my main problem with the rhetoric of both sides of this is that it just wants to make everything far more simplistic than it actually is–including what you wrote.

(1) Really? This was so clearly addressed during the debate, I was so surprised to see you say this. Just a simple Google search for “health care tort reform” brought up article after article saying the same thing: lawsuits IN GENERAL only account for 1.5% of all health care costs, much less “frivolous” ones (maybe it’s just that Google “liberal bias”). Here are some examples that explain this well: http://goo.gl/Qpvn , http://goo.gl/Itzc7 , http://goo.gl/JsCvc

(2) This isn’t a “point”. This is fear-mongering. Most other first-world countries in the world have a single-payer system like that. It’s like saying “you can’t pass that bill, it will turn Congress into a Parliamentary system.” It’s not “argument” or “reason” to “counter” this. It’s throwing out some buzz words that sound “scary” to us Americans and saying “see? You don’t want THAT, do you?” Now, you may think that a single-payer system isn’t the best way to do health care in America–and that’s fine–that’s just a different “point” than simply saying “the scary and evil SOCIALISTS in Congress are conspiring to bring this about.” Your statement assumes that there is something inherently wrong about this system (which it’s not), that most people wouldn’t want it (which surveys continually showed that at the time this article was written, they did), and that American ingenuity couldn’t figure out a way to do it “Americanly”. That’s a lot of unproven assumptions that need to be addressed before you can simply say “they’re secretly doing this; be afraid!” Now, I personally, think those things have responses, and I don’t think a single-payer system is best in the long-run, but I just can’t stand the oversimplifying and fear and rhetoric-based things that keep being said about this.

(3) once again, this isn’t a “point”. Maybe what you said is true. Repeatedly, Democratic and Independent have said it isn’t true and you will be able to keep your insurance and Republicans are just twisting things; but maybe you’re right. But, even if so, you have to show that this would be bad. Perhaps many people aren’t satisfied with their coverage and costs, so slowly moving them off their already poor coverage may not be bad. Perhaps these “triggers” will be motivations for insurance providers to do what’s necessary to keep their clients. And even if the time comes when this happens, people will either be happy and content, or unhappy and freak out. And then, our legislators, terrified of not being re-elected, will rush some solution through Congress for us. So, either way, this is not some “doomsday scenario”

Once you get corporations and insurance companies get so big that they are wealthier than some nations in the world, “free-market forces” break down. Money doesn’t “trickle”, services/products don’t get better, things don’t get cheaper. The invisible hand is NOT the end-all-be-all of problem-solvers. Prices don’t “slowly start to fix” themselves when it comes to economies of scale of this size. Look at cable companies, utility companies, and phone companies. As more competition has entered the mix, prices HAVE NOT GONE DOWN. It’s NOT THAT SIMPLISTIC OF A SITUATION. People need to stop thinking in these black-and-white, either-or, good-and-evil, Republican-Democrat dichotomies that are KILLING us.

The Individual Mandate was first introduced by Republicans in the 90s. The bill that passed was very similar to the Republican bill offered to and rejected by Clinton. Most people are angry and see this bill more as a GIVEAWAY to the insurance companies–not the death of them. The CBO has said REPEATEDLY that it will LOWER the deficit. There are just as many opinions about this bill as there are people. This is complicated. I just wish people stayed away from talking points and overly-simplistic generalizations and actually gave some thoughtful, nuanced, and careful analysis to this. The above article represents what I feel is the closest to a REALISTICALLY achievable “biblical” picture of health care, NOT the most efficient or cost-reducing PER SE.

Do I think the that passed is ideal for health care? No, not at all. Do I have a comprehensive solution that ties up all the loose ends? No, not at all. Do I think there exists a single comprehensive solution that will tie up all the loose-ends for everybody? No, not at all. Do I think this bill will dramatically affect may day-to-day existence? Not really. Do I think the country will end or be radically altered in its substance or character if this bill stays in place.

Nope.

Not. At. All.

If you bring in free-market forces by putting the responsibility and decisions back into the hands of the patients, then pass tort reform so doctors don’t have to fear unreasonable lawsuits, then the prices will slowly start to fix itself. Imagine that!

Given the assumption that it is God’s plan for the church to look after those in need. Given that the church is not doing that how is the correct response to let it get worse until the church wakes up? Surely if God wants the church to look after those in need, he wants those in need to be looked after. If the church isn’t doing it how can a Christian say that the state should not? The Christian’s role has got to be to give the church a kick up the backside to start doing its job rather than campaign against healthcare reform that might see the needy looked after!