Quote:Now i ask you all, WHY, why should the government step in and take control of health care, do you really think the politicians and their beurocrats can actually do a better job than the private sector? Where has that really ever happened and been cost effective. Tell me how well it works in Canada and Britain when the people who can afford it are coming to the US to have their operations done and those that cant suffer until the next budgetary year allows the hospitals to actually afford to do things for them. Those who have a coronary blockage and instead of getting a Bypass operation get a stent and a smile and told to come back at a later date. Personally i have to deal with the VA which is bad enough at times, thats GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICAL, i go in and tell them i need to see a doctor, they tell me that they will set me an appointment and inform me by mail when it is. I dont see a doctor that day, i dont even see a corpman, i get told after a 5 hour wait that they will set me an appointment and notify me when it is. I go to that appointment 3 months later, (i dare not miss it, and its at their convenience), and they decide i need an MRI (finally, not like i havent been telling them that for three years), another 3 months later i get scanned by the MRI and told they'll inform me when i can see the Orthopedist for the explanation, another 3 months down the road i finally see the Orthopedist, and he tells me that they wont work on my knees, (surgery of any kind or injections) that i'll be mailed a brace to wear, and that i need to find another job where i'm not having to be a human forklift.
9 months to be told something i already knew and told i'll be mailed a brace, (its been a month and a half and i havent seen it yet) in a shitty economy and a navy town where the employee exchange was 700% when the economy was GOOD, no thank you, let the private sector handle it, they'll at least tell you your screwed in a timely manner.
And this is why we are violently uninterested in government-run healthcare. Because it applies all the inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy to a situation where time is very often literally life or death for the people involved.
Tell me, of the supposed millions of uninsured, how many are healthy young people who can afford it perfectly well, but have chosen not to pay for it because they feel they don't need it? (Answer: At least a third, maybe as many as half depending on whose statistics you believe.)
And Catty, have you answered any of the other questions I asked, or are you just (as libtards usually do) dismissing and ignoring them because you don't like the answers?
What's your answer to this little AP quote?
Quote:The AFL-CIO approved a resolution saying that President Obama's health care overhaul will drive up the costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.--
In a strongly worded resolution released Wednesday, the federation said that labor unions still support the Affordable Care Act's overall goals of reducing health costs and bringing coverage to all Americans, but added that the law is being implemented in a way that is "highly disruptive" to union health care plans.
Some individual unions have complained about the law's impact for months, but the resolution marks the first time the nation's largest labor federation has gone on record embracing that view. Unions were among the most enthusiastic backers of the law when it passed in 2010.
A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution. The official, who wasn't authorized to discuss the conversations publicly and requested anonymity, said many union leaders insisted that they wanted to highlight their concerns.
Asked about any efforts to discourage unions from passing the resolution, the White House said in a statement Wednesday night that officials "are in regular contact with a variety of stakeholders, including unions, as part of our efforts to ensure smooth implementation and to improve the law."
The AFL-CIO, one of the president's major boosters, approved the resolution just as the administration began rolling out a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to encourage Americans to sign up for health care exchanges starting Oct. 1.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said the intent of the resolution is to "point out the criticisms without being overly caustic."
"There have to be some changes made in the area that are giving a number of our unions great concern," said Schaitberger, who chaired the committee that hammered out the resolution's language.
The resolution was approved at the AFL-CIO's quadrennial convention in Los Angeles. It claims the new law will increase costs for health plans that are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers in the construction, retail and transportation industries. That could encourage employers to hire fewer union workers or abandon the health plans altogether and force union members to seek lower quality coverage on the new health exchanges.
...
The AFL-CIO resolution was toned down from a draft originally offered by Sean McGarvey, head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department. The early draft said the AFL-CIO could no longer support the health care law and called for its repeal unless changes were made...
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.