformed person i have ever known. in fact, there is a public option in conn.

here is proof ckone

This is what our Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, said about the Charter Oak Plan last month on its one-year anniversary:

"A little over a year ago, I announced the start of a program I said would change the face of health care in Connecticut – change it for the better and change it forever," Governor Rell said. "Today that program is covering 10,257 individuals and another 5,884 applicants are eligible for coverage as soon as they select from one of three contracted health plans and begin paying monthly premiums.

"That means more than 10,000 people who – a year ago – had no health coverage or could not afford the coverage they had now have affordable health care," the Governor said. "That is an accomplishment worth celebrating. From routine checkups to treatment for life-threatening illness, the program is filling a critical gap. "

ckone:

Government is not the answer to your problems.

Is this the motto you live by when your house is on fire or your car is stolen? How about when tornados level your town or you want to drive say, from one state to another...or anywhere for that matter?

The truth is government, whether at the local, state, or federal level, can boast a million successes of varying degrees on a daily basis. It's popular now to repeat partisan mantras as if they were sacrosanct and absolute, but you really need to think critically about where this line of thinking comes from and who ultimately benefits from this absolutist mindset. Perhaps government as an OPTION for those whose health is basically defined by the failure and corruption of the private sector is not so unreasonable. My wife and I cannot get insured due to preexisting, congenital conditions. If we were in any other industrialized country in the world I might have a shot at seeing my son graduate from high school in fifteen years. You'll excuse me if I'm a little beyond conservative orthodoxy right now, but my only hope (and I speak for millions) lies in this reform passing.

OK, so you and your significant other have serious health issues that are congenital in nature and probably tremendously expensive to deal with.

So basically you want the rest of us to pay for them and we get what back in return? You live a bit longer and the cost is what? Multiply your story by millions, as you say, and how exactly will we pay for this? In the end we can't and we will end up rationing care and someone with your pre-existing condition will be almost exactly where you are now-the difference being you will be turned down by your government instead of a private corp.

candoxx:

You think the corporations are doing such a great job? You and Lieberman just LOVE the insurance comanies, eh?

I heard an astounding fact today: the insurance companies since you Cons took over think they have to make a proft of 30% on the health care dollar WE pay them,when they used to make only 7% on the dollar, and were rich as hell then too.

Can you cite this? 3.3% is the latest number. Far cry from 30%.

<link>

youarestupidwhy:

You will pay for other people's medical expenses one how or another, either through charity or higher medical costs or higher insurance or higher taxes. You are doing this now, have always been doing this, and will always do this, as long as we don't all become morons like you and decide that people who get sick should lay down on the roadside and die and become roadkill. And even in that case, you'll STILL pay, because you'll lose income in an idiotic society like that.

The question isn't why you should pay for other people's medical expenses, because you are in fact already paying, even though you don't seem to know it. The question is what is the best way to pay. And if you think you're saving money under the present system, you're wrong, because we're paying far more than any other country in the world for medical care, and getting less for it.

nerdnam,

Wow, nice personal attack. Read the original comment. He is not getting treatment right now so obviously nobody is paying for it right now. As of now we do all pay for emergency treatment, but the original poster didn't imply that he was getting that. In fact, you don't seem to grasp that many things people now do without will be provided for under a new system-it won't be merely transfering treatment from the emergency room to a scheduled appointment, it will be new proceedures that are not currently being done and thus currently being paid for.

As for the efficiency of the process, yes it can be improved but that doesn't make my earlier post incorrect. Increasing the costs and coverage (both by numbers of people and what will be covered) will prove to be fiscally impossible in the long run. There will be rationed care, just as there is now. Its just that the agent of rationing will be the government and the criteria will be set from above as opposed to who can pay for what as it is now.

Youwantmymoneywhy:

OK, so you and your significant other have serious health issues that are congenital in nature and probably tremendously expensive to deal with.

So basically you want the rest of us to pay for them and we get what back in return? You live a bit longer and the cost is what? Multiply your story by millions, as you say, and how exactly will we pay for this? In the end we can't and we will end up rationing care and someone with your pre-existing condition will be almost exactly where you are now-the difference being you will be turned down by your government instead of a private corp.

Then it's INSURANCE you oppose? In what sense is it not "rationing" to deny treatment to someone for a pre-existing condition?

Its not insurance if you already have a condition. Its treatment. Insurance implies that there is a risk that you are protecting yourself against. The poster doesn't have a risk-he has a condition that requires treatment. You honestly don't see the difference?