So best to just all carp from the sidelines and do all we can to prevent any actual change from happening or gaining support then eh?

No. What is best to do is follow every step along the way and make sure that you are not handed a plate of shit and exepect that any one party is looking out for your best interests. YOU should know that and accept that more than anyone on this forum.

Not insane -- just a classic response in politics. Nothing new, here.

http://fox.org/~vince/out/littlerock.jpg

So by the posting of this picture does that mean that you equate opposition to the current healthcare policy reform is due to racism?

Perhaps we could have a more productive discussion. With all the BS coming from ALL sides, its difficult to address the issue at hand and what changes need/should be implemented.
What costs are we trying to reduce?
Where is the waste - specifically?
Is it the Ins Co.'s, or the Hospitals or Pharma?
Who is going to pay for what & how?

These are just a couple of the basics that seem to get lost in the partisan BS.

Nope. Interesting that you would read that out of it, though. Just pointing out that the old scare tactic practice of bringing up the political boogeyman is still alive and well. That we give these nutjobs a voice in the news, however, is new. Commies! Brownshirts! Nazis! Keep your innocent child out of school and away from this evil!

I was just curious because I have heard 3 or 4 black commentators say that very thing, opposition to the reform was due to nothing more than racial issues. But on the note of scare tactics, they are being used by both sides of the issue, one to encourage support, the other in opposition.

Are you asking about the current system or the proposed reform? If you're willing to spend some time reading, here is a fair summary of the current issue list.

I'm just now 30 and I've already experienced one of the delightful ways insurance companies screw people. During my stint in a highly stressful contract position, I developed anxiety-induced skipped heartbeats at the age of 23. Harmless, but I felt I should get it checked out just to be sure. A quick doctor's visit was all it required.

What a mistake. I got a clean bill of health from the doctor, but the insurance company had a field day with it. Despite resolution of the issue a year prior with a simple change in jobs, my policy renewal had a giant rider stapled to the top of the contract indicating that they would have no problems covering any cardiovascular issues because the doctor gave a thumbs-up but would not drop a dime for treatment of "any neurological disease or disorder". That vague statement included every single mood disorder, depression, anxiety, nervous system degenerative disease, palsy, stroke, seizure, syncope, brain tumor, and spinal disease. Had they really wanted to, they likely wouldn't have had to cover a head injury if I had skipped and fallen on the sidewalk. They would, of course, review the rider in 2 years and had the option to remove it if they deemed it viable. Of course, they didn't. It was likely stuck with me for life. Why would they ever feel the need to remove it? Not only did it decrease their potential exposure as an insurance company, but they raised my rates slightly because of it.

Fuck you, Blue Cross.

Thankfully, I got a job some years later that had underwritten insurance, but a large number of jobs in my field leave it up to the policy holder to deal with insurance directly. Next year, my company will reduce the choice of insurance policies from 3 down to 1, and there are discussions that the burden of health coverage will soon be left to the employee in order to remain competitive. It makes one very hesitant to even get an issue checked out for fear that it will bite you in some unexpected way down the line.

This needs to be fixed. It's fucking criminal.

eh - I really don't trust Wiki - especially when it starts with:
"The debate over health care reform in the United States centers on questions about whether there is a fundamental right to health care, on who should have access to health care and under what circumstances..."

Well, that IS the debate, is it not?

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of it, classic. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to put it in those terms, but you either believe that healthcare is a fundamental human right, or it's not. The trick is to not be ashamed of what you believe (or if you are, reassess what you believe.) Lookout, for example, will openly tell you he doesn't think healthcare is a fundamental human right, just like being rich and being happy are not fundamental human rights.

Wow. Am I the go to posterchild for heartless bastards in the cellar, or what?;)

This is one of the reasons I love the Cellar. It just helped me clarify where I stand. I do not believe that health care is a fundamental right - if by that you mean "free to everyone".

I believe that health care should be available for a reasonable cost -- whether or not you work for a major corporation. That's a horse of a different color.

Us, too. I have two children with lifelong pre-existing conditions. (Because even if I manage to recover them, the insurance companies go by the current medical assumption that recovery is impossible, so they will be forever autistic even if they no longer meet diagnostic criteria, and thus uninsurable for the rest of their lives.) If my husband is ever laid off, they will have to go on a state plan for uninsurable children, like my friend's daughter who is diabetic. That government-run health insurance program has been quite literally a lifesaver for her.

Then you and I agree on that issue dar. I think the major problem is we having a wide range of definitions for "reasonable cost". I believe the system needs improvement, I do not believe our government is approaching the problem from the right angle though.