Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;557392]My bad, I wasn't aware your office was it's own sector.[/quote]
In my eyes it is.LOL

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557364]so we let the insurance/ medical field control the costs of managed health care? that seems to working just fine( not) i have an idea. lets try something new! oh my god, i said it. [B]the dreaded change word,[/B] that petrifies many[/quote]

Change is fine but what do you want to change? What is the [I]new[/I] plan?

I admit, I do not see a real solution. Does that mean I am not open to one? No. My family is getting by on a shoe string so if your change is going to cost me substantially more in the short term or lower the quality of my kids care, your plan better be damn good. Further, I am not going to say something is good [I]just[/I] because it is different.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hope Obama has something that will work. I promise to give any plan he puts forth fair scrutiny. What I have seen from him on this front so far is not "new". It may be change but that does not necessarily make it better.

Give me a plan that lowers costs while still providing quality care to the vast number of already insured americans. If you have a plan for that, I will gladly pay what I currently pay now and an extra 10% on top to help insure the currently uninsurable.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Monksdown;557393]I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent [B]tied to the right so fastly[/B]. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.[/quote]

I think you mean tied to the [I]social conservatives[/I] so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Monksdown;557393]I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.[/quote]

Add myself, and I believe FRPLG and GMScud to that group

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;557419]Add myself,[B] and I believe[/B] FRPLG and[B] GMScud [/B]to that group[/quote]

Yessir. I enjoy this board way too much to get into political back and forth (although I occasionally lurk on the political threads and enjoy some of the discussion). However I'm not shy about revealing my political alignment.

Re: the new health care?
 

Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557431]Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't[/quote]
I would not say the system doesn't work but I do agree that we can do better then the current system. I'm just against goverment taking over the system because I feel it will get worse instead of getting any better.

Re: the new health care?
 

like i asked earlier, then what would you do about it?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557431]Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't[/quote]

Well, what is the right plan? Before we going tearing up an imperfect system that provides coverage for 80% of the population, shouldn't we have an idea of what's coming? You want me to suffer through setbacks? I am perfectly fine with sacrifice if you can point me to something that will ultimately lead to a better system.

This self-righteous "you're just afraid of change" bs is just that. Fiscal conservatives are perfectly willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. Their just isn't a plan out there that can w/stand any sort of scrutiny and fit that description.

You, like me, don't have a plan. Unlike you, however, I recognize that "change" for change's sake could lead to something even worse than the current system.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;557383]Is there any sector that is running things in the green right now?[/quote]
I think Wal-mart is up :laughing-

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557400]I think you mean tied to the [I]social conservatives[/I] so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.[/quote]
Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557476]Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.[/quote]

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557481]1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.[/quote]

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

Re: the new health care?
 

Well, this thread has recovered nicely.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557506][B]Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. [/B]My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.[/quote]

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment#2008]Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url].

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

[url=http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War]Introduction[/url]

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557515]Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment#2008"]Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL].

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. [B]During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."[/B]

[URL="http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War"]Introduction[/URL][/quote]

The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Monksdown;557393]I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.[/quote]

Bingo...I am not exactly pro-choice but I honestly give mostly a hoot about social issues. They seem to work themselves out on their own and I don't really want anyone legislating social mores anyways. Plus the social direction of this country means nothing if we spend it into oblivion and end up with no country someday.

"Hallelujah! Even though our nation has fallen to pieces and civil wars have ensued...we still don't let woman have abortions and the damn gays can't get married. We've won!!!!!"

Yeah you've won you dopes. You've won a Darwin award. Screw social conservatives in my opinion.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557522]Bingo...I am not exactly pro-choice but I honestly give mostly a hoot about social issues. They seem to work themselves out on their own and I don't really want anyone legislating social mores anyways. Plus the social direction of this country means nothing if we spend it into oblivion and end up with no country someday.

"Hallelujah! Even though our nation has fallen to pieces and civil wars have ensued...we still don't let woman have abortions and the damn gays can't get married. We've won!!!!!"

Yeah you've won you dopes. You've won a Darwin award. Screw social conservatives in my opinion.[/quote]

LOL. Great post.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Monksdown;557517]The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?[/quote]

[quote]Congressional power over the courts

Congress checks the power of the judiciary mainly through its power to propose constitutional amendments and pass new laws. Congress also has the power to confirm the president's appointments to the federal bench, change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and impeach and convict judges who commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.[/quote]
from a random website

Re: the new health care?
 

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557476]Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.[/quote]

Are you kidding me?

The GOP has run for the last 20 years at least on social conservatism and fiscal conservatism RHETORIC.

When given the chance to govern they were able to:

a) do nothing to advance their social values legislatively because those values are held by a minority
b) completely ignore their fiscal conservative principles.

We don't have a single true fiscal conservative politician in this country of any significance because they get run out of the party pretty effing fast. Look at a guy like Demint in SC. He is a true free-marketer and gets barely any traction within the party because of it. He voted against the Medicare bill because it was crap while the rest of the dumbsh*t Republicans rallied around our wonderful "Conservative" President as they passed into law one of the biggest spending projects in US history.

But to answer your question:

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Gays in the Military
10 Commandments in public buildings
Prayer in school
The whole "family values" campaign


Just to name a few

Re: the new health care?
 

No thanks. If i wanted to be socialist, i'd hop to France.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557529]from a random website[/quote]


Thanks random website.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557515]Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment#2008"]Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL].

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

[URL="http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War"]Introduction[/URL][/quote]
Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

Re: the new health care?
 

Does anybody REALLY believe our representatives are concerned with what we think, or make decisions based on what is best for the American people? That they are going to do what is right, rather than self serving issues they are concerned about? It does not appear so to me.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557530]I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.[/quote]

Nope. As demonstrated by the trillion dollar budget and trillion dollar health care plan, fiscal responsibility is not within their lexicon. It's 1970's liberalism all over.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557530]I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.[/quote]

With whom I agree on almost nothing.

I get to choose from one group who I believe is totally and utterly wrong in both idea and application or another who cares more about things I don't care about at all but has the forethought to throw a few good sentences into their campaign speeches about the things I really do care about.

It's why the two-party system doesn't work for me...and most Americans. We're always stuck voting for people who are the best of two evils. And that accounts for about 60-70% of the electorate. Since this group is so hard to campaign to then the parties campaign to the bases and hope to pull in a few moderates and win. That's why even in this recent "landslide" election it was basically a 55-45 split. Both parties campaign from the outside->in and anyone with in-view(middle of rthe road) as defined by the party don't get the political party support they need to get traction.

VA is a great example. We have some good fiscal conservatives in this state. None ever get shots at the bigger jobs. Instead we put up dipwads like Mark Early, Jerry Kilgore, George Allen, Jim Gilmore. Why? Because they say the right stuff about gay people and abortions. Then they run through the standard stuff on national security and finally might throw a line or two in there about stopping spending. Then they get nominated and get trounced in a largely CONSERVATIVE state because no one believes them fiscally (history speaks the truth) and are scared of their social agenda.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557535]Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.[/quote]

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557546]Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.[/quote]


taxes my friend. taxes.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557546]Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.[/quote]
First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?

Re: the new health care?
 

OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national health care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557552]OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national helath care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one.[/quote]

You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557551]First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?[/quote]

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557558]Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government?[/quote]Acknowledgement of a married relationship brings certain legal and tax status. I agree with your point though, the federal government should not be focused on legislating moral behavior unless there is a negative effect on others. There also shouldn't be an effect on how you're taxed whether single or married either (insert FairTax plug here).

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;557562]Acknowledgement of a married relationship brings certain legal and tax status. I agree with your point though, the federal government should not be focused on legislating moral behavior unless there is a negative effect on others. There also shouldn't be an effect on how you're taxed whether single or married either (insert FairTax plug here).[/quote]

I edited mine to add some stuff...but the the legal and tax stuff exists BECAUSE of the sanctioning. Not the other way around. We didn't decide to give out benefits and then come up with the magic idea of marriage as a way to make it happen. Marriage is a religious invention that the gov't/society decided to use as a tool for providing benefits.

It should remain strickly a religious institution and we should forego providing benefits/status based on marriage since it intrinsically can't be done in a fair way.

Re: the new health care?
 

JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557558]Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.[/quote]

So I'm with you and now we will have to privatize social security and I'm all for that. Other than maybe a tax break SS is the only thing I can think of as far as goverment benefits. Most of the other stuff you can go to a lawyer and draw up legal papers that give you the other rights like when medical issues arise.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;557570]JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, [B]let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)[/B][/quote]

In an attempt to do so, I am still waiting for dmek's response to this exchange:

[quote=dmek25;557431]Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't[/quote]

[quote=JoeRedskin;557449]Well, what is the right plan? Before we going tearing up an imperfect system that provides coverage for 80% of the population, shouldn't we have an idea of what's coming? You want me to suffer through setbacks? I am perfectly fine with sacrifice if you can point me to something that will ultimately lead to a better system.

This self-righteous "you're just afraid of change" bs is just that. Fiscal conservatives are perfectly willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. Their just isn't a plan out there that can w/stand any sort of scrutiny and fit that description.

You, like me, don't have a plan. Unlike you, however, I recognize that "change" for change's sake could lead to something even worse than the current system.[/quote]

So I will ask again: What's your plan dmek ?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557556]You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. [U]You care about things I don't care about[/U]. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.[/quote]

And what are those?

Re: the new health care?
 

Okay, people have been asking "what exactly should we do?" regarding a new health care plan. Here are some ideas, again from Rep. Ron Paul, who is a doctor and knows first-hand of the trouble with the current system.

I'm not sure if these bills are still active, but the idea of allowing individuals and families to deduct the cost of health care off their income taxes has been an idea floating around for awhile. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[quote][B]HR 3075 [/B]provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

[B]HR 3076 [/B]is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

[B]HR 3077 [/B]makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

[B]HR 3078 [/B]is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.[/quote]

The bottom line is that health care costs seemed to get really out of control once the people stopped paying for the cost of a doctor visit up front, directly. Then the federal government started requiring employers to provide health care, and suddenly all the money was put into a huge pot with lots of people paying in and third parties began allocating those funds as they saw fit -- with doctors basically out of the decision making.

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).