<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_1844214</id>
	<title>US House Democrats Unveil a Health Care Plan</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245493440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:kaal7ik@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">gollum123</a> sends in this piece from a political blog in the NY Times. Here is the <a href="http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/DraftHealthCareReform-BillText.pdf">text of the bill</a> in question (PDF). <i>"House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama's call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward [an] <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/house-democrats-unveil-plan-for-health-care-overhaul/?hp">852-page draft bill</a>  that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance, force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them, and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers &mdash; a move that Republicans will bitterly oppose. ... But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost, even as they pledged to pay for it by cutting Medicare spending and imposing new, unspecified taxes. The three chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a weeks-long legislative endeavor that they said would dominate Congress for the summer and ultimately involve the full panorama of stakeholders in the health care industry, which accounts for about one-sixth of the nation's economy. ... House Republicans, who have had no involvement in the development of the health legislation so far, quickly denounced the Democrats' proposal as a thinly disguised plan for an eventual government takeover of the health care system. ... The House Democrats' plan is one of three distinct efforts underway on Capitol Hill to draft the health overhaul legislation. In the Senate, both the Finance Committee and the health committee have separate bills in the works, and in recent days those efforts seem to have stumbled."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 sends in this piece from a political blog in the NY Times .
Here is the text of the bill in question ( PDF ) .
" House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama 's call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward [ an ] 852-page draft bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance , force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them , and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers    a move that Republicans will bitterly oppose .
... But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost , even as they pledged to pay for it by cutting Medicare spending and imposing new , unspecified taxes .
The three chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a weeks-long legislative endeavor that they said would dominate Congress for the summer and ultimately involve the full panorama of stakeholders in the health care industry , which accounts for about one-sixth of the nation 's economy .
... House Republicans , who have had no involvement in the development of the health legislation so far , quickly denounced the Democrats ' proposal as a thinly disguised plan for an eventual government takeover of the health care system .
... The House Democrats ' plan is one of three distinct efforts underway on Capitol Hill to draft the health overhaul legislation .
In the Senate , both the Finance Committee and the health committee have separate bills in the works , and in recent days those efforts seem to have stumbled .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 sends in this piece from a political blog in the NY Times.
Here is the text of the bill in question (PDF).
"House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama's call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward [an] 852-page draft bill  that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance, force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them, and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers — a move that Republicans will bitterly oppose.
... But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost, even as they pledged to pay for it by cutting Medicare spending and imposing new, unspecified taxes.
The three chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a weeks-long legislative endeavor that they said would dominate Congress for the summer and ultimately involve the full panorama of stakeholders in the health care industry, which accounts for about one-sixth of the nation's economy.
... House Republicans, who have had no involvement in the development of the health legislation so far, quickly denounced the Democrats' proposal as a thinly disguised plan for an eventual government takeover of the health care system.
... The House Democrats' plan is one of three distinct efforts underway on Capitol Hill to draft the health overhaul legislation.
In the Senate, both the Finance Committee and the health committee have separate bills in the works, and in recent days those efforts seem to have stumbled.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407397</id>
	<title>Re:Will this bill stop the pre existing condition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245516720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be more concerned about education, particularly English spelling and grammar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be more concerned about education , particularly English spelling and grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be more concerned about education, particularly English spelling and grammar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407219</id>
	<title>Alright!</title>
	<author>bennebw</author>
	<datestamp>1245514980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This oughtta be rich!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This oughtta be rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This oughtta be rich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412201</id>
	<title>Re:I can tell you how much it could cost</title>
	<author>Moochman</author>
	<datestamp>1245611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite honestly, I'd gladly give $2000 of my cash per year to the government if it meant I could count on getting health care, no matter what. $2000 is small potatoes compared to what one gets charged for even the most basic of hospital visits.... The fact that I'm also ensuring the welfare of others is just a moral icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite honestly , I 'd gladly give $ 2000 of my cash per year to the government if it meant I could count on getting health care , no matter what .
$ 2000 is small potatoes compared to what one gets charged for even the most basic of hospital visits.... The fact that I 'm also ensuring the welfare of others is just a moral icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite honestly, I'd gladly give $2000 of my cash per year to the government if it meant I could count on getting health care, no matter what.
$2000 is small potatoes compared to what one gets charged for even the most basic of hospital visits.... The fact that I'm also ensuring the welfare of others is just a moral icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413787</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>tkw954</author>
	<datestamp>1245580560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Take, for example, HIV treatment. Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive. But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take , for example , HIV treatment .
Most people probably could n't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive .
But I do n't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive , as long as he does n't bitch about Republicans , in which case , I 'd vote to cut him off .
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take, for example, HIV treatment.
Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.
But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.
Wow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405841</id>
	<title>Pedal Extremity Excision by Handheld Ordnance</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1245503040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just an aside to the editors: this is not science.</p><p>The health care industry is presently 1/6th of the US economy. Without significant changes it will double in 30 years to 1/3 of the economy. Its size is due to the involvement of the government sanctioned Ponzi schemes and cash flow tidal pools known as insurance companies. Contrary to the report generated by the government that is being used as the rationale for the "improvements" in the health care industry, forcing the insurance companies to take on even more will result in more and faster growth. By 2040 health care would be around half of the US economy.</p><p>A government run operation that competes with the commercial enterprises won't improve things. We already have that in Medicare/Medicaid. The mandated low payments and customary federal employees' gross mismanagement only result in more costs passed to patients and insurance companies as well as denial of services as more providers opt out of accepting these. The growth of these programs has resulted in increases in taxation without concominant increases in service. With growth unchecked, and with the demographic bubble of baby boomers draining it outnumbering the younger work force, by 2040 it will require the younger people to have 2 full time jobs just to pay the taxes that keep those programs afloat.</p><p>The US pays more now for health care than most others, without better results or satisfaction. This will only get worse as the present system grows, and will get worse still if it is forced to grow even faster. The only rational solution is to remove the middleman carcinoma from the health care industry. That is, get rid of insurance and mandate reduction in the artificially inflated medical care costs that they promote.</p><p>My advice is to drop any insurance and keep the money. If you need care, either get the same rate from a provider they offer to insurance, or if they refuse, get care and don't pay. Become medically indigent. That will help cause the present system to collapse, the sooner the better, the later the greater damage to the rest of the economy. That advice came to me from the professor and hospital administrator teaching history and systems of the health care industry for my master's in health care administration. He also told us that by the time we got our degrees that we may not have jobs, and even if we do, we probably won't retire from the same industry, since the present system is not sustainable. For me this became academic, because by the time I graduated I realized I had too much conscience to be able to hold peoples' health hostage with a protection racket.</p><p>On a more recent note, if you think insurance companies are the sort of responsible entities to be tasked with self-oversight and watching out for your best interests, look back a week or so in the news and find out how many of those companies have invested how many millions of dollars in tobacco companies. That only looks like conflict of interest. Their real interest is in handling your money when you get sick, so they'd just as soon you get sicker sooner, so in this instance they are being entirely responsible to those to who they exist to be most responsible to -- their shareholders.</p><p>Trying to fix this problem by requiring those responsible for the problem to take an even greater role is simply shooting the economy in the foot. I have to drive 70 miles one way to get medical treatment at the closest Veterans Administration facility, and do so several time a month. And I'm glad to, so that I don't have to participate in the travesty called the health care "industry". God love the care givers, they deserve all respect, but God damn the "industry" that helps create the problems it makes money from supposedly solving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just an aside to the editors : this is not science.The health care industry is presently 1/6th of the US economy .
Without significant changes it will double in 30 years to 1/3 of the economy .
Its size is due to the involvement of the government sanctioned Ponzi schemes and cash flow tidal pools known as insurance companies .
Contrary to the report generated by the government that is being used as the rationale for the " improvements " in the health care industry , forcing the insurance companies to take on even more will result in more and faster growth .
By 2040 health care would be around half of the US economy.A government run operation that competes with the commercial enterprises wo n't improve things .
We already have that in Medicare/Medicaid .
The mandated low payments and customary federal employees ' gross mismanagement only result in more costs passed to patients and insurance companies as well as denial of services as more providers opt out of accepting these .
The growth of these programs has resulted in increases in taxation without concominant increases in service .
With growth unchecked , and with the demographic bubble of baby boomers draining it outnumbering the younger work force , by 2040 it will require the younger people to have 2 full time jobs just to pay the taxes that keep those programs afloat.The US pays more now for health care than most others , without better results or satisfaction .
This will only get worse as the present system grows , and will get worse still if it is forced to grow even faster .
The only rational solution is to remove the middleman carcinoma from the health care industry .
That is , get rid of insurance and mandate reduction in the artificially inflated medical care costs that they promote.My advice is to drop any insurance and keep the money .
If you need care , either get the same rate from a provider they offer to insurance , or if they refuse , get care and do n't pay .
Become medically indigent .
That will help cause the present system to collapse , the sooner the better , the later the greater damage to the rest of the economy .
That advice came to me from the professor and hospital administrator teaching history and systems of the health care industry for my master 's in health care administration .
He also told us that by the time we got our degrees that we may not have jobs , and even if we do , we probably wo n't retire from the same industry , since the present system is not sustainable .
For me this became academic , because by the time I graduated I realized I had too much conscience to be able to hold peoples ' health hostage with a protection racket.On a more recent note , if you think insurance companies are the sort of responsible entities to be tasked with self-oversight and watching out for your best interests , look back a week or so in the news and find out how many of those companies have invested how many millions of dollars in tobacco companies .
That only looks like conflict of interest .
Their real interest is in handling your money when you get sick , so they 'd just as soon you get sicker sooner , so in this instance they are being entirely responsible to those to who they exist to be most responsible to -- their shareholders.Trying to fix this problem by requiring those responsible for the problem to take an even greater role is simply shooting the economy in the foot .
I have to drive 70 miles one way to get medical treatment at the closest Veterans Administration facility , and do so several time a month .
And I 'm glad to , so that I do n't have to participate in the travesty called the health care " industry " .
God love the care givers , they deserve all respect , but God damn the " industry " that helps create the problems it makes money from supposedly solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just an aside to the editors: this is not science.The health care industry is presently 1/6th of the US economy.
Without significant changes it will double in 30 years to 1/3 of the economy.
Its size is due to the involvement of the government sanctioned Ponzi schemes and cash flow tidal pools known as insurance companies.
Contrary to the report generated by the government that is being used as the rationale for the "improvements" in the health care industry, forcing the insurance companies to take on even more will result in more and faster growth.
By 2040 health care would be around half of the US economy.A government run operation that competes with the commercial enterprises won't improve things.
We already have that in Medicare/Medicaid.
The mandated low payments and customary federal employees' gross mismanagement only result in more costs passed to patients and insurance companies as well as denial of services as more providers opt out of accepting these.
The growth of these programs has resulted in increases in taxation without concominant increases in service.
With growth unchecked, and with the demographic bubble of baby boomers draining it outnumbering the younger work force, by 2040 it will require the younger people to have 2 full time jobs just to pay the taxes that keep those programs afloat.The US pays more now for health care than most others, without better results or satisfaction.
This will only get worse as the present system grows, and will get worse still if it is forced to grow even faster.
The only rational solution is to remove the middleman carcinoma from the health care industry.
That is, get rid of insurance and mandate reduction in the artificially inflated medical care costs that they promote.My advice is to drop any insurance and keep the money.
If you need care, either get the same rate from a provider they offer to insurance, or if they refuse, get care and don't pay.
Become medically indigent.
That will help cause the present system to collapse, the sooner the better, the later the greater damage to the rest of the economy.
That advice came to me from the professor and hospital administrator teaching history and systems of the health care industry for my master's in health care administration.
He also told us that by the time we got our degrees that we may not have jobs, and even if we do, we probably won't retire from the same industry, since the present system is not sustainable.
For me this became academic, because by the time I graduated I realized I had too much conscience to be able to hold peoples' health hostage with a protection racket.On a more recent note, if you think insurance companies are the sort of responsible entities to be tasked with self-oversight and watching out for your best interests, look back a week or so in the news and find out how many of those companies have invested how many millions of dollars in tobacco companies.
That only looks like conflict of interest.
Their real interest is in handling your money when you get sick, so they'd just as soon you get sicker sooner, so in this instance they are being entirely responsible to those to who they exist to be most responsible to -- their shareholders.Trying to fix this problem by requiring those responsible for the problem to take an even greater role is simply shooting the economy in the foot.
I have to drive 70 miles one way to get medical treatment at the closest Veterans Administration facility, and do so several time a month.
And I'm glad to, so that I don't have to participate in the travesty called the health care "industry".
God love the care givers, they deserve all respect, but God damn the "industry" that helps create the problems it makes money from supposedly solving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406083</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1245504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read a bunch of slashdot comments, and the only logical conclusion i can find is that all healthcare systems suck and don't work for shit.  I wonder if this means we need a completely new healthcare model.  Or slashdotters just like to argue.  Either way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a bunch of slashdot comments , and the only logical conclusion i can find is that all healthcare systems suck and do n't work for shit .
I wonder if this means we need a completely new healthcare model .
Or slashdotters just like to argue .
Either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a bunch of slashdot comments, and the only logical conclusion i can find is that all healthcare systems suck and don't work for shit.
I wonder if this means we need a completely new healthcare model.
Or slashdotters just like to argue.
Either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28421407</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>Elky Elk</author>
	<datestamp>1245683100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I don't think you can reasonably draw a connection between socialised medicine and pharmaceutical innovation.<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Exports.Imports.Balance of trade (&amp;pound;)<br><br>Switzerland&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 20,206&nbsp; 9,336&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10,870<br>Ireland&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;9,664&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1,520&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;8,144<br>Germany&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;24,395&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;18,810&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;5,586<br>UK&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;14,567&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;10,291&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4,276<br>France&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;13,675&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;10,135&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3,540<br>Sweden&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4,726&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1,731&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2,995<br>Netherlands&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7,439&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7,276&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;163<br>Italy&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7,607&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;8,466&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-859<br>Spain&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4,142&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;5,227&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-1,085<br>Japan&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1,736&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4,625&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-2,889<br>USA&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;17,491&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;35,801&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-18,310<br><br>Source<br>http://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp?sect=1</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you can reasonably draw a connection between socialised medicine and pharmaceutical innovation.                 Exports.Imports.Balance of trade (   ) Switzerland       20,206   9,336       10,870Ireland       9,664       1,520       8,144Germany       24,395       18,810       5,586UK               14,567       10,291       4,276France               13,675       10,135       3,540Sweden               4,726       1,731       2,995Netherlands       7,439       7,276       163Italy               7,607       8,466       -859Spain               4,142       5,227       -1,085Japan               1,736       4,625       -2,889USA               17,491       35,801       -18,310Sourcehttp : //www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp ? sect = 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you can reasonably draw a connection between socialised medicine and pharmaceutical innovation.                Exports.Imports.Balance of trade (£)Switzerland      20,206  9,336      10,870Ireland     9,664     1,520     8,144Germany     24,395     18,810     5,586UK             14,567     10,291     4,276France             13,675     10,135     3,540Sweden             4,726     1,731     2,995Netherlands     7,439     7,276     163Italy             7,607     8,466     -859Spain             4,142     5,227     -1,085Japan             1,736     4,625     -2,889USA             17,491     35,801     -18,310Sourcehttp://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp?sect=1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406867</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude you ROCK!!!  This is the best idea I have heard in this place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude you ROCK ! ! !
This is the best idea I have heard in this place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude you ROCK!!!
This is the best idea I have heard in this place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405717</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245502200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That would be too civilized for our policy makers. It's more like one trying to sneak it while the other is not looking, and another trying to destroy the entire cake because they are pissed for not getting any.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses .
That would be too civilized for our policy makers .
It 's more like one trying to sneak it while the other is not looking , and another trying to destroy the entire cake because they are pissed for not getting any .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses.
That would be too civilized for our policy makers.
It's more like one trying to sneak it while the other is not looking, and another trying to destroy the entire cake because they are pissed for not getting any.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408919</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245577320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irregardless of the irony, the fact that he's adopting plans presented by the opposing party is a good thing. There was always a possibility that he could have ignored it due to being "tainted" by the Republicans and his previous opponents in the election.</p><p>Hardliners are only good if they're perfect. And hardliners are rarely perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irregardless of the irony , the fact that he 's adopting plans presented by the opposing party is a good thing .
There was always a possibility that he could have ignored it due to being " tainted " by the Republicans and his previous opponents in the election.Hardliners are only good if they 're perfect .
And hardliners are rarely perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irregardless of the irony, the fact that he's adopting plans presented by the opposing party is a good thing.
There was always a possibility that he could have ignored it due to being "tainted" by the Republicans and his previous opponents in the election.Hardliners are only good if they're perfect.
And hardliners are rarely perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409243</id>
	<title>Some people who CAN afford it, can't get it!</title>
	<author>jdehnert</author>
	<datestamp>1245580980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My COBRA coverage got pulled at about the 1/2 point because my old company was small and both of the spouses had coverage, so at the annual renew time, they just stopped offering health.</p><p>After talking with an Insurance rep that I have used for company insurance at a few places, it became clear that my family and I would NEVER get personal health insurance.  Currently, I suffer from chronic foot pain (for the past 6 years), my oldest son suffers from depression and bi-polar disorder (for the past 4 years), and my wife gets migraines (from childhood).  You can see why an insurance company would not want to touch us, but we still need insurance.</p><p>As my COBRA ran out my agent tried to get us on a temporary plan. We know that if we claim the meds that my son and I require, $2,000 to $3000 a month, we will also not be allowed to re-up the temp plan.   We decided that we would not claim any of the chronic things that we have to deal with so that we have the plan if we have a major issue, but once we do, we no for sure that we will not be allowed to re-up.</p><p>For the temp plan we went with a carrier that haven't been covered by for over 12 years.  But we were denied coverage by this carrier because they had on record that...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) My wife had been treated for headaches.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) One of my 2 sons had been treated for a sore throat.</p><p><b>OVER10 YEARS AGO!!</b></p><p>Those 2 reasons were all that it took to deny even temporary coverage.</p><p>We had to find a carrier that had never insured me and my family before just to get temp insurance.</p><p>We are still looking for a permanent option, but as we do our savings are being drained rapidly as we try and cover our ongoing issues.  We need to minimize claims to preserve our temp insurance  in case of a major issue.  Because of that none of us are getting any ongoing treatment, so no one is getting any better.  Were stuck with little chance at improving medically, and at this point we have not found an insurer who will offer us insurance at any price.</p><p>If you have now, or have ever had anything more that a minor medical issue, your chance of getting coverage as an individual are effectively 0\%</p><p>I have been looking for work for 2 years, sending out, and following up on at least a dozen job openings ever month (12 is my self imposed min).  While the economy is bad I have no idea if I will be able to get a job, and while I am in this catch 22 I am spending more and more of my time trying to find coverage.</p><p>In the mean time, I have one of my cars for sale, family jewelry is listed, and while our house is not under water, real estate is not exactly booming either.</p><p>I dunno.  Does my government really want me to be broke, unemployed, and perhaps homeless, before I can get health care for my family?</p><p>Or can they come up with some way for people to purchase coverage, to allow them to get healthy, before they loose everything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My COBRA coverage got pulled at about the 1/2 point because my old company was small and both of the spouses had coverage , so at the annual renew time , they just stopped offering health.After talking with an Insurance rep that I have used for company insurance at a few places , it became clear that my family and I would NEVER get personal health insurance .
Currently , I suffer from chronic foot pain ( for the past 6 years ) , my oldest son suffers from depression and bi-polar disorder ( for the past 4 years ) , and my wife gets migraines ( from childhood ) .
You can see why an insurance company would not want to touch us , but we still need insurance.As my COBRA ran out my agent tried to get us on a temporary plan .
We know that if we claim the meds that my son and I require , $ 2,000 to $ 3000 a month , we will also not be allowed to re-up the temp plan .
We decided that we would not claim any of the chronic things that we have to deal with so that we have the plan if we have a major issue , but once we do , we no for sure that we will not be allowed to re-up.For the temp plan we went with a carrier that have n't been covered by for over 12 years .
But we were denied coverage by this carrier because they had on record that.. .     1 ) My wife had been treated for headaches .
    2 ) One of my 2 sons had been treated for a sore throat.OVER10 YEARS AGO !
! Those 2 reasons were all that it took to deny even temporary coverage.We had to find a carrier that had never insured me and my family before just to get temp insurance.We are still looking for a permanent option , but as we do our savings are being drained rapidly as we try and cover our ongoing issues .
We need to minimize claims to preserve our temp insurance in case of a major issue .
Because of that none of us are getting any ongoing treatment , so no one is getting any better .
Were stuck with little chance at improving medically , and at this point we have not found an insurer who will offer us insurance at any price.If you have now , or have ever had anything more that a minor medical issue , your chance of getting coverage as an individual are effectively 0 \ % I have been looking for work for 2 years , sending out , and following up on at least a dozen job openings ever month ( 12 is my self imposed min ) .
While the economy is bad I have no idea if I will be able to get a job , and while I am in this catch 22 I am spending more and more of my time trying to find coverage.In the mean time , I have one of my cars for sale , family jewelry is listed , and while our house is not under water , real estate is not exactly booming either.I dunno .
Does my government really want me to be broke , unemployed , and perhaps homeless , before I can get health care for my family ? Or can they come up with some way for people to purchase coverage , to allow them to get healthy , before they loose everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My COBRA coverage got pulled at about the 1/2 point because my old company was small and both of the spouses had coverage, so at the annual renew time, they just stopped offering health.After talking with an Insurance rep that I have used for company insurance at a few places, it became clear that my family and I would NEVER get personal health insurance.
Currently, I suffer from chronic foot pain (for the past 6 years), my oldest son suffers from depression and bi-polar disorder (for the past 4 years), and my wife gets migraines (from childhood).
You can see why an insurance company would not want to touch us, but we still need insurance.As my COBRA ran out my agent tried to get us on a temporary plan.
We know that if we claim the meds that my son and I require, $2,000 to $3000 a month, we will also not be allowed to re-up the temp plan.
We decided that we would not claim any of the chronic things that we have to deal with so that we have the plan if we have a major issue, but once we do, we no for sure that we will not be allowed to re-up.For the temp plan we went with a carrier that haven't been covered by for over 12 years.
But we were denied coverage by this carrier because they had on record that...
    1) My wife had been treated for headaches.
    2) One of my 2 sons had been treated for a sore throat.OVER10 YEARS AGO!
!Those 2 reasons were all that it took to deny even temporary coverage.We had to find a carrier that had never insured me and my family before just to get temp insurance.We are still looking for a permanent option, but as we do our savings are being drained rapidly as we try and cover our ongoing issues.
We need to minimize claims to preserve our temp insurance  in case of a major issue.
Because of that none of us are getting any ongoing treatment, so no one is getting any better.
Were stuck with little chance at improving medically, and at this point we have not found an insurer who will offer us insurance at any price.If you have now, or have ever had anything more that a minor medical issue, your chance of getting coverage as an individual are effectively 0\%I have been looking for work for 2 years, sending out, and following up on at least a dozen job openings ever month (12 is my self imposed min).
While the economy is bad I have no idea if I will be able to get a job, and while I am in this catch 22 I am spending more and more of my time trying to find coverage.In the mean time, I have one of my cars for sale, family jewelry is listed, and while our house is not under water, real estate is not exactly booming either.I dunno.
Does my government really want me to be broke, unemployed, and perhaps homeless, before I can get health care for my family?Or can they come up with some way for people to purchase coverage, to allow them to get healthy, before they loose everything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405463</id>
	<title>The U.S. already has government-run health care...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen all of the nightmare stories about the Veterans' Administration hospitals?  This is how we in the U.S. treat our heroes -- imagine what health care will look like for the rest of us if we allow the government to ram *this* turd down our throats?</p><p>At last glance, the Constitution has no language about a federal health care system, and if that document doesn't explicit tell the federal government to do something, then the responsibility devolves to the states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen all of the nightmare stories about the Veterans ' Administration hospitals ?
This is how we in the U.S. treat our heroes -- imagine what health care will look like for the rest of us if we allow the government to ram * this * turd down our throats ? At last glance , the Constitution has no language about a federal health care system , and if that document does n't explicit tell the federal government to do something , then the responsibility devolves to the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen all of the nightmare stories about the Veterans' Administration hospitals?
This is how we in the U.S. treat our heroes -- imagine what health care will look like for the rest of us if we allow the government to ram *this* turd down our throats?At last glance, the Constitution has no language about a federal health care system, and if that document doesn't explicit tell the federal government to do something, then the responsibility devolves to the states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408263</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats ridiculous. The United States has the best health care system in the world. We are on top of the world and Obama is trying his hardest to put China in charge. The free market is what got us here and is the only thing that can keep us going. I have no faith in the government right now. It makes me sick to my stomach imagining Canadian health care. Obama just needs to tax drugs and alchohol through the roof to fund his personal vendetta and then we can take care of drunk driving and high taxes with one blow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats ridiculous .
The United States has the best health care system in the world .
We are on top of the world and Obama is trying his hardest to put China in charge .
The free market is what got us here and is the only thing that can keep us going .
I have no faith in the government right now .
It makes me sick to my stomach imagining Canadian health care .
Obama just needs to tax drugs and alchohol through the roof to fund his personal vendetta and then we can take care of drunk driving and high taxes with one blow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats ridiculous.
The United States has the best health care system in the world.
We are on top of the world and Obama is trying his hardest to put China in charge.
The free market is what got us here and is the only thing that can keep us going.
I have no faith in the government right now.
It makes me sick to my stomach imagining Canadian health care.
Obama just needs to tax drugs and alchohol through the roof to fund his personal vendetta and then we can take care of drunk driving and high taxes with one blow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408355</id>
	<title>Re:If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's usele</title>
	<author>200\_success</author>
	<datestamp>1245526200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem, as you point out, is with the Department of Agriculture's policies, not the FDA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , as you point out , is with the Department of Agriculture 's policies , not the FDA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, as you point out, is with the Department of Agriculture's policies, not the FDA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405409</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1245500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that all the major candidates had some sort of health care proposal shows how seriously the general population takes this issue.  Most people are worried about the health care system and want some sort of fix (sorry Ron Paul supporters).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that all the major candidates had some sort of health care proposal shows how seriously the general population takes this issue .
Most people are worried about the health care system and want some sort of fix ( sorry Ron Paul supporters ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that all the major candidates had some sort of health care proposal shows how seriously the general population takes this issue.
Most people are worried about the health care system and want some sort of fix (sorry Ron Paul supporters).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405327</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take, for example, HIV treatment. Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive. But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.</p></div><p>Why am I not surprised to see a Republican openly proclaming that they'd vote for someone to be killed for not liking Republicans?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management. If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company. Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.</p></div><p>Yes.  If insurance was about nothing more than hedging bets on property, and we were primarily concerned with the health of the insurance industry, then this would be the move to take.  However, since health insurance deals with human lives, and the people most likely to have the poorest coverage are those least likely to be able to absorb the costs of health care that is uncovered, then it's not a simply matter of "letting the market sort things out."  After all, the current economic downturn is showing us right now what happens to average people caught in the wake when we let the market sort out unregulated financial speculation.  (i.e. Credit default swaps and reporting agencies that didn't have enough financial incentive to rate the products honestly.)</p><p>But then again, I'm talking to someone who just said that AIDS patients should be allowed to die if they don't agree with you.  I'm guessing you don't have much value for human life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take , for example , HIV treatment .
Most people probably could n't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive .
But I do n't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive , as long as he does n't bitch about Republicans , in which case , I 'd vote to cut him off.Why am I not surprised to see a Republican openly proclaming that they 'd vote for someone to be killed for not liking Republicans ? Besides , the whole point of insurance is about risk management .
If an insurance can not manage the risk , it can not operate as a company .
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.Yes .
If insurance was about nothing more than hedging bets on property , and we were primarily concerned with the health of the insurance industry , then this would be the move to take .
However , since health insurance deals with human lives , and the people most likely to have the poorest coverage are those least likely to be able to absorb the costs of health care that is uncovered , then it 's not a simply matter of " letting the market sort things out .
" After all , the current economic downturn is showing us right now what happens to average people caught in the wake when we let the market sort out unregulated financial speculation .
( i.e. Credit default swaps and reporting agencies that did n't have enough financial incentive to rate the products honestly .
) But then again , I 'm talking to someone who just said that AIDS patients should be allowed to die if they do n't agree with you .
I 'm guessing you do n't have much value for human life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take, for example, HIV treatment.
Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.
But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.Why am I not surprised to see a Republican openly proclaming that they'd vote for someone to be killed for not liking Republicans?Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management.
If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.Yes.
If insurance was about nothing more than hedging bets on property, and we were primarily concerned with the health of the insurance industry, then this would be the move to take.
However, since health insurance deals with human lives, and the people most likely to have the poorest coverage are those least likely to be able to absorb the costs of health care that is uncovered, then it's not a simply matter of "letting the market sort things out.
"  After all, the current economic downturn is showing us right now what happens to average people caught in the wake when we let the market sort out unregulated financial speculation.
(i.e. Credit default swaps and reporting agencies that didn't have enough financial incentive to rate the products honestly.
)But then again, I'm talking to someone who just said that AIDS patients should be allowed to die if they don't agree with you.
I'm guessing you don't have much value for human life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407597</id>
	<title>overhaul of the health care system</title>
	<author>Scr3wFace</author>
	<datestamp>1245518400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have a health care system to overhaul?? <br>
<br>
It's still 2009 isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a health care system to overhaul ? ?
It 's still 2009 is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a health care system to overhaul??
It's still 2009 isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409179</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245580080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living in Massachusetts the health care plan has been quite effective for me. When I left regular employment for consulting one of me biggest surprises was that the same heath plan my employer was providing would cost 70\% more as an individual. I'm not talking about my contribution, I was paying through COBRA and knew the full cost. I also realised after calling my large reputable insurance company three times that they weren't going to re-write my policy as an individual policy. This is despite the fact that I had the old policy for 5 years and didn't need it for anything but routine office visits. With the new laws as an individual pay only about  30\% more than the group rates for the same individual policy, but because of better selection I've found a policy that suits my needs at almost the same price as I was paying through my company.</p><p>On the downside health care reform didn't drive down cost for employer based policies, they were already getting the best rates available. Also it created huge state expenditures to cover the poor who previously didn't have any health insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in Massachusetts the health care plan has been quite effective for me .
When I left regular employment for consulting one of me biggest surprises was that the same heath plan my employer was providing would cost 70 \ % more as an individual .
I 'm not talking about my contribution , I was paying through COBRA and knew the full cost .
I also realised after calling my large reputable insurance company three times that they were n't going to re-write my policy as an individual policy .
This is despite the fact that I had the old policy for 5 years and did n't need it for anything but routine office visits .
With the new laws as an individual pay only about 30 \ % more than the group rates for the same individual policy , but because of better selection I 've found a policy that suits my needs at almost the same price as I was paying through my company.On the downside health care reform did n't drive down cost for employer based policies , they were already getting the best rates available .
Also it created huge state expenditures to cover the poor who previously did n't have any health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in Massachusetts the health care plan has been quite effective for me.
When I left regular employment for consulting one of me biggest surprises was that the same heath plan my employer was providing would cost 70\% more as an individual.
I'm not talking about my contribution, I was paying through COBRA and knew the full cost.
I also realised after calling my large reputable insurance company three times that they weren't going to re-write my policy as an individual policy.
This is despite the fact that I had the old policy for 5 years and didn't need it for anything but routine office visits.
With the new laws as an individual pay only about  30\% more than the group rates for the same individual policy, but because of better selection I've found a policy that suits my needs at almost the same price as I was paying through my company.On the downside health care reform didn't drive down cost for employer based policies, they were already getting the best rates available.
Also it created huge state expenditures to cover the poor who previously didn't have any health insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405965</id>
	<title>Ban insurance, it's the only way to be sure</title>
	<author>fionnghal</author>
	<datestamp>1245503820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ban all forms of Medical Insurance, even malpractice insurance.  Insurance is the elephant in the room.  Costs for medical care didn't begin to skyrocket until medical insurance began to cover all points of medical costs.  That meant that there was a payer that would always pay no matter what the cost and when you have that much money to throw around, you have inflation.  Amazing and unlimited inflation.  If you take away the money, costs would be forced down because otherwise, they would lose all their costumers.  Of course there will be a lot of waling and nashing of teeth from the Insurance companies if we did this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban all forms of Medical Insurance , even malpractice insurance .
Insurance is the elephant in the room .
Costs for medical care did n't begin to skyrocket until medical insurance began to cover all points of medical costs .
That meant that there was a payer that would always pay no matter what the cost and when you have that much money to throw around , you have inflation .
Amazing and unlimited inflation .
If you take away the money , costs would be forced down because otherwise , they would lose all their costumers .
Of course there will be a lot of waling and nashing of teeth from the Insurance companies if we did this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban all forms of Medical Insurance, even malpractice insurance.
Insurance is the elephant in the room.
Costs for medical care didn't begin to skyrocket until medical insurance began to cover all points of medical costs.
That meant that there was a payer that would always pay no matter what the cost and when you have that much money to throw around, you have inflation.
Amazing and unlimited inflation.
If you take away the money, costs would be forced down because otherwise, they would lose all their costumers.
Of course there will be a lot of waling and nashing of teeth from the Insurance companies if we did this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That would throw too many programmers out of work.</p></div><p>Good!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management. If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company. Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.</p></div><p>The point of insurance is to keep people healthy. If society can't provide that with the current system, it has to decrease the (now exorbitant) prices until people, taken as a whole, can pay for it. Insurance is merely an intermediate in this process -- if it can't operate with a profit, make it a nonprofit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would throw too many programmers out of work.Good ! Besides , the whole point of insurance is about risk management .
If an insurance can not manage the risk , it can not operate as a company .
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.The point of insurance is to keep people healthy .
If society ca n't provide that with the current system , it has to decrease the ( now exorbitant ) prices until people , taken as a whole , can pay for it .
Insurance is merely an intermediate in this process -- if it ca n't operate with a profit , make it a nonprofit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would throw too many programmers out of work.Good!Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management.
If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.The point of insurance is to keep people healthy.
If society can't provide that with the current system, it has to decrease the (now exorbitant) prices until people, taken as a whole, can pay for it.
Insurance is merely an intermediate in this process -- if it can't operate with a profit, make it a nonprofit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408229</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>harrisonhjones</author>
	<datestamp>1245524760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pardon my french good sir but: Are you high? You'd have to be to say some of the things you just said..<p><div class="quote"></div><p>Ok, ok. There I went, calling names. Couldn't help myself. Now I'll be "constructive":</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors, lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market, the risks of "socialism" and sober warnings about the risks of change (...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has).</p> </div><p>There are so many things wrong with what you just said. First off, healthcare CEO's make a, again pardon my french, shit-ton of money because they are CEO's. Ie, they've done the hard work, they've moved up the corporate ladder and run a huge company that produces lifesaving/quality-of-life-bettering medication. I applaud them. And I don't wanna hear anything about "rich doctors." We live a world where the review boards set up by the government can rule a doctor at no fault of malpractice but a laywer can sue him for millions of dollars because sally sob-story lost her precious baby. Even though the doctor didn't make a single mistake, hell he's got malpractice insurance! Lets just sue the shit out of him! It's the American way! F&amp;ck off.</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>But that isn't what pisses me off the most... it's this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People might realize that the government can be more competent than the market (again, as it is in every other country)</p> </div><p> This statement is simply wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. A government can NEVER be more competent than the market. It's too slow, it's run by people who want to make the mob happy and by people who LOVE bureaucracy. Great example in my book: The government-run hospital my father works at set up a "board" to determine procedure in the OB/GYN department. 12 people. 8 lawyers, 4 administrators, ZERO doctors. Not a single doctor. Not even one. Not a single person that practices the procedure the board was setting up was present. How disgraceful.</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>But that's just a personal example. Let's take out our trusty globe: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Canada.</p></div><p> It's got a "universal healthcare system" It's free. But.. wait a second.. It's people are flocking by the hundreds to the US for care. People are waiting years for simple procedures that take days in the US. "optional cash-only clinics" are springing up everywhere. Hmm.. But I've got more: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Great Britian,</p></div><p> a land where the hospitals send out "I hope you havn't died cards" to their patients because the wait is so long many patients die before care. France, I'm not even going to start w/ france.</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>The simple fact of the matter is that you havn't done your research and that much of what you are spewing is left wing bullshit. By the way, I'm not a republican. I'm just a concerned citizen that has watched what happens when government stick their fingers where they don't belong: people get f&amp;cked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my french good sir but : Are you high ?
You 'd have to be to say some of the things you just said..Ok , ok. There I went , calling names .
Could n't help myself .
Now I 'll be " constructive " : The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors , lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market , the risks of " socialism " and sober warnings about the risks of change ( ...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has ) .
There are so many things wrong with what you just said .
First off , healthcare CEO 's make a , again pardon my french , shit-ton of money because they are CEO 's .
Ie , they 've done the hard work , they 've moved up the corporate ladder and run a huge company that produces lifesaving/quality-of-life-bettering medication .
I applaud them .
And I do n't wan na hear anything about " rich doctors .
" We live a world where the review boards set up by the government can rule a doctor at no fault of malpractice but a laywer can sue him for millions of dollars because sally sob-story lost her precious baby .
Even though the doctor did n't make a single mistake , hell he 's got malpractice insurance !
Lets just sue the shit out of him !
It 's the American way !
F&amp;ck off.But that is n't what pisses me off the most... it 's this : People might realize that the government can be more competent than the market ( again , as it is in every other country ) This statement is simply wrong .
Wrong wrong wrong .
A government can NEVER be more competent than the market .
It 's too slow , it 's run by people who want to make the mob happy and by people who LOVE bureaucracy .
Great example in my book : The government-run hospital my father works at set up a " board " to determine procedure in the OB/GYN department .
12 people .
8 lawyers , 4 administrators , ZERO doctors .
Not a single doctor .
Not even one .
Not a single person that practices the procedure the board was setting up was present .
How disgraceful.But that 's just a personal example .
Let 's take out our trusty globe : Canada .
It 's got a " universal healthcare system " It 's free .
But.. wait a second.. It 's people are flocking by the hundreds to the US for care .
People are waiting years for simple procedures that take days in the US .
" optional cash-only clinics " are springing up everywhere .
Hmm.. But I 've got more : Great Britian , a land where the hospitals send out " I hope you hav n't died cards " to their patients because the wait is so long many patients die before care .
France , I 'm not even going to start w/ france.The simple fact of the matter is that you hav n't done your research and that much of what you are spewing is left wing bullshit .
By the way , I 'm not a republican .
I 'm just a concerned citizen that has watched what happens when government stick their fingers where they do n't belong : people get f&amp;cked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my french good sir but: Are you high?
You'd have to be to say some of the things you just said..Ok, ok. There I went, calling names.
Couldn't help myself.
Now I'll be "constructive":The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors, lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market, the risks of "socialism" and sober warnings about the risks of change (...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has).
There are so many things wrong with what you just said.
First off, healthcare CEO's make a, again pardon my french, shit-ton of money because they are CEO's.
Ie, they've done the hard work, they've moved up the corporate ladder and run a huge company that produces lifesaving/quality-of-life-bettering medication.
I applaud them.
And I don't wanna hear anything about "rich doctors.
" We live a world where the review boards set up by the government can rule a doctor at no fault of malpractice but a laywer can sue him for millions of dollars because sally sob-story lost her precious baby.
Even though the doctor didn't make a single mistake, hell he's got malpractice insurance!
Lets just sue the shit out of him!
It's the American way!
F&amp;ck off.But that isn't what pisses me off the most... it's this:People might realize that the government can be more competent than the market (again, as it is in every other country)  This statement is simply wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.
A government can NEVER be more competent than the market.
It's too slow, it's run by people who want to make the mob happy and by people who LOVE bureaucracy.
Great example in my book: The government-run hospital my father works at set up a "board" to determine procedure in the OB/GYN department.
12 people.
8 lawyers, 4 administrators, ZERO doctors.
Not a single doctor.
Not even one.
Not a single person that practices the procedure the board was setting up was present.
How disgraceful.But that's just a personal example.
Let's take out our trusty globe: Canada.
It's got a "universal healthcare system" It's free.
But.. wait a second.. It's people are flocking by the hundreds to the US for care.
People are waiting years for simple procedures that take days in the US.
"optional cash-only clinics" are springing up everywhere.
Hmm.. But I've got more: Great Britian, a land where the hospitals send out "I hope you havn't died cards" to their patients because the wait is so long many patients die before care.
France, I'm not even going to start w/ france.The simple fact of the matter is that you havn't done your research and that much of what you are spewing is left wing bullshit.
By the way, I'm not a republican.
I'm just a concerned citizen that has watched what happens when government stick their fingers where they don't belong: people get f&amp;cked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410083</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly. </p></div><p>The way you phrased that sent a chill down my spine - I assume you meant they increased the number of people on insurance?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly .
The way you phrased that sent a chill down my spine - I assume you meant they increased the number of people on insurance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly.
The way you phrased that sent a chill down my spine - I assume you meant they increased the number of people on insurance?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408465</id>
	<title>"Health care as good as the VA or Medicaid"</title>
	<author>mahsah</author>
	<datestamp>1245527460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you implying that either the VA or Medicaid is GOOD?</p><p>Well don't that beat all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that either the VA or Medicaid is GOOD ? Well do n't that beat all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that either the VA or Medicaid is GOOD?Well don't that beat all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408489</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1245527880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about people making only $10/hr and paying 60\% of their money for healthcare!</p><p>Seriously why work in a place like Massachussetts when you are forced by the government to put down as much as 50\% of your paycheck to medicaid or any plan that your boss has.</p><p>To me thats worse than being uninsured. With healthcare costs going up people in Massachussetts will be making less and less money as they are required to enroll in expensive premiums by law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about people making only $ 10/hr and paying 60 \ % of their money for healthcare ! Seriously why work in a place like Massachussetts when you are forced by the government to put down as much as 50 \ % of your paycheck to medicaid or any plan that your boss has.To me thats worse than being uninsured .
With healthcare costs going up people in Massachussetts will be making less and less money as they are required to enroll in expensive premiums by law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about people making only $10/hr and paying 60\% of their money for healthcare!Seriously why work in a place like Massachussetts when you are forced by the government to put down as much as 50\% of your paycheck to medicaid or any plan that your boss has.To me thats worse than being uninsured.
With healthcare costs going up people in Massachussetts will be making less and less money as they are required to enroll in expensive premiums by law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405411</id>
	<title>Not all Americans can afford health care...</title>
	<author>junglebeast</author>
	<datestamp>1245500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a graduate student without support, I basically have no income...I don't have health insurance because I can't afford it.  How can you force everyone to buy health insurance?  What about people like me?  If this is really how it is then I'd like to take back my vote for Obama<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a graduate student without support , I basically have no income...I do n't have health insurance because I ca n't afford it .
How can you force everyone to buy health insurance ?
What about people like me ?
If this is really how it is then I 'd like to take back my vote for Obama : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a graduate student without support, I basically have no income...I don't have health insurance because I can't afford it.
How can you force everyone to buy health insurance?
What about people like me?
If this is really how it is then I'd like to take back my vote for Obama :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407865</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell no. I live in Wisconsin where they don't require car insurance for vehicles. Most people have liability insurance just in case. Those that don't are not the average idiot driver who feels that they should be pooled in with the rest of the idiot drivers. If some idiot driver hits me, so be it. My fault for not taking every precaution to avoid the accident. I absolutely hate the idea of buying insurance for something I can almost completely avoid and when I can't, pay out the ass anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell no .
I live in Wisconsin where they do n't require car insurance for vehicles .
Most people have liability insurance just in case .
Those that do n't are not the average idiot driver who feels that they should be pooled in with the rest of the idiot drivers .
If some idiot driver hits me , so be it .
My fault for not taking every precaution to avoid the accident .
I absolutely hate the idea of buying insurance for something I can almost completely avoid and when I ca n't , pay out the ass anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell no.
I live in Wisconsin where they don't require car insurance for vehicles.
Most people have liability insurance just in case.
Those that don't are not the average idiot driver who feels that they should be pooled in with the rest of the idiot drivers.
If some idiot driver hits me, so be it.
My fault for not taking every precaution to avoid the accident.
I absolutely hate the idea of buying insurance for something I can almost completely avoid and when I can't, pay out the ass anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406801</id>
	<title>No...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245510660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support "Universal Health Care" but I will NEVER support "forced health care" UNLESS the GOVERNMENT is providing it.  None of this turning health care into as much of a chore as car insurance crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support " Universal Health Care " but I will NEVER support " forced health care " UNLESS the GOVERNMENT is providing it .
None of this turning health care into as much of a chore as car insurance crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support "Universal Health Care" but I will NEVER support "forced health care" UNLESS the GOVERNMENT is providing it.
None of this turning health care into as much of a chore as car insurance crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415627</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental difference.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't seem to understand some fundamental issues:</p><p>(1) A LOT of people are negligent about themselves. Smoking is the best example: why the society has to pay for those who chooses to intoxicate themselves with smoke and develop all kind of expensive illnesses? You smoke? Rot in hell, don't beg me for help. What about the alcoholics who start drinking the day they are out from the cure institute? What about those couch potatoes who never exercise because they are lazy and develop all kind of problems because of their laziness? What about the "Whataburger" (and other burger) people crap that develop diabetes with all its complications? Of course, the society must help those who have a biological predisposition/weakness, but I do not want to pay for the big share of ignorant, fools, and lazy! I want to let Darwin's law work through them. I don't have data, but I bet that so much illness comes from un-healthy life style and so much less from genetic weaknesses.</p><p>(1a) I've seen so many examples of people who does not have health insurance but their credit cards are loaded with that big screen TV, pre-owned, Lexus, etc. If someone is not willing to make any effort to pay for his share before spending for gadgets, why shall I pay for their ignorance?</p><p>(2) A lot of military spending in the US is for fundamental research that is too expensive for the private sector to finance it. Once ideas are proven in prototypes that give US a competitive advantage, the technologies are pushed to civilian sector to make them efficient and milk them. Through taxes made from their profits, the private sector finance then the next round of fundamental research. Where do you think that Computers, Internet, GPS, commercial flight came from? To support the idea of cutting our American military expensive is to stop the big cycle that makes us competitive is treason. Anybody willing to stop our research-economy cycle shall be sued for treason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't seem to understand some fundamental issues : ( 1 ) A LOT of people are negligent about themselves .
Smoking is the best example : why the society has to pay for those who chooses to intoxicate themselves with smoke and develop all kind of expensive illnesses ?
You smoke ?
Rot in hell , do n't beg me for help .
What about the alcoholics who start drinking the day they are out from the cure institute ?
What about those couch potatoes who never exercise because they are lazy and develop all kind of problems because of their laziness ?
What about the " Whataburger " ( and other burger ) people crap that develop diabetes with all its complications ?
Of course , the society must help those who have a biological predisposition/weakness , but I do not want to pay for the big share of ignorant , fools , and lazy !
I want to let Darwin 's law work through them .
I do n't have data , but I bet that so much illness comes from un-healthy life style and so much less from genetic weaknesses .
( 1a ) I 've seen so many examples of people who does not have health insurance but their credit cards are loaded with that big screen TV , pre-owned , Lexus , etc .
If someone is not willing to make any effort to pay for his share before spending for gadgets , why shall I pay for their ignorance ?
( 2 ) A lot of military spending in the US is for fundamental research that is too expensive for the private sector to finance it .
Once ideas are proven in prototypes that give US a competitive advantage , the technologies are pushed to civilian sector to make them efficient and milk them .
Through taxes made from their profits , the private sector finance then the next round of fundamental research .
Where do you think that Computers , Internet , GPS , commercial flight came from ?
To support the idea of cutting our American military expensive is to stop the big cycle that makes us competitive is treason .
Anybody willing to stop our research-economy cycle shall be sued for treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't seem to understand some fundamental issues:(1) A LOT of people are negligent about themselves.
Smoking is the best example: why the society has to pay for those who chooses to intoxicate themselves with smoke and develop all kind of expensive illnesses?
You smoke?
Rot in hell, don't beg me for help.
What about the alcoholics who start drinking the day they are out from the cure institute?
What about those couch potatoes who never exercise because they are lazy and develop all kind of problems because of their laziness?
What about the "Whataburger" (and other burger) people crap that develop diabetes with all its complications?
Of course, the society must help those who have a biological predisposition/weakness, but I do not want to pay for the big share of ignorant, fools, and lazy!
I want to let Darwin's law work through them.
I don't have data, but I bet that so much illness comes from un-healthy life style and so much less from genetic weaknesses.
(1a) I've seen so many examples of people who does not have health insurance but their credit cards are loaded with that big screen TV, pre-owned, Lexus, etc.
If someone is not willing to make any effort to pay for his share before spending for gadgets, why shall I pay for their ignorance?
(2) A lot of military spending in the US is for fundamental research that is too expensive for the private sector to finance it.
Once ideas are proven in prototypes that give US a competitive advantage, the technologies are pushed to civilian sector to make them efficient and milk them.
Through taxes made from their profits, the private sector finance then the next round of fundamental research.
Where do you think that Computers, Internet, GPS, commercial flight came from?
To support the idea of cutting our American military expensive is to stop the big cycle that makes us competitive is treason.
Anybody willing to stop our research-economy cycle shall be sued for treason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406541</id>
	<title>Oh cut the crap.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Healthcare Industry" = Bloodsucking industry in your country, united states. what does it take to understand that something does NOT work ? eternal damnation ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Healthcare Industry " = Bloodsucking industry in your country , united states .
what does it take to understand that something does NOT work ?
eternal damnation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Healthcare Industry" = Bloodsucking industry in your country, united states.
what does it take to understand that something does NOT work ?
eternal damnation ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404891</id>
	<title>give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh jeez this sounds like tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theories. Require. Force. Government Takeover. Give me a break!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh jeez this sounds like tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theories .
Require. Force .
Government Takeover .
Give me a break !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh jeez this sounds like tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theories.
Require. Force.
Government Takeover.
Give me a break!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411597</id>
	<title>Re:public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under a public plan there is no competition, no innovation, and a faceless gov bureaucrat sitting in a government office decides what treatments I can have.</p><p>Under private plans there is competition, innovation, and if some idiot corporate bureaucrat makes rules which tell me I cannot have a treatment, I have the option of getting care elsewhere.</p><p>If you think the government and private industry will peacefully coexist, you haven't read your history. Go ahead and call me a conspiracy nut, a mean-spirited rightwinger, or whatever other name you want. If you ACTUALLY LOOK BACK at the Social Security debate you will see that people at that time said the SSN would be abused, the SSA would grow far beyond its intent, and that it was all a pyramid scheme doomed to failure. Unfortunately, the people who went ahead and ignored them and set it up anyway aren't the ones who are now paying the price.</p><p>Roosevelt didn't "save the country", he prolonged a natural market correction and built a system which placed the burden of payment on future generations. NICE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under a public plan there is no competition , no innovation , and a faceless gov bureaucrat sitting in a government office decides what treatments I can have.Under private plans there is competition , innovation , and if some idiot corporate bureaucrat makes rules which tell me I can not have a treatment , I have the option of getting care elsewhere.If you think the government and private industry will peacefully coexist , you have n't read your history .
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy nut , a mean-spirited rightwinger , or whatever other name you want .
If you ACTUALLY LOOK BACK at the Social Security debate you will see that people at that time said the SSN would be abused , the SSA would grow far beyond its intent , and that it was all a pyramid scheme doomed to failure .
Unfortunately , the people who went ahead and ignored them and set it up anyway are n't the ones who are now paying the price.Roosevelt did n't " save the country " , he prolonged a natural market correction and built a system which placed the burden of payment on future generations .
NICE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under a public plan there is no competition, no innovation, and a faceless gov bureaucrat sitting in a government office decides what treatments I can have.Under private plans there is competition, innovation, and if some idiot corporate bureaucrat makes rules which tell me I cannot have a treatment, I have the option of getting care elsewhere.If you think the government and private industry will peacefully coexist, you haven't read your history.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy nut, a mean-spirited rightwinger, or whatever other name you want.
If you ACTUALLY LOOK BACK at the Social Security debate you will see that people at that time said the SSN would be abused, the SSA would grow far beyond its intent, and that it was all a pyramid scheme doomed to failure.
Unfortunately, the people who went ahead and ignored them and set it up anyway aren't the ones who are now paying the price.Roosevelt didn't "save the country", he prolonged a natural market correction and built a system which placed the burden of payment on future generations.
NICE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408337</id>
	<title>Glad I'm NOT a US American</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading input after input of this here debate I must admit that I thank God that I do not live in the US. I live in Denmark, Europe, and we have had socialized medicine since the early 1900' And you know what?? It works just fine. AND we pay for it by our taxes, amongst other things.</p><p>Now I read a lot about what's going down in the US. And I can't stop laughing every time I read an American claim that we in Europe still live in the dark ages. We don't. We, at least in Denmark, live in at highly sophisticated society lead by a conservative government, regulated by some laws in the EU, much like your own system with congress and House of Parliament.</p><p>I Denmark no one has to live with the fear of being denied treatment on a hospital, or by a general practice doctor. The only thing needed to be changed in the US to obtain universal health care is your way of thinking. We call it solidarity with your fellow human beings, and true Christian behavior. To us you Americans have but ONE God: Money. Every thing you do is measured by how much money it gives you. Not the satisfactory of helping a fellow human being in need of it. But who am I to judge you? I hope the very best for all of you. God be with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading input after input of this here debate I must admit that I thank God that I do not live in the US .
I live in Denmark , Europe , and we have had socialized medicine since the early 1900 ' And you know what ? ?
It works just fine .
AND we pay for it by our taxes , amongst other things.Now I read a lot about what 's going down in the US .
And I ca n't stop laughing every time I read an American claim that we in Europe still live in the dark ages .
We do n't .
We , at least in Denmark , live in at highly sophisticated society lead by a conservative government , regulated by some laws in the EU , much like your own system with congress and House of Parliament.I Denmark no one has to live with the fear of being denied treatment on a hospital , or by a general practice doctor .
The only thing needed to be changed in the US to obtain universal health care is your way of thinking .
We call it solidarity with your fellow human beings , and true Christian behavior .
To us you Americans have but ONE God : Money .
Every thing you do is measured by how much money it gives you .
Not the satisfactory of helping a fellow human being in need of it .
But who am I to judge you ?
I hope the very best for all of you .
God be with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading input after input of this here debate I must admit that I thank God that I do not live in the US.
I live in Denmark, Europe, and we have had socialized medicine since the early 1900' And you know what??
It works just fine.
AND we pay for it by our taxes, amongst other things.Now I read a lot about what's going down in the US.
And I can't stop laughing every time I read an American claim that we in Europe still live in the dark ages.
We don't.
We, at least in Denmark, live in at highly sophisticated society lead by a conservative government, regulated by some laws in the EU, much like your own system with congress and House of Parliament.I Denmark no one has to live with the fear of being denied treatment on a hospital, or by a general practice doctor.
The only thing needed to be changed in the US to obtain universal health care is your way of thinking.
We call it solidarity with your fellow human beings, and true Christian behavior.
To us you Americans have but ONE God: Money.
Every thing you do is measured by how much money it gives you.
Not the satisfactory of helping a fellow human being in need of it.
But who am I to judge you?
I hope the very best for all of you.
God be with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409125</id>
	<title>Economic Impact</title>
	<author>felix85</author>
	<datestamp>1245579480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this passes and it makes health care mandatory doesn't that hurt the economy. This bill is going to cost the people about <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804109.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">1.5 trillion dollars</a> [washingtonpost.com]. Forcing employers to insure their employees is going to hurt small businesses and may even bankrupt them which in turn will cause a loss in jobs. What about the people that will be forced to get a health care plan that in the governments eyes can afford it but in reality can't and on top of that with 1.5 trillion coming from tax paying citizens they are being hit twice once for paying for their insurance and again for the people who can't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this passes and it makes health care mandatory does n't that hurt the economy .
This bill is going to cost the people about 1.5 trillion dollars [ washingtonpost.com ] .
Forcing employers to insure their employees is going to hurt small businesses and may even bankrupt them which in turn will cause a loss in jobs .
What about the people that will be forced to get a health care plan that in the governments eyes can afford it but in reality ca n't and on top of that with 1.5 trillion coming from tax paying citizens they are being hit twice once for paying for their insurance and again for the people who ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this passes and it makes health care mandatory doesn't that hurt the economy.
This bill is going to cost the people about 1.5 trillion dollars [washingtonpost.com].
Forcing employers to insure their employees is going to hurt small businesses and may even bankrupt them which in turn will cause a loss in jobs.
What about the people that will be forced to get a health care plan that in the governments eyes can afford it but in reality can't and on top of that with 1.5 trillion coming from tax paying citizens they are being hit twice once for paying for their insurance and again for the people who can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457</id>
	<title>Another freedom gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just give me one Government program that works, isn't in a shambles, isn't broke, or isn't full of corruption, and I will go for this.

I am sick of the Government mentality that we are too stupid to think for ourselves.  Several are, but not me.  Please let me choose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give me one Government program that works , is n't in a shambles , is n't broke , or is n't full of corruption , and I will go for this .
I am sick of the Government mentality that we are too stupid to think for ourselves .
Several are , but not me .
Please let me choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give me one Government program that works, isn't in a shambles, isn't broke, or isn't full of corruption, and I will go for this.
I am sick of the Government mentality that we are too stupid to think for ourselves.
Several are, but not me.
Please let me choose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406429</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1245507120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS? Let you buy any plan that you want? UN tie it from your job?</i> <br>
Actually, no the bill won't do any of that. Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This is what is wrong with private insurers. When everyone is insured by the one and only private State insurer, there cannot be pre-existing condition bullshit, because everyone pitches-into the system and everyone is covered the same. This, in turn, saves tremenduous amounts of paperwork and overhead, because anyone is clearly covered exactly like anyone else.</p><p>The US private health insurance overhead is 35\%, while the canadian public health insurance overhead is 5\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS ?
Let you buy any plan that you want ?
UN tie it from your job ?
Actually , no the bill wo n't do any of that .
Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills ?
This is what is wrong with private insurers .
When everyone is insured by the one and only private State insurer , there can not be pre-existing condition bullshit , because everyone pitches-into the system and everyone is covered the same .
This , in turn , saves tremenduous amounts of paperwork and overhead , because anyone is clearly covered exactly like anyone else.The US private health insurance overhead is 35 \ % , while the canadian public health insurance overhead is 5 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS?
Let you buy any plan that you want?
UN tie it from your job?
Actually, no the bill won't do any of that.
Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills?
This is what is wrong with private insurers.
When everyone is insured by the one and only private State insurer, there cannot be pre-existing condition bullshit, because everyone pitches-into the system and everyone is covered the same.
This, in turn, saves tremenduous amounts of paperwork and overhead, because anyone is clearly covered exactly like anyone else.The US private health insurance overhead is 35\%, while the canadian public health insurance overhead is 5\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413389</id>
	<title>Re:public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245577560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1) under a public plan, your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office. While in a private system, you health care is decided by corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.</i></p><p>And under the public plan, you have no choice: you MUST deal with the government-appointed bureaucrat.  Under the private system, you can look around and pick from multiple companies; hopefully you find a good one.</p><p><i>5) From what I have seen, government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example. Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.</i></p><p>From what I have seen, government plans control costs by denying care if you are sufficiently old that they figure you are going to die anyway; by not having very many specialists to handle diseases that they figure are pretty rare; and by making capricious decisions about what sort of supplies to keep on hand.  I live in a medium-sized urban area, and my doctor told me that we have three MRI facilities within a ten-mile radius.  "There are only three MRI facilities in the entire province of British Columbia", he told me.  That keeps costs down... (N.B. he told me this stuff at least ten years ago, so who knows, maybe B.C. has another MRI facility or two now.)</p><p>Under socialized medicine, the more common your ailment, the better your care.  Compare the hassle of getting a broken leg sorted in the USA vs. the UK.  But under socialized medicine, if you get anything really unusual, you are fucked, and not in a good way.</p><p><i>Basically, there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve. Medical care is one of them.</i></p><p>And democracy is a lousy form of government.  It's just that every other form is worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) under a public plan , your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office .
While in a private system , you health care is decided by corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.And under the public plan , you have no choice : you MUST deal with the government-appointed bureaucrat .
Under the private system , you can look around and pick from multiple companies ; hopefully you find a good one.5 ) From what I have seen , government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example .
Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.From what I have seen , government plans control costs by denying care if you are sufficiently old that they figure you are going to die anyway ; by not having very many specialists to handle diseases that they figure are pretty rare ; and by making capricious decisions about what sort of supplies to keep on hand .
I live in a medium-sized urban area , and my doctor told me that we have three MRI facilities within a ten-mile radius .
" There are only three MRI facilities in the entire province of British Columbia " , he told me .
That keeps costs down... ( N.B. he told me this stuff at least ten years ago , so who knows , maybe B.C .
has another MRI facility or two now .
) Under socialized medicine , the more common your ailment , the better your care .
Compare the hassle of getting a broken leg sorted in the USA vs. the UK .
But under socialized medicine , if you get anything really unusual , you are fucked , and not in a good way.Basically , there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve .
Medical care is one of them.And democracy is a lousy form of government .
It 's just that every other form is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) under a public plan, your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office.
While in a private system, you health care is decided by corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.And under the public plan, you have no choice: you MUST deal with the government-appointed bureaucrat.
Under the private system, you can look around and pick from multiple companies; hopefully you find a good one.5) From what I have seen, government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example.
Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.From what I have seen, government plans control costs by denying care if you are sufficiently old that they figure you are going to die anyway; by not having very many specialists to handle diseases that they figure are pretty rare; and by making capricious decisions about what sort of supplies to keep on hand.
I live in a medium-sized urban area, and my doctor told me that we have three MRI facilities within a ten-mile radius.
"There are only three MRI facilities in the entire province of British Columbia", he told me.
That keeps costs down... (N.B. he told me this stuff at least ten years ago, so who knows, maybe B.C.
has another MRI facility or two now.
)Under socialized medicine, the more common your ailment, the better your care.
Compare the hassle of getting a broken leg sorted in the USA vs. the UK.
But under socialized medicine, if you get anything really unusual, you are fucked, and not in a good way.Basically, there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve.
Medical care is one of them.And democracy is a lousy form of government.
It's just that every other form is worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408255</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>harrisonhjones</author>
	<datestamp>1245525060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only, if only. Unfortunately this will never happen. Whatever the plan then enact, they will never be touched by it. Their kids will always go the the most expensive private schools. They'll fly in the most expensive doctors. Buy the biggest houses and still try to find ever single tax deduction they can. Politicans don't live on the same plane we commoners do. But they sure love to rule us. Sucks doesn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only , if only .
Unfortunately this will never happen .
Whatever the plan then enact , they will never be touched by it .
Their kids will always go the the most expensive private schools .
They 'll fly in the most expensive doctors .
Buy the biggest houses and still try to find ever single tax deduction they can .
Politicans do n't live on the same plane we commoners do .
But they sure love to rule us .
Sucks does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only, if only.
Unfortunately this will never happen.
Whatever the plan then enact, they will never be touched by it.
Their kids will always go the the most expensive private schools.
They'll fly in the most expensive doctors.
Buy the biggest houses and still try to find ever single tax deduction they can.
Politicans don't live on the same plane we commoners do.
But they sure love to rule us.
Sucks doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411629</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1245607380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love how every socialist / communist tries to claim that Stalin / Hitler / Castro "didn't follow TRUE socialism / communism".  None of you ever stop to think about that fact that letting the government have absolute control over everything is be definition fascism.  You can hide behind pretty lies and illusions, but it's not possible to have that amount of government control and still have freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how every socialist / communist tries to claim that Stalin / Hitler / Castro " did n't follow TRUE socialism / communism " .
None of you ever stop to think about that fact that letting the government have absolute control over everything is be definition fascism .
You can hide behind pretty lies and illusions , but it 's not possible to have that amount of government control and still have freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how every socialist / communist tries to claim that Stalin / Hitler / Castro "didn't follow TRUE socialism / communism".
None of you ever stop to think about that fact that letting the government have absolute control over everything is be definition fascism.
You can hide behind pretty lies and illusions, but it's not possible to have that amount of government control and still have freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28444721</id>
	<title>Requiring insurance for employees</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245749520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This falls in line with what I often hear about laws mandating "perks" for employees: "OMG, what about capitalizm? Requiring businesses to spend money on their employees will hurt employers!"<br> <br>

NO.<br> <br>

By allowing companies to treat their employees like shit (no insurance, no sick days, no leave), we are actually creating an incentive for employers to treat their employees like shit, because it's cheaper.  If we were to require all employers to give a minimum insurance, sick days and vacation time we wouldn't be upsetting the balance, we would actually be LEVELING the playing field by removing the ability to edge up the bottom line at the expense of workers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This falls in line with what I often hear about laws mandating " perks " for employees : " OMG , what about capitalizm ?
Requiring businesses to spend money on their employees will hurt employers !
" NO .
By allowing companies to treat their employees like shit ( no insurance , no sick days , no leave ) , we are actually creating an incentive for employers to treat their employees like shit , because it 's cheaper .
If we were to require all employers to give a minimum insurance , sick days and vacation time we would n't be upsetting the balance , we would actually be LEVELING the playing field by removing the ability to edge up the bottom line at the expense of workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This falls in line with what I often hear about laws mandating "perks" for employees: "OMG, what about capitalizm?
Requiring businesses to spend money on their employees will hurt employers!
" 

NO.
By allowing companies to treat their employees like shit (no insurance, no sick days, no leave), we are actually creating an incentive for employers to treat their employees like shit, because it's cheaper.
If we were to require all employers to give a minimum insurance, sick days and vacation time we wouldn't be upsetting the balance, we would actually be LEVELING the playing field by removing the ability to edge up the bottom line at the expense of workers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407827</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/camp.health.care/index.html?iref=newssearch</p><p>This discussion is the most depressing I have ever seen on Slashdot.  I thought the majority of people on here were at least half intelligent and well informed.  I might as well read digg for the kneejerk responses from the obamists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/camp.health.care/index.html ? iref = newssearchThis discussion is the most depressing I have ever seen on Slashdot .
I thought the majority of people on here were at least half intelligent and well informed .
I might as well read digg for the kneejerk responses from the obamists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/camp.health.care/index.html?iref=newssearchThis discussion is the most depressing I have ever seen on Slashdot.
I thought the majority of people on here were at least half intelligent and well informed.
I might as well read digg for the kneejerk responses from the obamists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935</id>
	<title>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS? Let you buy any plan that you want? UN tie it from your job?</p><p>How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check?</p><p>Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job?</p><p>Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS ?
Let you buy any plan that you want ?
UN tie it from your job ? How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check ? Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job ? Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS?
Let you buy any plan that you want?
UN tie it from your job?How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check?Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job?Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405773</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward to this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245502560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to this...<br>.</p><p>I lost my job.  My wife was pregnant.  (She has since given birth to a beautiful baby boy.)<br>.</p><p>Apparently pregnancy is a "pre-existing" condition.  Birth in a hospital, prenatal care, all the myriad ultrasound tests, bloodwork, and everything else can easily exceed $100,000.<br>.</p><p>Thankfully there's COBRA.  But that's setting me back $1,200 a month -- While I'm unemployed!  When COBRA expires, I'm looking at $1,500-$1,800 a month for less coverage!  It makes the mortgage payment look small.  Costs are up and coverage is less as I'm no longer part of the "big company" negotiated plan.  Individuals are treated poorly!  Plus transitioning over means whatever they can define as "pre-existing" won't be covered.</p><p>.<br>Oh, and that $1,200-$1,800 a month while unemployed...  I can only deduct what lies over 2\% of my IRS AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) on federal income taxes only.  Vs deducting 100\% on federal, state, &amp; local taxes while employed.<br>.</p><p>It creates situations where folks tolerate bad jobs at large companies just for the benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to this....I lost my job .
My wife was pregnant .
( She has since given birth to a beautiful baby boy .
) .Apparently pregnancy is a " pre-existing " condition .
Birth in a hospital , prenatal care , all the myriad ultrasound tests , bloodwork , and everything else can easily exceed $ 100,000..Thankfully there 's COBRA .
But that 's setting me back $ 1,200 a month -- While I 'm unemployed !
When COBRA expires , I 'm looking at $ 1,500- $ 1,800 a month for less coverage !
It makes the mortgage payment look small .
Costs are up and coverage is less as I 'm no longer part of the " big company " negotiated plan .
Individuals are treated poorly !
Plus transitioning over means whatever they can define as " pre-existing " wo n't be covered..Oh , and that $ 1,200- $ 1,800 a month while unemployed... I can only deduct what lies over 2 \ % of my IRS AGI ( Adjusted Gross Income ) on federal income taxes only .
Vs deducting 100 \ % on federal , state , &amp; local taxes while employed..It creates situations where folks tolerate bad jobs at large companies just for the benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to this....I lost my job.
My wife was pregnant.
(She has since given birth to a beautiful baby boy.
).Apparently pregnancy is a "pre-existing" condition.
Birth in a hospital, prenatal care, all the myriad ultrasound tests, bloodwork, and everything else can easily exceed $100,000..Thankfully there's COBRA.
But that's setting me back $1,200 a month -- While I'm unemployed!
When COBRA expires, I'm looking at $1,500-$1,800 a month for less coverage!
It makes the mortgage payment look small.
Costs are up and coverage is less as I'm no longer part of the "big company" negotiated plan.
Individuals are treated poorly!
Plus transitioning over means whatever they can define as "pre-existing" won't be covered..Oh, and that $1,200-$1,800 a month while unemployed...  I can only deduct what lies over 2\% of my IRS AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) on federal income taxes only.
Vs deducting 100\% on federal, state, &amp; local taxes while employed..It creates situations where folks tolerate bad jobs at large companies just for the benefits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28422071</id>
	<title>Re:public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. Why there seems to be exactly two mutually exclusive possibilities organizing health care for the Americans? The whole conversation is marred by the manic-depressive attitudes, just like the right-left divide seems to prepresent itself. There are many other more or less functional systems out there (here). I feel spreading my Euro-smugness is almost a civic virtue in these cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
Why there seems to be exactly two mutually exclusive possibilities organizing health care for the Americans ?
The whole conversation is marred by the manic-depressive attitudes , just like the right-left divide seems to prepresent itself .
There are many other more or less functional systems out there ( here ) .
I feel spreading my Euro-smugness is almost a civic virtue in these cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
Why there seems to be exactly two mutually exclusive possibilities organizing health care for the Americans?
The whole conversation is marred by the manic-depressive attitudes, just like the right-left divide seems to prepresent itself.
There are many other more or less functional systems out there (here).
I feel spreading my Euro-smugness is almost a civic virtue in these cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407823</id>
	<title>Re:public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>3) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage. You are not under private plans.</i> </p><p>Foolish me, I would be concerned about getting <b>treatment</b> not "coverage".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage .
You are not under private plans .
Foolish me , I would be concerned about getting treatment not " coverage " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage.
You are not under private plans.
Foolish me, I would be concerned about getting treatment not "coverage".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28425277</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental difference.</title>
	<author>zepto</author>
	<datestamp>1245696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor people have the right to see doctors, but it's not my job or yours to pay for it (no there is no other 3rd "real" source for government money). A right that often goes overlooked is my right to keep the money I earn. I'm glad to pay for government services that are essential (read: absolutely necessary) for the survival of the country (i.e. defense), but nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that I must pay other's expenses if they cannot. Unfortunately since the time of the Revolution, welfare laws have been passed that contradicts the spirit originally intended for the roles of Government and of the individual. In America there is no guarantee of success, only the right for you to try to succeed and that you should be able to benefit from your own efforts. The fundamental idea of the framers is that the Government will guarantee you freedom and rights under the law - not guarantee you services that you think you're entitled to. If you need help, start with your family or local charity programs that are funded by people out of their own free will. Please quit trying to steal money from me and others via the Government and make it your own.</p><p>No I am not a registered Republican. Just a citizen against theft / swindle under the guise of law and the upholding of the rights of the Individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor people have the right to see doctors , but it 's not my job or yours to pay for it ( no there is no other 3rd " real " source for government money ) .
A right that often goes overlooked is my right to keep the money I earn .
I 'm glad to pay for government services that are essential ( read : absolutely necessary ) for the survival of the country ( i.e .
defense ) , but nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that I must pay other 's expenses if they can not .
Unfortunately since the time of the Revolution , welfare laws have been passed that contradicts the spirit originally intended for the roles of Government and of the individual .
In America there is no guarantee of success , only the right for you to try to succeed and that you should be able to benefit from your own efforts .
The fundamental idea of the framers is that the Government will guarantee you freedom and rights under the law - not guarantee you services that you think you 're entitled to .
If you need help , start with your family or local charity programs that are funded by people out of their own free will .
Please quit trying to steal money from me and others via the Government and make it your own.No I am not a registered Republican .
Just a citizen against theft / swindle under the guise of law and the upholding of the rights of the Individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor people have the right to see doctors, but it's not my job or yours to pay for it (no there is no other 3rd "real" source for government money).
A right that often goes overlooked is my right to keep the money I earn.
I'm glad to pay for government services that are essential (read: absolutely necessary) for the survival of the country (i.e.
defense), but nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that I must pay other's expenses if they cannot.
Unfortunately since the time of the Revolution, welfare laws have been passed that contradicts the spirit originally intended for the roles of Government and of the individual.
In America there is no guarantee of success, only the right for you to try to succeed and that you should be able to benefit from your own efforts.
The fundamental idea of the framers is that the Government will guarantee you freedom and rights under the law - not guarantee you services that you think you're entitled to.
If you need help, start with your family or local charity programs that are funded by people out of their own free will.
Please quit trying to steal money from me and others via the Government and make it your own.No I am not a registered Republican.
Just a citizen against theft / swindle under the guise of law and the upholding of the rights of the Individual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959</id>
	<title>It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>TheCouchPotatoFamine</author>
	<datestamp>1245497700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems obvious from this look into the early stage of a house bill that 'democrats' and 'republicans' are acting as either side of a polar debate, one proposing knowing it's plan leans far too far one way, confident that the other side will try as hard as possible the other way, reaching a stalemate. <br> <br>

it's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses. <br> <br>

Of course, what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem, i don't know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems obvious from this look into the early stage of a house bill that 'democrats ' and 'republicans ' are acting as either side of a polar debate , one proposing knowing it 's plan leans far too far one way , confident that the other side will try as hard as possible the other way , reaching a stalemate .
it 's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses .
Of course , what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem , i do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems obvious from this look into the early stage of a house bill that 'democrats' and 'republicans' are acting as either side of a polar debate, one proposing knowing it's plan leans far too far one way, confident that the other side will try as hard as possible the other way, reaching a stalemate.
it's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses.
Of course, what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem, i don't know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</id>
	<title>Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1245499680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.
<p>
First, it appears to requires universal coverage.  This is good.  I remember a long time ago when universal coverage was not the norm for automobiles.  All these irresponsible people would drive around, damage other peoples property, and then not pay.  What was more they often continued to damage other peoples property with little consequence.  This meant that those who were responsible had to pay higher premiums. Now everyone has to have proof of financial responsibility.  One consequence of this is that I can get coverage against the irresponsible motorist for very little money.  The benefit of health care should be similar. No more irresponsible people going to the hospital without health insurance.  This should mean that those of us who actually pay for medical treatment, instead of expecting others to cover the bills,
</p><p>
Second, there will be a public option.  Auto insurance in many states has the same option.  Most of us do not use the public option.  Most of us still pay private firms to carry our insurance.  The public option is used by those those who cannot or chooses not to afford private insurance.  Sure this public option costs money, but not nearly as much as having some irresponsible asshole crash into your house in his SUV, then discovering he has no insurance or assets because all his or her income went to pay the note of the truck.  Every uninsured person costs us money.  The public option will insure that hospitals and doctors get some money for every patient, so they do not have to gouge the rest of us.
</p><p>
Third, and this is what I hope, that they reform payments and set standards for care.  For instance, it make no sense to pay 80\% of a standard cost for a procedure, when in most cases doctors charge double the standard costs.  Pay 100\% of the standard cost, and don't worry about co-pays. The co-pay is built in with real and opportunity costs.  Likewise, set minimum standard for diagnostics.  Hospitals are spending money on proton accelerators rather than prene care.  We can live without proton accelerators and other machines that go beep.  What we need is care.
</p><p>
And this is what I think many people are afraid of.  That medicine is going to go back to giving care, rather than huge returns on investments for the HMO or funding for lavish and extravagant building and equipment that rich people can then put their name on because they paid half.  Or, as mentioned, we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary, the worst in the developed world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care , which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses .
First , it appears to requires universal coverage .
This is good .
I remember a long time ago when universal coverage was not the norm for automobiles .
All these irresponsible people would drive around , damage other peoples property , and then not pay .
What was more they often continued to damage other peoples property with little consequence .
This meant that those who were responsible had to pay higher premiums .
Now everyone has to have proof of financial responsibility .
One consequence of this is that I can get coverage against the irresponsible motorist for very little money .
The benefit of health care should be similar .
No more irresponsible people going to the hospital without health insurance .
This should mean that those of us who actually pay for medical treatment , instead of expecting others to cover the bills , Second , there will be a public option .
Auto insurance in many states has the same option .
Most of us do not use the public option .
Most of us still pay private firms to carry our insurance .
The public option is used by those those who can not or chooses not to afford private insurance .
Sure this public option costs money , but not nearly as much as having some irresponsible asshole crash into your house in his SUV , then discovering he has no insurance or assets because all his or her income went to pay the note of the truck .
Every uninsured person costs us money .
The public option will insure that hospitals and doctors get some money for every patient , so they do not have to gouge the rest of us .
Third , and this is what I hope , that they reform payments and set standards for care .
For instance , it make no sense to pay 80 \ % of a standard cost for a procedure , when in most cases doctors charge double the standard costs .
Pay 100 \ % of the standard cost , and do n't worry about co-pays .
The co-pay is built in with real and opportunity costs .
Likewise , set minimum standard for diagnostics .
Hospitals are spending money on proton accelerators rather than prene care .
We can live without proton accelerators and other machines that go beep .
What we need is care .
And this is what I think many people are afraid of .
That medicine is going to go back to giving care , rather than huge returns on investments for the HMO or funding for lavish and extravagant building and equipment that rich people can then put their name on because they paid half .
Or , as mentioned , we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary , the worst in the developed world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.
First, it appears to requires universal coverage.
This is good.
I remember a long time ago when universal coverage was not the norm for automobiles.
All these irresponsible people would drive around, damage other peoples property, and then not pay.
What was more they often continued to damage other peoples property with little consequence.
This meant that those who were responsible had to pay higher premiums.
Now everyone has to have proof of financial responsibility.
One consequence of this is that I can get coverage against the irresponsible motorist for very little money.
The benefit of health care should be similar.
No more irresponsible people going to the hospital without health insurance.
This should mean that those of us who actually pay for medical treatment, instead of expecting others to cover the bills,

Second, there will be a public option.
Auto insurance in many states has the same option.
Most of us do not use the public option.
Most of us still pay private firms to carry our insurance.
The public option is used by those those who cannot or chooses not to afford private insurance.
Sure this public option costs money, but not nearly as much as having some irresponsible asshole crash into your house in his SUV, then discovering he has no insurance or assets because all his or her income went to pay the note of the truck.
Every uninsured person costs us money.
The public option will insure that hospitals and doctors get some money for every patient, so they do not have to gouge the rest of us.
Third, and this is what I hope, that they reform payments and set standards for care.
For instance, it make no sense to pay 80\% of a standard cost for a procedure, when in most cases doctors charge double the standard costs.
Pay 100\% of the standard cost, and don't worry about co-pays.
The co-pay is built in with real and opportunity costs.
Likewise, set minimum standard for diagnostics.
Hospitals are spending money on proton accelerators rather than prene care.
We can live without proton accelerators and other machines that go beep.
What we need is care.
And this is what I think many people are afraid of.
That medicine is going to go back to giving care, rather than huge returns on investments for the HMO or funding for lavish and extravagant building and equipment that rich people can then put their name on because they paid half.
Or, as mentioned, we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary, the worst in the developed world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245501720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Health care isn't going to be Democrats negotiating with Republicans. I doubt the Republicans are going to contribute anything constructive to health reform, and so far they haven't put anything useful on the table. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.</p><p>The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors, lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market, the risks of "socialism" and sober warnings about the risks of change (...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has).
</p><p>Also, if the government started providing health care as good as the VA or Medicaid, people might realize that the government can be more competent than the market (again, as it is in every other country) and Republicans would be forced to change. Instead, I expect they will try to scuttle the bill and leave us with the status quo, the world's most inefficient health care system by a factor of 2.
</p><p>It'll be a negotiation like you say, but between Democrats and right-wing/corporate Democrats, or between the more populist Democrats in the House and richer corporate Democrats in the Senate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Health care is n't going to be Democrats negotiating with Republicans .
I doubt the Republicans are going to contribute anything constructive to health reform , and so far they have n't put anything useful on the table .
I would n't mind being proven wrong.The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors , lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market , the risks of " socialism " and sober warnings about the risks of change ( ...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has ) .
Also , if the government started providing health care as good as the VA or Medicaid , people might realize that the government can be more competent than the market ( again , as it is in every other country ) and Republicans would be forced to change .
Instead , I expect they will try to scuttle the bill and leave us with the status quo , the world 's most inefficient health care system by a factor of 2 .
It 'll be a negotiation like you say , but between Democrats and right-wing/corporate Democrats , or between the more populist Democrats in the House and richer corporate Democrats in the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Health care isn't going to be Democrats negotiating with Republicans.
I doubt the Republicans are going to contribute anything constructive to health reform, and so far they haven't put anything useful on the table.
I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors, lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market, the risks of "socialism" and sober warnings about the risks of change (...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has).
Also, if the government started providing health care as good as the VA or Medicaid, people might realize that the government can be more competent than the market (again, as it is in every other country) and Republicans would be forced to change.
Instead, I expect they will try to scuttle the bill and leave us with the status quo, the world's most inefficient health care system by a factor of 2.
It'll be a negotiation like you say, but between Democrats and right-wing/corporate Democrats, or between the more populist Democrats in the House and richer corporate Democrats in the Senate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405033</id>
	<title>852-page draft bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect congress will look at all the examples of socialized medicine around the world and end up picking the worst elements from each of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect congress will look at all the examples of socialized medicine around the world and end up picking the worst elements from each of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect congress will look at all the examples of socialized medicine around the world and end up picking the worst elements from each of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215</id>
	<title>So let's see....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government run schools suck. Baltimore is not safe, because the government cannot provide basic safety. We fight unnecessary wars. We have terrible copyright laws. Government granted cable monopolies. Etc... etc... etc... Our government is going to "fix" health care? ROTFLMAO

Call me when our moronic government can get the basics right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government run schools suck .
Baltimore is not safe , because the government can not provide basic safety .
We fight unnecessary wars .
We have terrible copyright laws .
Government granted cable monopolies .
Etc... etc... etc... Our government is going to " fix " health care ?
ROTFLMAO Call me when our moronic government can get the basics right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government run schools suck.
Baltimore is not safe, because the government cannot provide basic safety.
We fight unnecessary wars.
We have terrible copyright laws.
Government granted cable monopolies.
Etc... etc... etc... Our government is going to "fix" health care?
ROTFLMAO

Call me when our moronic government can get the basics right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406299</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1245506160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You owe me a new keyboard!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You owe me a new keyboard !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You owe me a new keyboard!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057</id>
	<title>Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...</p><p>An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."<br>"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.<br>But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.<br>The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialism - Good on Paper , Not in Reality...An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had , once , failed an entire class .
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich , a great equalizer .
The professor then said , " Ok , we will have an experiment in this class on socialism .
" " All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning , obviously , no one will receive an A .
" They all agreed to this .
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.But , as the second test rolled around , the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too , so they studied little .
The second test average was a D !
No one was happy .
When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.The scores never increased as bickering , blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else .
To their great dismay the professor failed them all .
Then he sent all of them this note : " A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great , the effort to succeed is great , but when government takes all the reward away , no one will try or want to succeed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
""All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A.
" They all agreed to this.
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great dismay the professor failed them all.
Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</id>
	<title>How about this idea</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1245500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's require that whatever bill they propose, that all of the US government, especially congress &amp; house, have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us. Whatever plan they currently have is gone. They are not allowed to work outside of their proposed system. They have to use only what their bill contains, and the funding has to come as a deduction (tax) out of their salaries. The money used to provide their health care services must come from whatever they paid in, and if (when) it runs out, nobody gets any more services until more funding is available. Also, any government employee who goes outside the system must declare it on some specified national forum, so we can know about its deficiencies before it takes effect on the rest of us.</p><p>This will show us if it is a viable plan, and that it is has enough money coming in so that extra funding is not hidden in additional taxes. Let's see how they like their own plan before we're forced into another stupid plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's require that whatever bill they propose , that all of the US government , especially congress &amp; house , have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us .
Whatever plan they currently have is gone .
They are not allowed to work outside of their proposed system .
They have to use only what their bill contains , and the funding has to come as a deduction ( tax ) out of their salaries .
The money used to provide their health care services must come from whatever they paid in , and if ( when ) it runs out , nobody gets any more services until more funding is available .
Also , any government employee who goes outside the system must declare it on some specified national forum , so we can know about its deficiencies before it takes effect on the rest of us.This will show us if it is a viable plan , and that it is has enough money coming in so that extra funding is not hidden in additional taxes .
Let 's see how they like their own plan before we 're forced into another stupid plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's require that whatever bill they propose, that all of the US government, especially congress &amp; house, have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us.
Whatever plan they currently have is gone.
They are not allowed to work outside of their proposed system.
They have to use only what their bill contains, and the funding has to come as a deduction (tax) out of their salaries.
The money used to provide their health care services must come from whatever they paid in, and if (when) it runs out, nobody gets any more services until more funding is available.
Also, any government employee who goes outside the system must declare it on some specified national forum, so we can know about its deficiencies before it takes effect on the rest of us.This will show us if it is a viable plan, and that it is has enough money coming in so that extra funding is not hidden in additional taxes.
Let's see how they like their own plan before we're forced into another stupid plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412337</id>
	<title>No Authority To Do It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this for a reason not to support the "plan"...</p><p>THE DEMOCRATS/SOCIALISTS DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT!</p><p>Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is medical care listed. The 10th Amendment specifically states that ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY granted are allowable, the rest are left to the States and Individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this for a reason not to support the " plan " ...THE DEMOCRATS/SOCIALISTS DO N'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT ! Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is medical care listed .
The 10th Amendment specifically states that ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY granted are allowable , the rest are left to the States and Individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this for a reason not to support the "plan"...THE DEMOCRATS/SOCIALISTS DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT!Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is medical care listed.
The 10th Amendment specifically states that ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY granted are allowable, the rest are left to the States and Individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407445</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1245517140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US health care may be expensive, but it's also the best. I love how you try to use "everyone else does it" as a reason why government run health care is a good thing.  Amusingly, many people each year have to come to the US for treatments that the "superior" goverment run health care can't / won't provide them.  Can the government do things to help lower the cost of health care? Yes, and they should.  However, turning control of health care over to the government is NOT the way to improve it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>US health care may be expensive , but it 's also the best .
I love how you try to use " everyone else does it " as a reason why government run health care is a good thing .
Amusingly , many people each year have to come to the US for treatments that the " superior " goverment run health care ca n't / wo n't provide them .
Can the government do things to help lower the cost of health care ?
Yes , and they should .
However , turning control of health care over to the government is NOT the way to improve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US health care may be expensive, but it's also the best.
I love how you try to use "everyone else does it" as a reason why government run health care is a good thing.
Amusingly, many people each year have to come to the US for treatments that the "superior" goverment run health care can't / won't provide them.
Can the government do things to help lower the cost of health care?
Yes, and they should.
However, turning control of health care over to the government is NOT the way to improve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407535</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1245517800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.</p></div> </blockquote><p>As someone who is FOR abortion, I don't see the problem here.  It's not that different...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care , which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses .
As someone who is FOR abortion , I do n't see the problem here .
It 's not that different.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.
As someone who is FOR abortion, I don't see the problem here.
It's not that different...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407593</id>
	<title>Death and Taxes . . . or Both</title>
	<author>TwoToeWilly</author>
	<datestamp>1245518340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're all forgetting one thing. . . do you really want to put your health in the hands of the federal government? I don't know how many of you are veterans but have you been to the VA Hospital lately?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're all forgetting one thing .
. .
do you really want to put your health in the hands of the federal government ?
I do n't know how many of you are veterans but have you been to the VA Hospital lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're all forgetting one thing.
. .
do you really want to put your health in the hands of the federal government?
I don't know how many of you are veterans but have you been to the VA Hospital lately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407523</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245517740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Longevity? Check out life expectancy:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>USA is waaay down there below these terrible socialized medicine countries. Oh, you mean that one rich guy lives a long time and poor people die young? OK, yeah, they aren't so hot on that. Sorry, I guess some people don't like to think that their lives aren't worth so much money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Longevity ?
Check out life expectancy : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _life \ _expectancy [ wikipedia.org ] USA is waaay down there below these terrible socialized medicine countries .
Oh , you mean that one rich guy lives a long time and poor people die young ?
OK , yeah , they are n't so hot on that .
Sorry , I guess some people do n't like to think that their lives are n't worth so much money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Longevity?
Check out life expectancy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy [wikipedia.org]USA is waaay down there below these terrible socialized medicine countries.
Oh, you mean that one rich guy lives a long time and poor people die young?
OK, yeah, they aren't so hot on that.
Sorry, I guess some people don't like to think that their lives aren't worth so much money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404889</id>
	<title>I'll go ahead and say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ain't registering for a goddamn thing</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ai n't registering for a goddamn thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ain't registering for a goddamn thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28427567</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental difference.</title>
	<author>kondor6c</author>
	<datestamp>1245703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this why we have state governments so if you don't like what that state did you can move. National healthcare is a bad idea, you shouldn't have to pay for me being stupid and jumping off a big rock and breaking my leg, that's my own fault. Like wise I shouldn't have to pay for someone not staying in shape and developing sleep apnea or getting type 2 Diabetes.
Let the states implement it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this why we have state governments so if you do n't like what that state did you can move .
National healthcare is a bad idea , you should n't have to pay for me being stupid and jumping off a big rock and breaking my leg , that 's my own fault .
Like wise I should n't have to pay for someone not staying in shape and developing sleep apnea or getting type 2 Diabetes .
Let the states implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this why we have state governments so if you don't like what that state did you can move.
National healthcare is a bad idea, you shouldn't have to pay for me being stupid and jumping off a big rock and breaking my leg, that's my own fault.
Like wise I shouldn't have to pay for someone not staying in shape and developing sleep apnea or getting type 2 Diabetes.
Let the states implement it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405429</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem with your post is that you're right. Note, though, that there's no tort reform, so lawyers will continue to get rich. Fuck congres, fuck the democrats, and fuck their republican enablers. At this rate, we're fucked.</p><p>Welcome to the DMV approach to health care. Wait in line, and fill out the form properly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with your post is that you 're right .
Note , though , that there 's no tort reform , so lawyers will continue to get rich .
Fuck congres , fuck the democrats , and fuck their republican enablers .
At this rate , we 're fucked.Welcome to the DMV approach to health care .
Wait in line , and fill out the form properly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with your post is that you're right.
Note, though, that there's no tort reform, so lawyers will continue to get rich.
Fuck congres, fuck the democrats, and fuck their republican enablers.
At this rate, we're fucked.Welcome to the DMV approach to health care.
Wait in line, and fill out the form properly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412013</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.</i></p><p>Wow, great way to frame the debate there.  If I disagree with you, I'm in favor of letting children die?</p><p>This kind of rhetoric doesn't make me want to debate you.  It makes me just want to snarl "fuck you" and be on my way.</p><p><i>Third, and this is what I hope, that they reform payments and set standards for care.</i></p><p>This is something to be feared.  Government bureaucrats will now be dictating to doctors how they can treat patients and how much they can charge.  Are the voters complaining that costs are too high?  Just order the doctors to charge less, and damn the whining.</p><p>Well, the one thing you can't do is force people to continue to be doctors under those conditions.  The smart ones will quit and become lawyers or something, and only the truly dedicated ones and the worst doctors will still practice.  I don't want to see doctors punished and driven out of the business.</p><p>My mother is a doctor in California.  She has told me horror stories of dealing with the bureaucracy in MediCal.  She once got threatened with serious consequences, with a really unpleasant letter, because she wasn't charging what they said.  She checked and found she had charged LESS than they said; Heaven help her if she charged MORE by mistake, I guess.  She says the payments offered by MediCal are way out of whack with the reality of her costs to provide the services.  And, she says most of her doctor friends have just decided not to accept MediCal payments anymore; it's just not worth the hassle.</p><p>Anyone who asks my mom whether to become a doctor or not, she urges them to do something different.  She says it's already bad and seems to be getting worse.</p><p>In my state, in recent years, it became almost impossible to get insurance.  The state insurance commission was jacking up the insurance providers, making all sorts of demands and putting in all sorts of regulations.  Almost all the providers simply pulled out of our state.  You can keep increasing the rules over the game, but the one thing you can't do is force people to continue to play the game.</p><p>Let's try to give help to those who really need it.  Let's not set up a system that imposes top-down bureaucratic control over the doctors and keeps the next generation from even wanting to become a doctor.</p><p>If you really want to bring down medical costs, here's a two-step plan for you. (a) Reform the insane medical malpractice awards, which drive the cost of malpractice insurance up into the sky.  My mom has NEVER been sued for malpractice in all her years of practicing, and she has to pay vicious premiums because the situation is so bad. (b) Switch everyone over to Health Savings Accounts, where you get a very high deductible policy to cover catastrophes (like being hit by a car or finding you have cancer) but you simply pay out of the HSA for ordinary things (like getting a physical exam or having a virus treated).  Cut the insurance companies completely out of the loop for ordinary, mundane doctor treatments.  Right now, people don't even think health care costs money; they just think the insurance companies have endless supplies of money and they expect unlimited treatments.  The HSA will make people pay attention again to the nuts and bolts.</p><p>There would need to be a transition period for the HSA.  It wouldn't be fair to switch an elderly person over to an HSA; part of the HSA deal is that during your younger, healthy years you pile up a bunch of excess money in your HSA, and then that money is there when you need it later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.Wow , great way to frame the debate there .
If I disagree with you , I 'm in favor of letting children die ? This kind of rhetoric does n't make me want to debate you .
It makes me just want to snarl " fuck you " and be on my way.Third , and this is what I hope , that they reform payments and set standards for care.This is something to be feared .
Government bureaucrats will now be dictating to doctors how they can treat patients and how much they can charge .
Are the voters complaining that costs are too high ?
Just order the doctors to charge less , and damn the whining.Well , the one thing you ca n't do is force people to continue to be doctors under those conditions .
The smart ones will quit and become lawyers or something , and only the truly dedicated ones and the worst doctors will still practice .
I do n't want to see doctors punished and driven out of the business.My mother is a doctor in California .
She has told me horror stories of dealing with the bureaucracy in MediCal .
She once got threatened with serious consequences , with a really unpleasant letter , because she was n't charging what they said .
She checked and found she had charged LESS than they said ; Heaven help her if she charged MORE by mistake , I guess .
She says the payments offered by MediCal are way out of whack with the reality of her costs to provide the services .
And , she says most of her doctor friends have just decided not to accept MediCal payments anymore ; it 's just not worth the hassle.Anyone who asks my mom whether to become a doctor or not , she urges them to do something different .
She says it 's already bad and seems to be getting worse.In my state , in recent years , it became almost impossible to get insurance .
The state insurance commission was jacking up the insurance providers , making all sorts of demands and putting in all sorts of regulations .
Almost all the providers simply pulled out of our state .
You can keep increasing the rules over the game , but the one thing you ca n't do is force people to continue to play the game.Let 's try to give help to those who really need it .
Let 's not set up a system that imposes top-down bureaucratic control over the doctors and keeps the next generation from even wanting to become a doctor.If you really want to bring down medical costs , here 's a two-step plan for you .
( a ) Reform the insane medical malpractice awards , which drive the cost of malpractice insurance up into the sky .
My mom has NEVER been sued for malpractice in all her years of practicing , and she has to pay vicious premiums because the situation is so bad .
( b ) Switch everyone over to Health Savings Accounts , where you get a very high deductible policy to cover catastrophes ( like being hit by a car or finding you have cancer ) but you simply pay out of the HSA for ordinary things ( like getting a physical exam or having a virus treated ) .
Cut the insurance companies completely out of the loop for ordinary , mundane doctor treatments .
Right now , people do n't even think health care costs money ; they just think the insurance companies have endless supplies of money and they expect unlimited treatments .
The HSA will make people pay attention again to the nuts and bolts.There would need to be a transition period for the HSA .
It would n't be fair to switch an elderly person over to an HSA ; part of the HSA deal is that during your younger , healthy years you pile up a bunch of excess money in your HSA , and then that money is there when you need it later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.Wow, great way to frame the debate there.
If I disagree with you, I'm in favor of letting children die?This kind of rhetoric doesn't make me want to debate you.
It makes me just want to snarl "fuck you" and be on my way.Third, and this is what I hope, that they reform payments and set standards for care.This is something to be feared.
Government bureaucrats will now be dictating to doctors how they can treat patients and how much they can charge.
Are the voters complaining that costs are too high?
Just order the doctors to charge less, and damn the whining.Well, the one thing you can't do is force people to continue to be doctors under those conditions.
The smart ones will quit and become lawyers or something, and only the truly dedicated ones and the worst doctors will still practice.
I don't want to see doctors punished and driven out of the business.My mother is a doctor in California.
She has told me horror stories of dealing with the bureaucracy in MediCal.
She once got threatened with serious consequences, with a really unpleasant letter, because she wasn't charging what they said.
She checked and found she had charged LESS than they said; Heaven help her if she charged MORE by mistake, I guess.
She says the payments offered by MediCal are way out of whack with the reality of her costs to provide the services.
And, she says most of her doctor friends have just decided not to accept MediCal payments anymore; it's just not worth the hassle.Anyone who asks my mom whether to become a doctor or not, she urges them to do something different.
She says it's already bad and seems to be getting worse.In my state, in recent years, it became almost impossible to get insurance.
The state insurance commission was jacking up the insurance providers, making all sorts of demands and putting in all sorts of regulations.
Almost all the providers simply pulled out of our state.
You can keep increasing the rules over the game, but the one thing you can't do is force people to continue to play the game.Let's try to give help to those who really need it.
Let's not set up a system that imposes top-down bureaucratic control over the doctors and keeps the next generation from even wanting to become a doctor.If you really want to bring down medical costs, here's a two-step plan for you.
(a) Reform the insane medical malpractice awards, which drive the cost of malpractice insurance up into the sky.
My mom has NEVER been sued for malpractice in all her years of practicing, and she has to pay vicious premiums because the situation is so bad.
(b) Switch everyone over to Health Savings Accounts, where you get a very high deductible policy to cover catastrophes (like being hit by a car or finding you have cancer) but you simply pay out of the HSA for ordinary things (like getting a physical exam or having a virus treated).
Cut the insurance companies completely out of the loop for ordinary, mundane doctor treatments.
Right now, people don't even think health care costs money; they just think the insurance companies have endless supplies of money and they expect unlimited treatments.
The HSA will make people pay attention again to the nuts and bolts.There would need to be a transition period for the HSA.
It wouldn't be fair to switch an elderly person over to an HSA; part of the HSA deal is that during your younger, healthy years you pile up a bunch of excess money in your HSA, and then that money is there when you need it later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405439</id>
	<title>News for nerds, stuff that matters.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this geek centric news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this geek centric news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this geek centric news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405425</id>
	<title>Two Sides? You Can't Be Serious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two sides:</p><p>1. The entire modern world that has low cost universal health care</p><p>2. The Democrats and Republicans on the other side with Republicans off in 'teh free market' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two sides : 1 .
The entire modern world that has low cost universal health care2 .
The Democrats and Republicans on the other side with Republicans off in 'teh free market ' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance ' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two sides:1.
The entire modern world that has low cost universal health care2.
The Democrats and Republicans on the other side with Republicans off in 'teh free market' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899</id>
	<title>they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprised the Repulicans would find this totally unacceptable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... NOT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unknown costs are only acceptable when it comes to war, killing and torturing foreign coloured untermenschen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprised the Repulicans would find this totally unacceptable ... NOT ... unknown costs are only acceptable when it comes to war , killing and torturing foreign coloured untermenschen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprised the Repulicans would find this totally unacceptable ... NOT ... unknown costs are only acceptable when it comes to war, killing and torturing foreign coloured untermenschen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927</id>
	<title>Not sure the US is ready for public healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245503580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Public healthcare, while seemingly free (most people do pay for it in the end) but I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective.
<br> <br>
People just assume that free healthcare means everything stays the same except it's free. That's not true.
<br> <br>
Granted, the healthcare I receive in the UK isn't bad. My local doctor definitely has room for improvement but my previous doctor was perfect. I just hope I don't have to deal with cancer in the UK. Despite probably being in one of the better areas as far as the whole post code lottery ordeal goes, it's always a concern I'll be told "tough luck, we're low on cash".
<br> <br>
When I was in the US, despite not being jobless, the hospital and state government (PA) was actually quite helpful and I only had to pay a tiny fraction of what it would have cost. Even for someone in a transitional job, which was low paying, it was quite easy to pay off. Certainly better than the $20,000+ I would have had to pay if I didn't seek help from the state and hospital.
<br> <br>
My case might be slightly biased since I was in a decent area of the state and the hospital doesn't deal with a load of poor people begging for free care but even with free healthcare, being in a poorer area of the UK can mean not getting a treatment someone else would get in a better off area.
<br> <br>
I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will <b>not</b> solve everyone's problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public healthcare , while seemingly free ( most people do pay for it in the end ) but I 'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you ca n't have a certain treatment because it 's not cost effective .
People just assume that free healthcare means everything stays the same except it 's free .
That 's not true .
Granted , the healthcare I receive in the UK is n't bad .
My local doctor definitely has room for improvement but my previous doctor was perfect .
I just hope I do n't have to deal with cancer in the UK .
Despite probably being in one of the better areas as far as the whole post code lottery ordeal goes , it 's always a concern I 'll be told " tough luck , we 're low on cash " .
When I was in the US , despite not being jobless , the hospital and state government ( PA ) was actually quite helpful and I only had to pay a tiny fraction of what it would have cost .
Even for someone in a transitional job , which was low paying , it was quite easy to pay off .
Certainly better than the $ 20,000 + I would have had to pay if I did n't seek help from the state and hospital .
My case might be slightly biased since I was in a decent area of the state and the hospital does n't deal with a load of poor people begging for free care but even with free healthcare , being in a poorer area of the UK can mean not getting a treatment someone else would get in a better off area .
I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone 's problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public healthcare, while seemingly free (most people do pay for it in the end) but I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective.
People just assume that free healthcare means everything stays the same except it's free.
That's not true.
Granted, the healthcare I receive in the UK isn't bad.
My local doctor definitely has room for improvement but my previous doctor was perfect.
I just hope I don't have to deal with cancer in the UK.
Despite probably being in one of the better areas as far as the whole post code lottery ordeal goes, it's always a concern I'll be told "tough luck, we're low on cash".
When I was in the US, despite not being jobless, the hospital and state government (PA) was actually quite helpful and I only had to pay a tiny fraction of what it would have cost.
Even for someone in a transitional job, which was low paying, it was quite easy to pay off.
Certainly better than the $20,000+ I would have had to pay if I didn't seek help from the state and hospital.
My case might be slightly biased since I was in a decent area of the state and the hospital doesn't deal with a load of poor people begging for free care but even with free healthcare, being in a poorer area of the UK can mean not getting a treatment someone else would get in a better off area.
I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone's problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405515</id>
	<title>Are the legislators going to be forced to use it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245501060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The surest way to see if this plan is worthwhile is to force all legislators, senators and government employees to be covered by this health plan and have to pay for it in full. What's that Senator? You say you won't be forced to take substandard health insurance let alone have to pay it because the government already pays your healthcare out of the taxpayer's wallets? I thought so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The surest way to see if this plan is worthwhile is to force all legislators , senators and government employees to be covered by this health plan and have to pay for it in full .
What 's that Senator ?
You say you wo n't be forced to take substandard health insurance let alone have to pay it because the government already pays your healthcare out of the taxpayer 's wallets ?
I thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The surest way to see if this plan is worthwhile is to force all legislators, senators and government employees to be covered by this health plan and have to pay for it in full.
What's that Senator?
You say you won't be forced to take substandard health insurance let alone have to pay it because the government already pays your healthcare out of the taxpayer's wallets?
I thought so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406247</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they are specifically excluded from this plan. How do you like them apples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are specifically excluded from this plan .
How do you like them apples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are specifically excluded from this plan.
How do you like them apples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410613</id>
	<title>I can tell you how much it could cost</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1245598560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worst case scenario.  Take what you currently pay for health insurance.  The most reliable figure would be for a plan you pay for yourself.  In my case, a plain-vanilla 80/20 from Blue Cross costs me $344 a month.  Multiply that by 12 and then by 300,000,000.  That gives you 1,238,400,000,000.  That's 1.2 trillion dollars PER YEAR!!!  And that doesn't even cover 100\%.  Okay so they say roughly 42.6 million are uninsured.  That alone would be 175,852,800,000.   $175 billion.  Every year.  Forever.  That works out to over $586 in extra taxes that all 300 million of us would have to ante up just to cover the uninsured.  But that assumes that every American pays taxes which we all know they don't.  You could probably safely double that number.  Figure around $1000 in taxes JUST TO COVER THE UNINSURED.  That's a pretty scary number to me and that doesn't include the inevitable fact that government programs always balloon way beyond their initial projections.  So you do the math.  How would you like it if someone came up to you and told you that you'd have to fork over an extra grand every year for life?  Show me where in the Constitution it says that you are entitled to free health care and I'll then suggest you read the 10th Amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worst case scenario .
Take what you currently pay for health insurance .
The most reliable figure would be for a plan you pay for yourself .
In my case , a plain-vanilla 80/20 from Blue Cross costs me $ 344 a month .
Multiply that by 12 and then by 300,000,000 .
That gives you 1,238,400,000,000 .
That 's 1.2 trillion dollars PER YEAR ! ! !
And that does n't even cover 100 \ % .
Okay so they say roughly 42.6 million are uninsured .
That alone would be 175,852,800,000 .
$ 175 billion .
Every year .
Forever. That works out to over $ 586 in extra taxes that all 300 million of us would have to ante up just to cover the uninsured .
But that assumes that every American pays taxes which we all know they do n't .
You could probably safely double that number .
Figure around $ 1000 in taxes JUST TO COVER THE UNINSURED .
That 's a pretty scary number to me and that does n't include the inevitable fact that government programs always balloon way beyond their initial projections .
So you do the math .
How would you like it if someone came up to you and told you that you 'd have to fork over an extra grand every year for life ?
Show me where in the Constitution it says that you are entitled to free health care and I 'll then suggest you read the 10th Amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worst case scenario.
Take what you currently pay for health insurance.
The most reliable figure would be for a plan you pay for yourself.
In my case, a plain-vanilla 80/20 from Blue Cross costs me $344 a month.
Multiply that by 12 and then by 300,000,000.
That gives you 1,238,400,000,000.
That's 1.2 trillion dollars PER YEAR!!!
And that doesn't even cover 100\%.
Okay so they say roughly 42.6 million are uninsured.
That alone would be 175,852,800,000.
$175 billion.
Every year.
Forever.  That works out to over $586 in extra taxes that all 300 million of us would have to ante up just to cover the uninsured.
But that assumes that every American pays taxes which we all know they don't.
You could probably safely double that number.
Figure around $1000 in taxes JUST TO COVER THE UNINSURED.
That's a pretty scary number to me and that doesn't include the inevitable fact that government programs always balloon way beyond their initial projections.
So you do the math.
How would you like it if someone came up to you and told you that you'd have to fork over an extra grand every year for life?
Show me where in the Constitution it says that you are entitled to free health care and I'll then suggest you read the 10th Amendment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407013</id>
	<title>The easy solution that would work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's close 2/3rds of the law schools and turn them into medical schools.   The only thing broken in the us health care system is costs.   The costs are high because there are to many lawyers, not enough doctors.   The third problem is two many rules to protect the privacy of gays and slutty women, hipaa almost doubled the cost of healthcare just to make sure nobody found out when someone had aids or an abortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's close 2/3rds of the law schools and turn them into medical schools .
The only thing broken in the us health care system is costs .
The costs are high because there are to many lawyers , not enough doctors .
The third problem is two many rules to protect the privacy of gays and slutty women , hipaa almost doubled the cost of healthcare just to make sure nobody found out when someone had aids or an abortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's close 2/3rds of the law schools and turn them into medical schools.
The only thing broken in the us health care system is costs.
The costs are high because there are to many lawyers, not enough doctors.
The third problem is two many rules to protect the privacy of gays and slutty women, hipaa almost doubled the cost of healthcare just to make sure nobody found out when someone had aids or an abortion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255</id>
	<title>Orwellian language, as usual</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1245499500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers</p></div></blockquote><p>We see what you are doing here. Government provision of services, by definition, is the exact opposite of free market competition. When you take money from people by force and give it to others, that is NOT competition. Please stop saying that it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurersWe see what you are doing here .
Government provision of services , by definition , is the exact opposite of free market competition .
When you take money from people by force and give it to others , that is NOT competition .
Please stop saying that it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurersWe see what you are doing here.
Government provision of services, by definition, is the exact opposite of free market competition.
When you take money from people by force and give it to others, that is NOT competition.
Please stop saying that it is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411147</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245602880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>screw you for calling those without health insurance irresponsible. You are a prick sir or madam! Everyone has the right to live healthily and have a life. Having programs both private and non-private that promote prevention, as well as having universal health insurance options will indeed help bring costs down. Also, forbidding malpractice suits unless it was with malicious intent would help as well. You do all of these things and then you will see a healthier happier population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>screw you for calling those without health insurance irresponsible .
You are a prick sir or madam !
Everyone has the right to live healthily and have a life .
Having programs both private and non-private that promote prevention , as well as having universal health insurance options will indeed help bring costs down .
Also , forbidding malpractice suits unless it was with malicious intent would help as well .
You do all of these things and then you will see a healthier happier population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>screw you for calling those without health insurance irresponsible.
You are a prick sir or madam!
Everyone has the right to live healthily and have a life.
Having programs both private and non-private that promote prevention, as well as having universal health insurance options will indeed help bring costs down.
Also, forbidding malpractice suits unless it was with malicious intent would help as well.
You do all of these things and then you will see a healthier happier population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408119</id>
	<title>Re:Another freedom gone</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1245523680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing the feds do well is to kill people and break things.</p><p>I suspect if they are put in charge of health care, they will carry on in their finest tradition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing the feds do well is to kill people and break things.I suspect if they are put in charge of health care , they will carry on in their finest tradition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing the feds do well is to kill people and break things.I suspect if they are put in charge of health care, they will carry on in their finest tradition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408861</id>
	<title>Re:Another freedom gone</title>
	<author>dlgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245576600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NOAA/NWS? I don't usually hear about them f'ing up, occasional stories about politicians leaning on them maybe, but generally they get their job done quietly in the background with no one noticing. They produce some great data too...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NOAA/NWS ?
I do n't usually hear about them f'ing up , occasional stories about politicians leaning on them maybe , but generally they get their job done quietly in the background with no one noticing .
They produce some great data too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NOAA/NWS?
I don't usually hear about them f'ing up, occasional stories about politicians leaning on them maybe, but generally they get their job done quietly in the background with no one noticing.
They produce some great data too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409417</id>
	<title>Politics, not Science</title>
	<author>tomohawk</author>
	<datestamp>1245583620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here I thought I was blocking Politics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I thought I was blocking Politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I thought I was blocking Politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407905</id>
	<title>Fix health insurance with one simple change</title>
	<author>digitalride</author>
	<datestamp>1245521160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The health insurance situation in the US can be vastly improved with one simple change:
Make it ILLEGAL for any group (usually employers) to get preferential pricing from health insurance companies.  Insurance should cost the same for any two people in the same situation, including taxes.  I have my own business so I have to pay a lot more for health insurance.  I know companies pay part of employees premiums, but the total of employer contribution plus employee contribution plus taxes is a lot less than it is for people who are self employed or work for a small business.
<br> <br>
This one simple change:<br>
1. makes health insurance companies compete  -  people will shop around instead of just getting a provider chosen for you by your employer.  <br>
2. makes everyone realize what they are really paying for heath care.  When things come out of a paycheck like taxes, people seem to accept it more than if they had to write out a check for it each month.  If people realized how expensive it is they would be outraged and more likely to shop around or get involved politically.  Most people don't need the low deductible, cover-everything plans some of employers offer at low costs - they would probably lower their coverage if paying for it out of pocket. Anytime people aren't paying with their own money costs skyrocket (just ask politicians).  "Oh look, he has good insurance, let's run this test and this treatment too, your insurance will cover it"
<br> <br>
The issues of pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford any form of health insurance are different.  If you let anyone get medical treatment without paying, and cover pre-existing conditions, then you are no longer talking about INSURANCE which is a hedge against unforeseen problems.  Then you are talking about government-run health CARE, which would likely be the end of the private health insurance industry as we know it.  Whether or not that a good thing is an a different argument, but with all of their lobbyists I don't see it happening anytime soon, so let's start by fixing health insurance, and go from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The health insurance situation in the US can be vastly improved with one simple change : Make it ILLEGAL for any group ( usually employers ) to get preferential pricing from health insurance companies .
Insurance should cost the same for any two people in the same situation , including taxes .
I have my own business so I have to pay a lot more for health insurance .
I know companies pay part of employees premiums , but the total of employer contribution plus employee contribution plus taxes is a lot less than it is for people who are self employed or work for a small business .
This one simple change : 1. makes health insurance companies compete - people will shop around instead of just getting a provider chosen for you by your employer .
2. makes everyone realize what they are really paying for heath care .
When things come out of a paycheck like taxes , people seem to accept it more than if they had to write out a check for it each month .
If people realized how expensive it is they would be outraged and more likely to shop around or get involved politically .
Most people do n't need the low deductible , cover-everything plans some of employers offer at low costs - they would probably lower their coverage if paying for it out of pocket .
Anytime people are n't paying with their own money costs skyrocket ( just ask politicians ) .
" Oh look , he has good insurance , let 's run this test and this treatment too , your insurance will cover it " The issues of pre-existing conditions and people who ca n't afford any form of health insurance are different .
If you let anyone get medical treatment without paying , and cover pre-existing conditions , then you are no longer talking about INSURANCE which is a hedge against unforeseen problems .
Then you are talking about government-run health CARE , which would likely be the end of the private health insurance industry as we know it .
Whether or not that a good thing is an a different argument , but with all of their lobbyists I do n't see it happening anytime soon , so let 's start by fixing health insurance , and go from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The health insurance situation in the US can be vastly improved with one simple change:
Make it ILLEGAL for any group (usually employers) to get preferential pricing from health insurance companies.
Insurance should cost the same for any two people in the same situation, including taxes.
I have my own business so I have to pay a lot more for health insurance.
I know companies pay part of employees premiums, but the total of employer contribution plus employee contribution plus taxes is a lot less than it is for people who are self employed or work for a small business.
This one simple change:
1. makes health insurance companies compete  -  people will shop around instead of just getting a provider chosen for you by your employer.
2. makes everyone realize what they are really paying for heath care.
When things come out of a paycheck like taxes, people seem to accept it more than if they had to write out a check for it each month.
If people realized how expensive it is they would be outraged and more likely to shop around or get involved politically.
Most people don't need the low deductible, cover-everything plans some of employers offer at low costs - they would probably lower their coverage if paying for it out of pocket.
Anytime people aren't paying with their own money costs skyrocket (just ask politicians).
"Oh look, he has good insurance, let's run this test and this treatment too, your insurance will cover it"
 
The issues of pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford any form of health insurance are different.
If you let anyone get medical treatment without paying, and cover pre-existing conditions, then you are no longer talking about INSURANCE which is a hedge against unforeseen problems.
Then you are talking about government-run health CARE, which would likely be the end of the private health insurance industry as we know it.
Whether or not that a good thing is an a different argument, but with all of their lobbyists I don't see it happening anytime soon, so let's start by fixing health insurance, and go from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</id>
	<title>Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS? Let you buy any plan that you want? UN tie it from your job?</i></p><p>Actually, no the bill won't do any of that.  Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills?  I agree that employers should be untied from medical care and all insurance should be<br>privately purchased.  But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely cannot cover them yourself.</p><p>Take, for example, HIV treatment.  Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.  But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.</p><p><i>How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check?</i></p><p>Nope.  Why should it?  I would think that, as a lender, paying back your health loans first would be the thing that they look for... you know, do the logical thing and pay the people to keep you alive.</p><p><i>Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job?</i></p><p>Quite frankly I think any credit check should be off limits when applying for a job or a place to live.</p><p><i>Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.</i></p><p>That would throw too many programmers out of work.  Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management.  If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.  Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS ?
Let you buy any plan that you want ?
UN tie it from your job ? Actually , no the bill wo n't do any of that .
Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills ?
I agree that employers should be untied from medical care and all insurance should beprivately purchased .
But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely can not cover them yourself.Take , for example , HIV treatment .
Most people probably could n't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive .
But I do n't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive , as long as he does n't bitch about Republicans , in which case , I 'd vote to cut him off.How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check ? Nope .
Why should it ?
I would think that , as a lender , paying back your health loans first would be the thing that they look for... you know , do the logical thing and pay the people to keep you alive.Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job ? Quite frankly I think any credit check should be off limits when applying for a job or a place to live.Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.That would throw too many programmers out of work .
Besides , the whole point of insurance is about risk management .
If an insurance can not manage the risk , it can not operate as a company .
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS?
Let you buy any plan that you want?
UN tie it from your job?Actually, no the bill won't do any of that.
Are you sure you are not asking for someone else to pay your medical bills?
I agree that employers should be untied from medical care and all insurance should beprivately purchased.
But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely cannot cover them yourself.Take, for example, HIV treatment.
Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.
But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check?Nope.
Why should it?
I would think that, as a lender, paying back your health loans first would be the thing that they look for... you know, do the logical thing and pay the people to keep you alive.Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job?Quite frankly I think any credit check should be off limits when applying for a job or a place to live.Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.That would throw too many programmers out of work.
Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management.
If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.
Quite frankly the thing to do would be to deregulate all the coverage provided by insurance and get rid of all the various state mandates that make it more expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405351</id>
	<title>Right On! Let The Fag Die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Take, for example, HIV treatment. Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive. But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off."</p><p>You are so right!</p><p>Those fucking Democrats want to take our hard earned money and give it to fags to keep them alive. Fucking godless socialists and communists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Take , for example , HIV treatment .
Most people probably could n't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive .
But I do n't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive , as long as he does n't bitch about Republicans , in which case , I 'd vote to cut him off .
" You are so right ! Those fucking Democrats want to take our hard earned money and give it to fags to keep them alive .
Fucking godless socialists and communists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Take, for example, HIV treatment.
Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.
But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.
"You are so right!Those fucking Democrats want to take our hard earned money and give it to fags to keep them alive.
Fucking godless socialists and communists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407113</id>
	<title>bye bye health coverage</title>
	<author>Andoman78</author>
	<datestamp>1245513780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree with socialized medicine, but if the government pushes this through I'm cancelling the health coverage for my employees because it cost to damn much to keep.  I'm not the only small business to think about this ether just ask around, providing health care is a huge pain in the ass, and  employees don't even understand how much it costs to give coverage to families and all the other BS the government makes you do.  I'll go out on a limb and say independent health insurance companies won't make it 5 years after this goes through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with socialized medicine , but if the government pushes this through I 'm cancelling the health coverage for my employees because it cost to damn much to keep .
I 'm not the only small business to think about this ether just ask around , providing health care is a huge pain in the ass , and employees do n't even understand how much it costs to give coverage to families and all the other BS the government makes you do .
I 'll go out on a limb and say independent health insurance companies wo n't make it 5 years after this goes through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with socialized medicine, but if the government pushes this through I'm cancelling the health coverage for my employees because it cost to damn much to keep.
I'm not the only small business to think about this ether just ask around, providing health care is a huge pain in the ass, and  employees don't even understand how much it costs to give coverage to families and all the other BS the government makes you do.
I'll go out on a limb and say independent health insurance companies won't make it 5 years after this goes through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</id>
	<title>The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245497880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that the House Democrats are essentially following the blueprint for Healthcare provided by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachussetts.  So far, the Massachusetts model has pretty much worked, in that, they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly.  However, costs for the state provided side of the plan have come in way more than anyone either promised or expected.  Quite frankly, the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale and drive down costs for everyone.  Now everyone just has procedures that they cannot afford done.</p><p>The other irony is that Obama's said to be considering the McCain plan's idea of taxing health care benefits and requiring employers to purchase it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that the House Democrats are essentially following the blueprint for Healthcare provided by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachussetts .
So far , the Massachusetts model has pretty much worked , in that , they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly .
However , costs for the state provided side of the plan have come in way more than anyone either promised or expected .
Quite frankly , the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale and drive down costs for everyone .
Now everyone just has procedures that they can not afford done.The other irony is that Obama 's said to be considering the McCain plan 's idea of taxing health care benefits and requiring employers to purchase it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that the House Democrats are essentially following the blueprint for Healthcare provided by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachussetts.
So far, the Massachusetts model has pretty much worked, in that, they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly.
However, costs for the state provided side of the plan have come in way more than anyone either promised or expected.
Quite frankly, the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale and drive down costs for everyone.
Now everyone just has procedures that they cannot afford done.The other irony is that Obama's said to be considering the McCain plan's idea of taxing health care benefits and requiring employers to purchase it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413465</id>
	<title>Analyzing 1 step deeper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245577980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely cannot cover them yourself.</p></div><p>So insurance companies will keep the profits from healthy people, while transferring unhealthy people to the government program? Ever hear the phrase "keep costs public and profits private?"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Take, for example, HIV treatment.  Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.  But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.</p></div><p>So people should give up their free speech if they want healthcare?</p><p> <i>Doctor:</i> Here is your life-saving pill, but first, what are your feelings about Republicans*?</p><p> <i>Patient:</i> Ummmmm</p><p>* If you still don't understand, substitute: Democrats, The Green Party, Progressives, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Italians, Chinese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Koreans, Women, Homosexuals, The Poor, The Rich, The Pretty, The Ugly, The Intellectual, The Uneducated, The Crippled, The Famous, The Selfish, Your Employer, The Homeless, Your Neighbor. If you think you're open-minded, seriously, try inserting each of those groups in your original sentence, and remember that if you answer wrong your healhcare will be cut off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely can not cover them yourself.So insurance companies will keep the profits from healthy people , while transferring unhealthy people to the government program ?
Ever hear the phrase " keep costs public and profits private ?
" Take , for example , HIV treatment .
Most people probably could n't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive .
But I do n't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive , as long as he does n't bitch about Republicans , in which case , I 'd vote to cut him off.So people should give up their free speech if they want healthcare ?
Doctor : Here is your life-saving pill , but first , what are your feelings about Republicans * ?
Patient : Ummmmm * If you still do n't understand , substitute : Democrats , The Green Party , Progressives , Native Americans , African Americans , Hispanics , Italians , Chinese , Iraqis , Afghanis , Pakistanis , Koreans , Women , Homosexuals , The Poor , The Rich , The Pretty , The Ugly , The Intellectual , The Uneducated , The Crippled , The Famous , The Selfish , Your Employer , The Homeless , Your Neighbor .
If you think you 're open-minded , seriously , try inserting each of those groups in your original sentence , and remember that if you answer wrong your healhcare will be cut off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think if you have a pre-existing condition you should be shuffled into a government program that covers your costs since you most likely cannot cover them yourself.So insurance companies will keep the profits from healthy people, while transferring unhealthy people to the government program?
Ever hear the phrase "keep costs public and profits private?
"Take, for example, HIV treatment.
Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive.
But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off.So people should give up their free speech if they want healthcare?
Doctor: Here is your life-saving pill, but first, what are your feelings about Republicans*?
Patient: Ummmmm* If you still don't understand, substitute: Democrats, The Green Party, Progressives, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Italians, Chinese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Koreans, Women, Homosexuals, The Poor, The Rich, The Pretty, The Ugly, The Intellectual, The Uneducated, The Crippled, The Famous, The Selfish, Your Employer, The Homeless, Your Neighbor.
If you think you're open-minded, seriously, try inserting each of those groups in your original sentence, and remember that if you answer wrong your healhcare will be cut off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408817</id>
	<title>A basic human right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245576060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comprehensive universal healthcare is a basic human right.<br>I find it unbelievable that the United States is willing to borrow massive amounts to fund its imperial foreign policy, yet it won't provide proper healthcare for its own sick.<br>Even many Third World countries have a better overall standard of healthcare provision.<br>Medical costs will have to be brought under control. Firstly, the private sectors blatant profiteering needs to be reigned in. Look at the profits of some of these companies! Secondly, patents on drugs need to be abolished. They are leading to artificial scarcity, and stifling innovation and competition. This will lead to more collaborative and open development of new drugs, and accelerate progress.<br>I'm just happy that I don't live in America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comprehensive universal healthcare is a basic human right.I find it unbelievable that the United States is willing to borrow massive amounts to fund its imperial foreign policy , yet it wo n't provide proper healthcare for its own sick.Even many Third World countries have a better overall standard of healthcare provision.Medical costs will have to be brought under control .
Firstly , the private sectors blatant profiteering needs to be reigned in .
Look at the profits of some of these companies !
Secondly , patents on drugs need to be abolished .
They are leading to artificial scarcity , and stifling innovation and competition .
This will lead to more collaborative and open development of new drugs , and accelerate progress.I 'm just happy that I do n't live in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comprehensive universal healthcare is a basic human right.I find it unbelievable that the United States is willing to borrow massive amounts to fund its imperial foreign policy, yet it won't provide proper healthcare for its own sick.Even many Third World countries have a better overall standard of healthcare provision.Medical costs will have to be brought under control.
Firstly, the private sectors blatant profiteering needs to be reigned in.
Look at the profits of some of these companies!
Secondly, patents on drugs need to be abolished.
They are leading to artificial scarcity, and stifling innovation and competition.
This will lead to more collaborative and open development of new drugs, and accelerate progress.I'm just happy that I don't live in America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409825</id>
	<title>About time US had a national health service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245589860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the US have a national health service, like say here in the UK? It's a bit of a joke that one of the most powerful countries in the world falls so far behind when it comes to the health of it's poor and impoverished, can America really see this situation extending to the next century, and can't it see that so many of it's social problems stem from the simple fact that certain parts of it's "society" (look up that word) can't even have their health care guaranteed by the state which is supposed to look after their interests?</p><p>What actual use is a government if it can't guarantee the most basic and important facet of living, people's health??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the US have a national health service , like say here in the UK ?
It 's a bit of a joke that one of the most powerful countries in the world falls so far behind when it comes to the health of it 's poor and impoverished , can America really see this situation extending to the next century , and ca n't it see that so many of it 's social problems stem from the simple fact that certain parts of it 's " society " ( look up that word ) ca n't even have their health care guaranteed by the state which is supposed to look after their interests ? What actual use is a government if it ca n't guarantee the most basic and important facet of living , people 's health ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the US have a national health service, like say here in the UK?
It's a bit of a joke that one of the most powerful countries in the world falls so far behind when it comes to the health of it's poor and impoverished, can America really see this situation extending to the next century, and can't it see that so many of it's social problems stem from the simple fact that certain parts of it's "society" (look up that word) can't even have their health care guaranteed by the state which is supposed to look after their interests?What actual use is a government if it can't guarantee the most basic and important facet of living, people's health?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407423</id>
	<title>Re:Will this bill stop the pre existing condition</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1245516900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wish-list of a Human Being
<ul>
<li>Free Universal Health Care in Corporate Hospitals (http://tr.im/lKB3)</li><li>Social Security Pensions for all Citizens (http://tr.im/n2vG)</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish-list of a Human Being Free Universal Health Care in Corporate Hospitals ( http : //tr.im/lKB3 ) Social Security Pensions for all Citizens ( http : //tr.im/n2vG )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish-list of a Human Being

Free Universal Health Care in Corporate Hospitals (http://tr.im/lKB3)Social Security Pensions for all Citizens (http://tr.im/n2vG)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415849</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>panoptical2</author>
	<datestamp>1245599940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly would like to see a good, bi-partisan healthcare plan come to the table.<br> <br>

However, if you actually think that the socialized healthcare systems in "every other developed country" work fine, then you should try going to France, where most have to be placed on year-long waitlists for a simple surgery.<br> <br>

Also, if you think that Medicaid provides remotely good healthcare, then you obviously have not talked to any doctors about it; Medicaid forces doctors to only accept 22\% of a charged payment, and to write off the rest. So, if an orthopedic performed an $1,100 knee replacement, he'd only receive about $250, and wouldn't get anymore. And if that orthopedic happened to be a specialist in knee replacements, then the patient would also have to see a general orthopedic to get a referral, costing the patient unnecessary time. Many doctors have actually stopped accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients.<br> <br>

I think that I would honestly like to see changes made in the copyright law dealing with prescription drugs... When drug companies patent a drug (which usually happens as research just begins), they have 18 years to finish researching/developing the drug (usually takes 10-11 years), get it approved by the FDA (1-2 years, depending on what the drug cures), mass produce it, market it, and try to make a profit on it in the remaining time that they have. After the 18 years is up, the generic pharmaceuticals step in and make cheaper versions of the drug, virtually eliminating all hope for more profit on it.<br>
Extending the copyrights for these would allow the companies to market the drugs longer and charge a lesser price on them, giving them a bigger chance at making a profit on the drug.<br> <br>

Overall, just remember that healthcare is a business and an industry, and costs a lot of money to run and operate. If the government wants to see an even bigger expansion on their current biggest expense (Medicare), they need to have the financial backing for it. Frankly, with the economy tanking, massively increasing our debt will not help matters almost any.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly would like to see a good , bi-partisan healthcare plan come to the table .
However , if you actually think that the socialized healthcare systems in " every other developed country " work fine , then you should try going to France , where most have to be placed on year-long waitlists for a simple surgery .
Also , if you think that Medicaid provides remotely good healthcare , then you obviously have not talked to any doctors about it ; Medicaid forces doctors to only accept 22 \ % of a charged payment , and to write off the rest .
So , if an orthopedic performed an $ 1,100 knee replacement , he 'd only receive about $ 250 , and would n't get anymore .
And if that orthopedic happened to be a specialist in knee replacements , then the patient would also have to see a general orthopedic to get a referral , costing the patient unnecessary time .
Many doctors have actually stopped accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients .
I think that I would honestly like to see changes made in the copyright law dealing with prescription drugs... When drug companies patent a drug ( which usually happens as research just begins ) , they have 18 years to finish researching/developing the drug ( usually takes 10-11 years ) , get it approved by the FDA ( 1-2 years , depending on what the drug cures ) , mass produce it , market it , and try to make a profit on it in the remaining time that they have .
After the 18 years is up , the generic pharmaceuticals step in and make cheaper versions of the drug , virtually eliminating all hope for more profit on it .
Extending the copyrights for these would allow the companies to market the drugs longer and charge a lesser price on them , giving them a bigger chance at making a profit on the drug .
Overall , just remember that healthcare is a business and an industry , and costs a lot of money to run and operate .
If the government wants to see an even bigger expansion on their current biggest expense ( Medicare ) , they need to have the financial backing for it .
Frankly , with the economy tanking , massively increasing our debt will not help matters almost any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly would like to see a good, bi-partisan healthcare plan come to the table.
However, if you actually think that the socialized healthcare systems in "every other developed country" work fine, then you should try going to France, where most have to be placed on year-long waitlists for a simple surgery.
Also, if you think that Medicaid provides remotely good healthcare, then you obviously have not talked to any doctors about it; Medicaid forces doctors to only accept 22\% of a charged payment, and to write off the rest.
So, if an orthopedic performed an $1,100 knee replacement, he'd only receive about $250, and wouldn't get anymore.
And if that orthopedic happened to be a specialist in knee replacements, then the patient would also have to see a general orthopedic to get a referral, costing the patient unnecessary time.
Many doctors have actually stopped accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients.
I think that I would honestly like to see changes made in the copyright law dealing with prescription drugs... When drug companies patent a drug (which usually happens as research just begins), they have 18 years to finish researching/developing the drug (usually takes 10-11 years), get it approved by the FDA (1-2 years, depending on what the drug cures), mass produce it, market it, and try to make a profit on it in the remaining time that they have.
After the 18 years is up, the generic pharmaceuticals step in and make cheaper versions of the drug, virtually eliminating all hope for more profit on it.
Extending the copyrights for these would allow the companies to market the drugs longer and charge a lesser price on them, giving them a bigger chance at making a profit on the drug.
Overall, just remember that healthcare is a business and an industry, and costs a lot of money to run and operate.
If the government wants to see an even bigger expansion on their current biggest expense (Medicare), they need to have the financial backing for it.
Frankly, with the economy tanking, massively increasing our debt will not help matters almost any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406785</id>
	<title>Re:So let's see....</title>
	<author>GlassHeart</author>
	<datestamp>1245510480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet somehow they manage to design, deploy, and maintain thousands of nuclear warheads over decades. You trust your government with nukes, but not health care? You generally have electric power. You probably have potable water coming out of the tap. Planes don't crash all the time. It does many things wrong, but you're also selectively ignoring many unglamorous things that go right day after day after day.</p><p>The government doesn't have to fix health care. Making it better would already be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet somehow they manage to design , deploy , and maintain thousands of nuclear warheads over decades .
You trust your government with nukes , but not health care ?
You generally have electric power .
You probably have potable water coming out of the tap .
Planes do n't crash all the time .
It does many things wrong , but you 're also selectively ignoring many unglamorous things that go right day after day after day.The government does n't have to fix health care .
Making it better would already be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet somehow they manage to design, deploy, and maintain thousands of nuclear warheads over decades.
You trust your government with nukes, but not health care?
You generally have electric power.
You probably have potable water coming out of the tap.
Planes don't crash all the time.
It does many things wrong, but you're also selectively ignoring many unglamorous things that go right day after day after day.The government doesn't have to fix health care.
Making it better would already be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409537</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental difference.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245585300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally.</p></div><p>I think that society needs to have an equal healthcare guarantee for everyone, but it shouldn't mean that everyone is forced to conform to the level provided by that healthcare. If you have money to pay for better service, and are willing to do so, there shouldn't be any reason why a private company should not be able to provide that to you (which is the case in e.g. Canada).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally.I think that society needs to have an equal healthcare guarantee for everyone , but it should n't mean that everyone is forced to conform to the level provided by that healthcare .
If you have money to pay for better service , and are willing to do so , there should n't be any reason why a private company should not be able to provide that to you ( which is the case in e.g .
Canada ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally.I think that society needs to have an equal healthcare guarantee for everyone, but it shouldn't mean that everyone is forced to conform to the level provided by that healthcare.
If you have money to pay for better service, and are willing to do so, there shouldn't be any reason why a private company should not be able to provide that to you (which is the case in e.g.
Canada).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408043</id>
	<title>Re:If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's usele</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity.</i></p><p>Yeah, we'd lots of starving and dead people.</p><p>Moron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity.Yeah , we 'd lots of starving and dead people.Moron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity.Yeah, we'd lots of starving and dead people.Moron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406271</id>
	<title>Re:If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's usele</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245505920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not the job of the FDA. The FDA is just to decide what medications are and are not fit for human consumption, they do not force it on people. Furthermore, there is really no good evidence that the FDA is any better or worse than similar agencies in other regions. There are issues, but it's with congress not the FDA.<br> <br>

As for the hormones, there is no evidence that the hormones have any effect of any sort of milk. There are issues of animal wellfare involved, but none of safety. To date there has never been a test devised which could tell natural milk from hormone enriched cow's milk.<br> <br>

As for aspartame, it's completely safe, there has never been any research which suggested anything else. Aspartame when taken in massive quantities by rats has somewhat increased the incidence of cancer. There is absolutely no evidence that humans get cancer from consuming quantities of aspartame that one might actually be able to ingest. In fact it's safer than sugar, since aspartame doesn't cause diabetes.<br> <br>

The big issue is that the FDA ought to be segmented up into Food, Drugs and Supplements and then let those handle the items that come into their jurisdiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the job of the FDA .
The FDA is just to decide what medications are and are not fit for human consumption , they do not force it on people .
Furthermore , there is really no good evidence that the FDA is any better or worse than similar agencies in other regions .
There are issues , but it 's with congress not the FDA .
As for the hormones , there is no evidence that the hormones have any effect of any sort of milk .
There are issues of animal wellfare involved , but none of safety .
To date there has never been a test devised which could tell natural milk from hormone enriched cow 's milk .
As for aspartame , it 's completely safe , there has never been any research which suggested anything else .
Aspartame when taken in massive quantities by rats has somewhat increased the incidence of cancer .
There is absolutely no evidence that humans get cancer from consuming quantities of aspartame that one might actually be able to ingest .
In fact it 's safer than sugar , since aspartame does n't cause diabetes .
The big issue is that the FDA ought to be segmented up into Food , Drugs and Supplements and then let those handle the items that come into their jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the job of the FDA.
The FDA is just to decide what medications are and are not fit for human consumption, they do not force it on people.
Furthermore, there is really no good evidence that the FDA is any better or worse than similar agencies in other regions.
There are issues, but it's with congress not the FDA.
As for the hormones, there is no evidence that the hormones have any effect of any sort of milk.
There are issues of animal wellfare involved, but none of safety.
To date there has never been a test devised which could tell natural milk from hormone enriched cow's milk.
As for aspartame, it's completely safe, there has never been any research which suggested anything else.
Aspartame when taken in massive quantities by rats has somewhat increased the incidence of cancer.
There is absolutely no evidence that humans get cancer from consuming quantities of aspartame that one might actually be able to ingest.
In fact it's safer than sugar, since aspartame doesn't cause diabetes.
The big issue is that the FDA ought to be segmented up into Food, Drugs and Supplements and then let those handle the items that come into their jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407843</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, now that we've identified the problem as being those horrible irresponsible people, we can make some progress.  It's good to know that people are going to be denied healthcare based on what a government committee deigns as "responsible" behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , now that we 've identified the problem as being those horrible irresponsible people , we can make some progress .
It 's good to know that people are going to be denied healthcare based on what a government committee deigns as " responsible " behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, now that we've identified the problem as being those horrible irresponsible people, we can make some progress.
It's good to know that people are going to be denied healthcare based on what a government committee deigns as "responsible" behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405223</id>
	<title>Fund health care with a carbon tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That way they have money for the plan, and they don't have to work on some Rube Goldberg cap-and-trade scheme later on for climate change.</p><p>That probably won't raise enough money by itself, so slap Pigovian taxes on other negative externalities, and if still more is necessary, levy land value taxes (land in the economic sense, including natural resources, radio frequencies, and of course land itself).</p><p>This suggestion isn't because I like taxes, but because taxes on negative externalities and on inelastically-supplied goods -- like land -- have a far less harmful effect on economic activity than taxes on labor, capital, or trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That way they have money for the plan , and they do n't have to work on some Rube Goldberg cap-and-trade scheme later on for climate change.That probably wo n't raise enough money by itself , so slap Pigovian taxes on other negative externalities , and if still more is necessary , levy land value taxes ( land in the economic sense , including natural resources , radio frequencies , and of course land itself ) .This suggestion is n't because I like taxes , but because taxes on negative externalities and on inelastically-supplied goods -- like land -- have a far less harmful effect on economic activity than taxes on labor , capital , or trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That way they have money for the plan, and they don't have to work on some Rube Goldberg cap-and-trade scheme later on for climate change.That probably won't raise enough money by itself, so slap Pigovian taxes on other negative externalities, and if still more is necessary, levy land value taxes (land in the economic sense, including natural resources, radio frequencies, and of course land itself).This suggestion isn't because I like taxes, but because taxes on negative externalities and on inelastically-supplied goods -- like land -- have a far less harmful effect on economic activity than taxes on labor, capital, or trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406545</id>
	<title>why i am against socialized medicine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245508140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i am a successful geek. rich, now. but it wasn't always the case.</p><p>i was tormented to the brink of suicide when i was in school. i missed out on a lot of things many take for granted. heck, i didn't even go to the prom! my life was hell, and no one -- absolutely no one -- did anything to stop it. they did nothing to help. they could not force others to be kind to me.</p><p>essentially, socialized medicine is forcing me to be generous to others. and i ask one simple question: why? why is someone else's quality of life more important than mine? socially, they are probably in excellent shape! i wasn't. how is that right? how is that equitable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i am a successful geek .
rich , now .
but it was n't always the case.i was tormented to the brink of suicide when i was in school .
i missed out on a lot of things many take for granted .
heck , i did n't even go to the prom !
my life was hell , and no one -- absolutely no one -- did anything to stop it .
they did nothing to help .
they could not force others to be kind to me.essentially , socialized medicine is forcing me to be generous to others .
and i ask one simple question : why ?
why is someone else 's quality of life more important than mine ?
socially , they are probably in excellent shape !
i was n't .
how is that right ?
how is that equitable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i am a successful geek.
rich, now.
but it wasn't always the case.i was tormented to the brink of suicide when i was in school.
i missed out on a lot of things many take for granted.
heck, i didn't even go to the prom!
my life was hell, and no one -- absolutely no one -- did anything to stop it.
they did nothing to help.
they could not force others to be kind to me.essentially, socialized medicine is forcing me to be generous to others.
and i ask one simple question: why?
why is someone else's quality of life more important than mine?
socially, they are probably in excellent shape!
i wasn't.
how is that right?
how is that equitable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407085</id>
	<title>I am okay with bashing republicans, but . . .</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1245513360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Hillary take about $850K to drop her push for universal health care around 1994? That is Michael Moore tells us, any Mikey is not exactly a right winger.</p><p>My guess is: the health care companies will give Obama a pile of money, and that will be the end of it.</p><p>It is not a dem vs repub thing (both parties are corrupt, IMO), it's just the way things work in the USA.</p><p>Lobbyists literally write the bills, which congress will rubber-stamp after the appropriate "speaker's fees" or "service fees."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Hillary take about $ 850K to drop her push for universal health care around 1994 ?
That is Michael Moore tells us , any Mikey is not exactly a right winger.My guess is : the health care companies will give Obama a pile of money , and that will be the end of it.It is not a dem vs repub thing ( both parties are corrupt , IMO ) , it 's just the way things work in the USA.Lobbyists literally write the bills , which congress will rubber-stamp after the appropriate " speaker 's fees " or " service fees .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Hillary take about $850K to drop her push for universal health care around 1994?
That is Michael Moore tells us, any Mikey is not exactly a right winger.My guess is: the health care companies will give Obama a pile of money, and that will be the end of it.It is not a dem vs repub thing (both parties are corrupt, IMO), it's just the way things work in the USA.Lobbyists literally write the bills, which congress will rubber-stamp after the appropriate "speaker's fees" or "service fees.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409697</id>
	<title>Re:Orwellian language, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where, oh where, is this magical land of free competition?</p><p>Not that I don't agree with you on the importance of language. But still, health insurance companies are making outrageous profits on peoples health. Pre-existing conditions and all that.<br>Some, yes, \_competition\_ to keep them in check might not be such a bad idea.</p><p>And if a goverment program can compete with private companies, you know you've been screwed for years and years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where , oh where , is this magical land of free competition ? Not that I do n't agree with you on the importance of language .
But still , health insurance companies are making outrageous profits on peoples health .
Pre-existing conditions and all that.Some , yes , \ _competition \ _ to keep them in check might not be such a bad idea.And if a goverment program can compete with private companies , you know you 've been screwed for years and years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where, oh where, is this magical land of free competition?Not that I don't agree with you on the importance of language.
But still, health insurance companies are making outrageous profits on peoples health.
Pre-existing conditions and all that.Some, yes, \_competition\_ to keep them in check might not be such a bad idea.And if a goverment program can compete with private companies, you know you've been screwed for years and years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406465</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1245507480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>The point of insurance is to keep people healthy.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>No. The point of insurance is to make the executives and (maybe) the shareholders as rich as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of insurance is to keep people healthy .
No. The point of insurance is to make the executives and ( maybe ) the shareholders as rich as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The point of insurance is to keep people healthy.
No. The point of insurance is to make the executives and (maybe) the shareholders as rich as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406041</id>
	<title>Negative feedback failure</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1245504420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the US health system is that there is no negative feedback of any sort to control costs. Places like Massachusetts actually made it worse because the state has become the policeman for the insurance industry. I have heard comparisons of health insurance and car insurance. A car is optional. Health is only optional if you are dead.</p><p>Another point people are confusing is health *care* and health insurance. They are completely different beasts (even though they overlap a bit).</p><p>I believe most people (in congress) who preach free markets have no idea that a free market system should have some negative feedback somewhere in the loop. The few proposals which have cost controls will not make it anywhere (sigh).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the US health system is that there is no negative feedback of any sort to control costs .
Places like Massachusetts actually made it worse because the state has become the policeman for the insurance industry .
I have heard comparisons of health insurance and car insurance .
A car is optional .
Health is only optional if you are dead.Another point people are confusing is health * care * and health insurance .
They are completely different beasts ( even though they overlap a bit ) .I believe most people ( in congress ) who preach free markets have no idea that a free market system should have some negative feedback somewhere in the loop .
The few proposals which have cost controls will not make it anywhere ( sigh ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the US health system is that there is no negative feedback of any sort to control costs.
Places like Massachusetts actually made it worse because the state has become the policeman for the insurance industry.
I have heard comparisons of health insurance and car insurance.
A car is optional.
Health is only optional if you are dead.Another point people are confusing is health *care* and health insurance.
They are completely different beasts (even though they overlap a bit).I believe most people (in congress) who preach free markets have no idea that a free market system should have some negative feedback somewhere in the loop.
The few proposals which have cost controls will not make it anywhere (sigh).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406143</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Yeah, spending all the money you decry, spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush, being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful.</i>
<p>
Actually to be fair, government budgets are not spent over months, they are budgeted for the next year, and then, maybe spent.  If you were to make an accurate statement, you would say as much money has been spent over the Bush administration as went spent during the first year of the Obama administration.
</p><p>
While that is the Rush/Hannity/ORealy line, it is not accurate either, on many levels.  First we have pretty good growth in GDP. In the 12 years of Reagan/Bush the GDP more than doubled.  In the eight years of Clinton, rose over 60\%.  In the 8 years of Bush, the GDP rose a little more than 50\%.  The amount we spend rises accordingly.  A good budget seems to be a little less than 20\% of GDP.  What this means, according you the alarmist rhetoric, is that Bush II was an exceedingly bad president because he spent over 50\% more in 8 years that Reagan/Bsuh did in 12.  This off course is stupid, and anyone who says such things are either incredibly stupid or simply liars.
</p><p>
In fact, one of the only sensible way to look at the budget is in terms of the tax base, which can be measuring in our productivity, which can be measured by the GDP.  Using this measure Regan/Bush were budgeting failures as they consumed 22\%+ of the GDP for big government.  Clinton brought those down to historically sustainable levels of 18\% of GDP, then Bush brought us buack up 21\%.
</p><p>
What Bush also did was raise the national deficit to perhaps 75\% of GDP.  This is like a family making  $50,000 a year owing almost $40,000 in credit card debt.  No matter what the conservative talking heads say, it was the irresponsibility of Bush building debt, 5 tillion dollars all told, that is going to kill us.
</p><p>
In terms of numbers, theree is little that said in comparison to Bush's budgets.  Adjusted for GDP, bushed highest budget year was only 10\%, maybe 20\% below the Obama budget.  What this means in terms of GDP is that Bush was spending 21\% of our money every year, while Obama is spending 26\% this year.  If he can follow Clinton's polocies, we can expect this number to drop to 18\%.  This will mean, ike clinton, he will tax and spend less than republicans.  Therefore to make any decisions we will have to wait to next year.
</p><p>
But history gives us hope.  While Reagan/Bush pushed the total deficit from 35\% to 65\% of GDP, Clinton lowered it to below 60\%.  It did takes him three years to start lowering the excessive Republican spending, and in that time the deficit rose another 3 or 4\%.  Of course in four years Bush II killed all the progress Clinton had make, and in another 4 tacked another 10\% on for good measure.  This indicates it take a year or two or three to control the Republican urge to rape the public coffers, and bring sanity to the budgeting process.  Of course, Obama has correct a whole new level of corruption.  We are not simply dealing with drug dealing and the treason of giving weapons to our enemies in Iran to better kill our brave American children. No, we are talking about an attack on the core of our capitalist system, an legal structure that made it legal, as it was in the late 1800's, to steal and endanger live for a small increase in profits.  I know all you kids thought it was bad when the president got a blow job, and the Republican congress appropriated 40 millions dollars to get the details of that blow job, but this is really serious.  And it might cost more than 40 million to get out of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , spending all the money you decry , spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush , being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful .
Actually to be fair , government budgets are not spent over months , they are budgeted for the next year , and then , maybe spent .
If you were to make an accurate statement , you would say as much money has been spent over the Bush administration as went spent during the first year of the Obama administration .
While that is the Rush/Hannity/ORealy line , it is not accurate either , on many levels .
First we have pretty good growth in GDP .
In the 12 years of Reagan/Bush the GDP more than doubled .
In the eight years of Clinton , rose over 60 \ % .
In the 8 years of Bush , the GDP rose a little more than 50 \ % .
The amount we spend rises accordingly .
A good budget seems to be a little less than 20 \ % of GDP .
What this means , according you the alarmist rhetoric , is that Bush II was an exceedingly bad president because he spent over 50 \ % more in 8 years that Reagan/Bsuh did in 12 .
This off course is stupid , and anyone who says such things are either incredibly stupid or simply liars .
In fact , one of the only sensible way to look at the budget is in terms of the tax base , which can be measuring in our productivity , which can be measured by the GDP .
Using this measure Regan/Bush were budgeting failures as they consumed 22 \ % + of the GDP for big government .
Clinton brought those down to historically sustainable levels of 18 \ % of GDP , then Bush brought us buack up 21 \ % .
What Bush also did was raise the national deficit to perhaps 75 \ % of GDP .
This is like a family making $ 50,000 a year owing almost $ 40,000 in credit card debt .
No matter what the conservative talking heads say , it was the irresponsibility of Bush building debt , 5 tillion dollars all told , that is going to kill us .
In terms of numbers , theree is little that said in comparison to Bush 's budgets .
Adjusted for GDP , bushed highest budget year was only 10 \ % , maybe 20 \ % below the Obama budget .
What this means in terms of GDP is that Bush was spending 21 \ % of our money every year , while Obama is spending 26 \ % this year .
If he can follow Clinton 's polocies , we can expect this number to drop to 18 \ % .
This will mean , ike clinton , he will tax and spend less than republicans .
Therefore to make any decisions we will have to wait to next year .
But history gives us hope .
While Reagan/Bush pushed the total deficit from 35 \ % to 65 \ % of GDP , Clinton lowered it to below 60 \ % .
It did takes him three years to start lowering the excessive Republican spending , and in that time the deficit rose another 3 or 4 \ % .
Of course in four years Bush II killed all the progress Clinton had make , and in another 4 tacked another 10 \ % on for good measure .
This indicates it take a year or two or three to control the Republican urge to rape the public coffers , and bring sanity to the budgeting process .
Of course , Obama has correct a whole new level of corruption .
We are not simply dealing with drug dealing and the treason of giving weapons to our enemies in Iran to better kill our brave American children .
No , we are talking about an attack on the core of our capitalist system , an legal structure that made it legal , as it was in the late 1800 's , to steal and endanger live for a small increase in profits .
I know all you kids thought it was bad when the president got a blow job , and the Republican congress appropriated 40 millions dollars to get the details of that blow job , but this is really serious .
And it might cost more than 40 million to get out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, spending all the money you decry, spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush, being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful.
Actually to be fair, government budgets are not spent over months, they are budgeted for the next year, and then, maybe spent.
If you were to make an accurate statement, you would say as much money has been spent over the Bush administration as went spent during the first year of the Obama administration.
While that is the Rush/Hannity/ORealy line, it is not accurate either, on many levels.
First we have pretty good growth in GDP.
In the 12 years of Reagan/Bush the GDP more than doubled.
In the eight years of Clinton, rose over 60\%.
In the 8 years of Bush, the GDP rose a little more than 50\%.
The amount we spend rises accordingly.
A good budget seems to be a little less than 20\% of GDP.
What this means, according you the alarmist rhetoric, is that Bush II was an exceedingly bad president because he spent over 50\% more in 8 years that Reagan/Bsuh did in 12.
This off course is stupid, and anyone who says such things are either incredibly stupid or simply liars.
In fact, one of the only sensible way to look at the budget is in terms of the tax base, which can be measuring in our productivity, which can be measured by the GDP.
Using this measure Regan/Bush were budgeting failures as they consumed 22\%+ of the GDP for big government.
Clinton brought those down to historically sustainable levels of 18\% of GDP, then Bush brought us buack up 21\%.
What Bush also did was raise the national deficit to perhaps 75\% of GDP.
This is like a family making  $50,000 a year owing almost $40,000 in credit card debt.
No matter what the conservative talking heads say, it was the irresponsibility of Bush building debt, 5 tillion dollars all told, that is going to kill us.
In terms of numbers, theree is little that said in comparison to Bush's budgets.
Adjusted for GDP, bushed highest budget year was only 10\%, maybe 20\% below the Obama budget.
What this means in terms of GDP is that Bush was spending 21\% of our money every year, while Obama is spending 26\% this year.
If he can follow Clinton's polocies, we can expect this number to drop to 18\%.
This will mean, ike clinton, he will tax and spend less than republicans.
Therefore to make any decisions we will have to wait to next year.
But history gives us hope.
While Reagan/Bush pushed the total deficit from 35\% to 65\% of GDP, Clinton lowered it to below 60\%.
It did takes him three years to start lowering the excessive Republican spending, and in that time the deficit rose another 3 or 4\%.
Of course in four years Bush II killed all the progress Clinton had make, and in another 4 tacked another 10\% on for good measure.
This indicates it take a year or two or three to control the Republican urge to rape the public coffers, and bring sanity to the budgeting process.
Of course, Obama has correct a whole new level of corruption.
We are not simply dealing with drug dealing and the treason of giving weapons to our enemies in Iran to better kill our brave American children.
No, we are talking about an attack on the core of our capitalist system, an legal structure that made it legal, as it was in the late 1800's, to steal and endanger live for a small increase in profits.
I know all you kids thought it was bad when the president got a blow job, and the Republican congress appropriated 40 millions dollars to get the details of that blow job, but this is really serious.
And it might cost more than 40 million to get out of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408395</id>
	<title>To my stalker</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1245526620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you have something better to do with your mod points than systematically modding down all of my posts as "offtopic" or "overrated" even when they're spot-on? What did I ever do to offend you so badly that you're obsessed with harassing me? Seriously, get a life you dimwit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you have something better to do with your mod points than systematically modding down all of my posts as " offtopic " or " overrated " even when they 're spot-on ?
What did I ever do to offend you so badly that you 're obsessed with harassing me ?
Seriously , get a life you dimwit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you have something better to do with your mod points than systematically modding down all of my posts as "offtopic" or "overrated" even when they're spot-on?
What did I ever do to offend you so badly that you're obsessed with harassing me?
Seriously, get a life you dimwit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407887</id>
	<title>Learn from Israel, not Canada</title>
	<author>Cow\_woC</author>
	<datestamp>1245521040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada's health care costs are skyrocketing. Canada will not be able to afford providing universal health-care within a decade or two. To add insult to injury, we have people dying in waiting lists. You wait 9 months for an MRI here. No joke.</p><p>I know a lot of Canadians who swear by our health care. Guess how many of them have ever had more than a cough?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Take it from someone who has actually had to rely on the system for something like serious like surgery: it's very poor. My wife was on a 2 year waiting list for major back surgery because (in her doctor's words) "there are people in front of you who have already become paralyzed while waiting for surgery. You simply have to wait your turn." Excuse me for not wanting to become permanently crippled.</p><p>In Israel, all citizens must be covered by a health care provider. There are four national providers to choose from that must provide the same basic services at the same price. Providers differentiate themselves by offering locations, doctors, and premium services (dental care, etc) for whopping cost of $10 a month. You don't need to pay for any of this because basic health care is more than enough.</p><p>In short, you end up with the benefit of national health care with the low prices of a competitive market. Israel's health care is one of the few in the world that provides first rate service without the associated skyrocketing prices. Oh, and did I mention that if you walk into the hospital with an emergency you'll be seen within 30 minutes? It's 8 hours on average in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada 's health care costs are skyrocketing .
Canada will not be able to afford providing universal health-care within a decade or two .
To add insult to injury , we have people dying in waiting lists .
You wait 9 months for an MRI here .
No joke.I know a lot of Canadians who swear by our health care .
Guess how many of them have ever had more than a cough ?
... Take it from someone who has actually had to rely on the system for something like serious like surgery : it 's very poor .
My wife was on a 2 year waiting list for major back surgery because ( in her doctor 's words ) " there are people in front of you who have already become paralyzed while waiting for surgery .
You simply have to wait your turn .
" Excuse me for not wanting to become permanently crippled.In Israel , all citizens must be covered by a health care provider .
There are four national providers to choose from that must provide the same basic services at the same price .
Providers differentiate themselves by offering locations , doctors , and premium services ( dental care , etc ) for whopping cost of $ 10 a month .
You do n't need to pay for any of this because basic health care is more than enough.In short , you end up with the benefit of national health care with the low prices of a competitive market .
Israel 's health care is one of the few in the world that provides first rate service without the associated skyrocketing prices .
Oh , and did I mention that if you walk into the hospital with an emergency you 'll be seen within 30 minutes ?
It 's 8 hours on average in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada's health care costs are skyrocketing.
Canada will not be able to afford providing universal health-care within a decade or two.
To add insult to injury, we have people dying in waiting lists.
You wait 9 months for an MRI here.
No joke.I know a lot of Canadians who swear by our health care.
Guess how many of them have ever had more than a cough?
... Take it from someone who has actually had to rely on the system for something like serious like surgery: it's very poor.
My wife was on a 2 year waiting list for major back surgery because (in her doctor's words) "there are people in front of you who have already become paralyzed while waiting for surgery.
You simply have to wait your turn.
" Excuse me for not wanting to become permanently crippled.In Israel, all citizens must be covered by a health care provider.
There are four national providers to choose from that must provide the same basic services at the same price.
Providers differentiate themselves by offering locations, doctors, and premium services (dental care, etc) for whopping cost of $10 a month.
You don't need to pay for any of this because basic health care is more than enough.In short, you end up with the benefit of national health care with the low prices of a competitive market.
Israel's health care is one of the few in the world that provides first rate service without the associated skyrocketing prices.
Oh, and did I mention that if you walk into the hospital with an emergency you'll be seen within 30 minutes?
It's 8 hours on average in Canada.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405459</id>
	<title>Great Month For Medical Reform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Not only is it high time that we assure complete health care for every citizen it is also a life and death issue for American business. Just how can our factories compete when the health care is attached to the employer in America while overseas health care is provided by governments? It is absolutely vital that we get employers out of funding employee health insurance.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And as far as social justice is concerned it is far better to have the rich getting a little less health care than they are used to than to allow one hundred million or more Americans to get little or no health care at all.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; One topic that is being avoided is regulating the fees that doctors, hospitals and the health industry in general are allowed to charge. Today insurance companies compel providers to charge less but those without insurance are paying ten times more for identical care. For example without insurance one medication I used cost about $500. per month while with strong insurance it costs me nothing at all and the insurance company pays $35. for the exact same script.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's late but change is still welcomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it high time that we assure complete health care for every citizen it is also a life and death issue for American business .
Just how can our factories compete when the health care is attached to the employer in America while overseas health care is provided by governments ?
It is absolutely vital that we get employers out of funding employee health insurance .
                  And as far as social justice is concerned it is far better to have the rich getting a little less health care than they are used to than to allow one hundred million or more Americans to get little or no health care at all .
                One topic that is being avoided is regulating the fees that doctors , hospitals and the health industry in general are allowed to charge .
Today insurance companies compel providers to charge less but those without insurance are paying ten times more for identical care .
For example without insurance one medication I used cost about $ 500 .
per month while with strong insurance it costs me nothing at all and the insurance company pays $ 35 .
for the exact same script .
                  It 's late but change is still welcomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Not only is it high time that we assure complete health care for every citizen it is also a life and death issue for American business.
Just how can our factories compete when the health care is attached to the employer in America while overseas health care is provided by governments?
It is absolutely vital that we get employers out of funding employee health insurance.
                  And as far as social justice is concerned it is far better to have the rich getting a little less health care than they are used to than to allow one hundred million or more Americans to get little or no health care at all.
                One topic that is being avoided is regulating the fees that doctors, hospitals and the health industry in general are allowed to charge.
Today insurance companies compel providers to charge less but those without insurance are paying ten times more for identical care.
For example without insurance one medication I used cost about $500.
per month while with strong insurance it costs me nothing at all and the insurance company pays $35.
for the exact same script.
                  It's late but change is still welcomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406313</id>
	<title>Crooks of a different nature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hospitals and doctors offices have been having to absorb the costs of treating illegal aliens for years. This drives up the costs for paying citizens. If we'd send them back to their respective countries or make them pay, you'll see medical costs come down. Another thing is to stop electing these stupid politicians that cater to lawyers and insurance lobbyist. Regulate insurance companies so they stop gouging consumers. Getting fair insurance practices would help not only help reduce health care costs, but also home, auto and life insurance rates, allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money. Another way to "fix" health care would be to cap non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits. The average doctor pays (on average) over $30,000/year in malpractice insurance costs, while insurance for specialist can go as high as $65,000/year. These are operating costs that the doctor has to pass on to patients. Fixing health care just needs some common sense, not more bureaucracy. How many government run programs are successful? Social security, Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, welfare? Letting the government sink its teeth into health care would be a mistake that would not be easily undone. If it passes and makes things better, then great, but if it decimates whatever quality health care we currently have, there would be no going back. It's a lot easier to give up freedoms than it is to get them back. Make sure you're 100\% on board with the legislature before you give it your support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hospitals and doctors offices have been having to absorb the costs of treating illegal aliens for years .
This drives up the costs for paying citizens .
If we 'd send them back to their respective countries or make them pay , you 'll see medical costs come down .
Another thing is to stop electing these stupid politicians that cater to lawyers and insurance lobbyist .
Regulate insurance companies so they stop gouging consumers .
Getting fair insurance practices would help not only help reduce health care costs , but also home , auto and life insurance rates , allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money .
Another way to " fix " health care would be to cap non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits .
The average doctor pays ( on average ) over $ 30,000/year in malpractice insurance costs , while insurance for specialist can go as high as $ 65,000/year .
These are operating costs that the doctor has to pass on to patients .
Fixing health care just needs some common sense , not more bureaucracy .
How many government run programs are successful ?
Social security , Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac , welfare ?
Letting the government sink its teeth into health care would be a mistake that would not be easily undone .
If it passes and makes things better , then great , but if it decimates whatever quality health care we currently have , there would be no going back .
It 's a lot easier to give up freedoms than it is to get them back .
Make sure you 're 100 \ % on board with the legislature before you give it your support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hospitals and doctors offices have been having to absorb the costs of treating illegal aliens for years.
This drives up the costs for paying citizens.
If we'd send them back to their respective countries or make them pay, you'll see medical costs come down.
Another thing is to stop electing these stupid politicians that cater to lawyers and insurance lobbyist.
Regulate insurance companies so they stop gouging consumers.
Getting fair insurance practices would help not only help reduce health care costs, but also home, auto and life insurance rates, allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money.
Another way to "fix" health care would be to cap non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits.
The average doctor pays (on average) over $30,000/year in malpractice insurance costs, while insurance for specialist can go as high as $65,000/year.
These are operating costs that the doctor has to pass on to patients.
Fixing health care just needs some common sense, not more bureaucracy.
How many government run programs are successful?
Social security, Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, welfare?
Letting the government sink its teeth into health care would be a mistake that would not be easily undone.
If it passes and makes things better, then great, but if it decimates whatever quality health care we currently have, there would be no going back.
It's a lot easier to give up freedoms than it is to get them back.
Make sure you're 100\% on board with the legislature before you give it your support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408889</id>
	<title>Re:Two Sides? You Can't Be Serious</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1245577020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>Republicans off in 'teh free market' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>You give the Democrats too much credit.  The only reason we don't have universal health care is because *both* parties are deep in the pockets of insurance companies.  Democrats are willing to whine about the need for health care reform, but when the cards are on the table their "reforms" seem to overwhelmingly benefit private insurance companies, just as Republicans give lip service to "free markets" and government non-intervention but never actually seem to write laws that follow that ideology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans off in 'teh free market ' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance ' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution You give the Democrats too much credit .
The only reason we do n't have universal health care is because * both * parties are deep in the pockets of insurance companies .
Democrats are willing to whine about the need for health care reform , but when the cards are on the table their " reforms " seem to overwhelmingly benefit private insurance companies , just as Republicans give lip service to " free markets " and government non-intervention but never actually seem to write laws that follow that ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans off in 'teh free market' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution  You give the Democrats too much credit.
The only reason we don't have universal health care is because *both* parties are deep in the pockets of insurance companies.
Democrats are willing to whine about the need for health care reform, but when the cards are on the table their "reforms" seem to overwhelmingly benefit private insurance companies, just as Republicans give lip service to "free markets" and government non-intervention but never actually seem to write laws that follow that ideology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410227</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is, that it is all "treatment" here, "treatment" there. But NOBODY actually HEALS anything. It's all about the money.</p><p>Protip 1: If your doctor says, that there is no method to heal it, it means, that <em>he, and he alone</em> does not know how to fix it. Which means, that he is incompetent. But he would never admit it, because of his god complex.<br>Protip 2: A doctor is just a better pharmacist, who gets tons of bullshit input from pharma companies, and has not updated his knowledge since university.<br>Protip 3: If your doctor suggests a medication, but that medication does not guarantee that you are completely and forever healed from that problem, then it is a fraud, and only a symptom treatment, that in no way will fix things. Its point is to make money by keeping you hooked.<br>Protip 4: If your doctor does not first find the real causes (which always are environmental [including food and other people] or genetic, and NEVER *caused* by any *body part*), then tries to eliminate them with you, and then thinks about the active symptoms until the elimination of the cause is done, he is a public hazard, and must be avoided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is , that it is all " treatment " here , " treatment " there .
But NOBODY actually HEALS anything .
It 's all about the money.Protip 1 : If your doctor says , that there is no method to heal it , it means , that he , and he alone does not know how to fix it .
Which means , that he is incompetent .
But he would never admit it , because of his god complex.Protip 2 : A doctor is just a better pharmacist , who gets tons of bullshit input from pharma companies , and has not updated his knowledge since university.Protip 3 : If your doctor suggests a medication , but that medication does not guarantee that you are completely and forever healed from that problem , then it is a fraud , and only a symptom treatment , that in no way will fix things .
Its point is to make money by keeping you hooked.Protip 4 : If your doctor does not first find the real causes ( which always are environmental [ including food and other people ] or genetic , and NEVER * caused * by any * body part * ) , then tries to eliminate them with you , and then thinks about the active symptoms until the elimination of the cause is done , he is a public hazard , and must be avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is, that it is all "treatment" here, "treatment" there.
But NOBODY actually HEALS anything.
It's all about the money.Protip 1: If your doctor says, that there is no method to heal it, it means, that he, and he alone does not know how to fix it.
Which means, that he is incompetent.
But he would never admit it, because of his god complex.Protip 2: A doctor is just a better pharmacist, who gets tons of bullshit input from pharma companies, and has not updated his knowledge since university.Protip 3: If your doctor suggests a medication, but that medication does not guarantee that you are completely and forever healed from that problem, then it is a fraud, and only a symptom treatment, that in no way will fix things.
Its point is to make money by keeping you hooked.Protip 4: If your doctor does not first find the real causes (which always are environmental [including food and other people] or genetic, and NEVER *caused* by any *body part*), then tries to eliminate them with you, and then thinks about the active symptoms until the elimination of the cause is done, he is a public hazard, and must be avoided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407395</id>
	<title>Re:Orwellian language, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245516720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had read more than the story summary, you would see that the "public option" in the proposed plan would be a government run insurer that (aside from unspecified startup costs) is funded only by insurance premiums, and not through progressive taxation. How is this not free market competition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had read more than the story summary , you would see that the " public option " in the proposed plan would be a government run insurer that ( aside from unspecified startup costs ) is funded only by insurance premiums , and not through progressive taxation .
How is this not free market competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had read more than the story summary, you would see that the "public option" in the proposed plan would be a government run insurer that (aside from unspecified startup costs) is funded only by insurance premiums, and not through progressive taxation.
How is this not free market competition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415555</id>
	<title>Re:Required Use</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1245597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the pdf, Sec. 401 (pg 135), it starts outlining amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to "tax individuals without acceptable coverage."</p><p>I'm just reading the headings, I have no idea what it says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the pdf , Sec .
401 ( pg 135 ) , it starts outlining amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to " tax individuals without acceptable coverage .
" I 'm just reading the headings , I have no idea what it says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the pdf, Sec.
401 (pg 135), it starts outlining amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to "tax individuals without acceptable coverage.
"I'm just reading the headings, I have no idea what it says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405623</id>
	<title>Re:If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's usele</title>
	<author>reidiq</author>
	<datestamp>1245501660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about instead of regulating companies, people take care of their damn selves for once.

If you're 300lbs and eat twinkies all the time that persons healthcare should go up, not mine, the guy who takes care himself by going to the gym 2-3 times a week and eating decent.

Any kind of government regulation scares me these days because when the government controls your healthcare, they control you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about instead of regulating companies , people take care of their damn selves for once .
If you 're 300lbs and eat twinkies all the time that persons healthcare should go up , not mine , the guy who takes care himself by going to the gym 2-3 times a week and eating decent .
Any kind of government regulation scares me these days because when the government controls your healthcare , they control you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about instead of regulating companies, people take care of their damn selves for once.
If you're 300lbs and eat twinkies all the time that persons healthcare should go up, not mine, the guy who takes care himself by going to the gym 2-3 times a week and eating decent.
Any kind of government regulation scares me these days because when the government controls your healthcare, they control you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405633</id>
	<title>I welcome it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245501720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a spinal cord injury in april 08. I had insurance through my employer. Well, when you break your spine and can't use your legs its hard to drive a truck. I lost my job, and insurance.</p><p>Being a paraplegic, you require rehab with physical therapy. I got 20 days. Thats all. In the UK an average stay for a paraplegic is 3 months. I was denied a decent wheelchair, I was denied a special cushion to curb problems with pressure sores.</p><p>My story isn't uncommon, and maybe...just maybe this will change this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a spinal cord injury in april 08 .
I had insurance through my employer .
Well , when you break your spine and ca n't use your legs its hard to drive a truck .
I lost my job , and insurance.Being a paraplegic , you require rehab with physical therapy .
I got 20 days .
Thats all .
In the UK an average stay for a paraplegic is 3 months .
I was denied a decent wheelchair , I was denied a special cushion to curb problems with pressure sores.My story is n't uncommon , and maybe...just maybe this will change this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a spinal cord injury in april 08.
I had insurance through my employer.
Well, when you break your spine and can't use your legs its hard to drive a truck.
I lost my job, and insurance.Being a paraplegic, you require rehab with physical therapy.
I got 20 days.
Thats all.
In the UK an average stay for a paraplegic is 3 months.
I was denied a decent wheelchair, I was denied a special cushion to curb problems with pressure sores.My story isn't uncommon, and maybe...just maybe this will change this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1245499140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, spending all the money you decry, spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush, being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful.</p><p>You *really* need to get caught up.</p><p>If the congress and the PolitBureau really wanted to pay for hospital services, they would pay the "going rate" of hospitals.  Instead, they pay $36 for a $500 procedure, causing hospitals to charge $8 for aspirin. Congress is WHY the system is broken, not the cure.</p><p>The plan is to crush as many industries as possible with legislation, then arrive as if uninvolved and claim "Capitalism did this!" and "We need more regulation!</p><p>Then, the Fed, despite the strict outlines in the Constitution, controls everything in exactly the same way as Communist governments. (Where life universally SUCKS.)</p><p>This is a means to secure control. Banking, Mortgages, Car manufacturing, everything but Hollywood is getting a "bailout" and then finding themselves so bound to do the WRONG thing, they don't want it.  It's instead a "BUY OUT".</p><p>These are the end-times for the America of freedom. And in the next world war, there will be no one to save France, Belgium, Luxemburg, and all the other countries we've saved twice in the last two.</p><p>The problem with Republicans is that they're not Conservative; McCain and Obama had nothing on which to disagree- both loved the idea of central control, sweeping the Constition under the rug, and consolidating power.</p><p>Sorry, but this is where we stand. Thank the media, on our way to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , spending all the money you decry , spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush , being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful.You * really * need to get caught up.If the congress and the PolitBureau really wanted to pay for hospital services , they would pay the " going rate " of hospitals .
Instead , they pay $ 36 for a $ 500 procedure , causing hospitals to charge $ 8 for aspirin .
Congress is WHY the system is broken , not the cure.The plan is to crush as many industries as possible with legislation , then arrive as if uninvolved and claim " Capitalism did this !
" and " We need more regulation ! Then , the Fed , despite the strict outlines in the Constitution , controls everything in exactly the same way as Communist governments .
( Where life universally SUCKS .
) This is a means to secure control .
Banking , Mortgages , Car manufacturing , everything but Hollywood is getting a " bailout " and then finding themselves so bound to do the WRONG thing , they do n't want it .
It 's instead a " BUY OUT " .These are the end-times for the America of freedom .
And in the next world war , there will be no one to save France , Belgium , Luxemburg , and all the other countries we 've saved twice in the last two.The problem with Republicans is that they 're not Conservative ; McCain and Obama had nothing on which to disagree- both loved the idea of central control , sweeping the Constition under the rug , and consolidating power.Sorry , but this is where we stand .
Thank the media , on our way to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, spending all the money you decry, spent in the 12 YEARS of Bush, being spent in the first three MONTHS under the current administration is however enlightened and useful.You *really* need to get caught up.If the congress and the PolitBureau really wanted to pay for hospital services, they would pay the "going rate" of hospitals.
Instead, they pay $36 for a $500 procedure, causing hospitals to charge $8 for aspirin.
Congress is WHY the system is broken, not the cure.The plan is to crush as many industries as possible with legislation, then arrive as if uninvolved and claim "Capitalism did this!
" and "We need more regulation!Then, the Fed, despite the strict outlines in the Constitution, controls everything in exactly the same way as Communist governments.
(Where life universally SUCKS.
)This is a means to secure control.
Banking, Mortgages, Car manufacturing, everything but Hollywood is getting a "bailout" and then finding themselves so bound to do the WRONG thing, they don't want it.
It's instead a "BUY OUT".These are the end-times for the America of freedom.
And in the next world war, there will be no one to save France, Belgium, Luxemburg, and all the other countries we've saved twice in the last two.The problem with Republicans is that they're not Conservative; McCain and Obama had nothing on which to disagree- both loved the idea of central control, sweeping the Constition under the rug, and consolidating power.Sorry, but this is where we stand.
Thank the media, on our way to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413121</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245575340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management. If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.</p></div><p>there is a difference between "managing risk" and "cherry picking".</p><p>you CAN run an insurance company while covering people who actually need that insurance, it's all about properly sharing risk rather than avoiding it.</p><p>By the way, what say you to the hypocrisy of insurers handing out plans to 500 lb slobs who cant stop eating and/or smoking, but denying me coverage for a disease i was born with despite continued healthy living?</p><p>that's what i thought..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , the whole point of insurance is about risk management .
If an insurance can not manage the risk , it can not operate as a company.there is a difference between " managing risk " and " cherry picking " .you CAN run an insurance company while covering people who actually need that insurance , it 's all about properly sharing risk rather than avoiding it.By the way , what say you to the hypocrisy of insurers handing out plans to 500 lb slobs who cant stop eating and/or smoking , but denying me coverage for a disease i was born with despite continued healthy living ? that 's what i thought. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, the whole point of insurance is about risk management.
If an insurance cannot manage the risk, it cannot operate as a company.there is a difference between "managing risk" and "cherry picking".you CAN run an insurance company while covering people who actually need that insurance, it's all about properly sharing risk rather than avoiding it.By the way, what say you to the hypocrisy of insurers handing out plans to 500 lb slobs who cant stop eating and/or smoking, but denying me coverage for a disease i was born with despite continued healthy living?that's what i thought..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28416219</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1245602100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If MA's plan worked in MA, then why not try it out on a bigger scale?</p></div><p>That's the problem with the word "works". It means different thing to different people. <br> <br>Did more people get insured in MA? Yes -- almost everyone did. Did health insurance big a big windfall because of the fact that everyone had to buy insurance? They did -- and they loved it. So yeah, health insurance companies love it and "everyone" is insured. If you think that "works", great. Roll it out nationwide.

<br> <br>Did it reduce the cost of health care and provide better outcomes? I don't know if we know that yet. It will probably take years to find out. Does it "work" by that measure? I don't know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If MA 's plan worked in MA , then why not try it out on a bigger scale ? That 's the problem with the word " works " .
It means different thing to different people .
Did more people get insured in MA ?
Yes -- almost everyone did .
Did health insurance big a big windfall because of the fact that everyone had to buy insurance ?
They did -- and they loved it .
So yeah , health insurance companies love it and " everyone " is insured .
If you think that " works " , great .
Roll it out nationwide .
Did it reduce the cost of health care and provide better outcomes ?
I do n't know if we know that yet .
It will probably take years to find out .
Does it " work " by that measure ?
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MA's plan worked in MA, then why not try it out on a bigger scale?That's the problem with the word "works".
It means different thing to different people.
Did more people get insured in MA?
Yes -- almost everyone did.
Did health insurance big a big windfall because of the fact that everyone had to buy insurance?
They did -- and they loved it.
So yeah, health insurance companies love it and "everyone" is insured.
If you think that "works", great.
Roll it out nationwide.
Did it reduce the cost of health care and provide better outcomes?
I don't know if we know that yet.
It will probably take years to find out.
Does it "work" by that measure?
I don't know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405553</id>
	<title>Singapore does better than Canada</title>
	<author>mcwop</author>
	<datestamp>1245501240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like Singapore's system, and would prefer to start there. We already have people using Flex Spending Accounts, and could gradually shift there over a 3-5 year period.

<a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores\_heal.html" title="econlib.org">http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores\_heal.html</a> [econlib.org]
<br>
<a href="http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/07/health-care-in.html" title="tcf.org">http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/07/health-care-in.html</a> [tcf.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Singapore 's system , and would prefer to start there .
We already have people using Flex Spending Accounts , and could gradually shift there over a 3-5 year period .
http : //econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores \ _heal.html [ econlib.org ] http : //takingnote.tcf.org/2008/07/health-care-in.html [ tcf.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Singapore's system, and would prefer to start there.
We already have people using Flex Spending Accounts, and could gradually shift there over a 3-5 year period.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores\_heal.html [econlib.org]

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/07/health-care-in.html [tcf.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406809</id>
	<title>RE: Health Care Death Camps -- New</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245510720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Kill'm All!" is the order of the day.</p><p>"Health Care" has morphed into Gitmo.  When you're sick -- you're sent to "Health Camp."</p><p>At "Health Camp" yor're introduced to "Water Boarding with instructor Dick Cheney"!</p><p>Everyone enter, no one leaves!</p><p>Perfect!</p><p>The "enterants" signed a document that gives all their wealth to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... the bank account of President Barak Hussian Obama.</p><p>How economical!</p><p>How convienent!</p><p>Why did not the Genius George Warlker Bush or his "Condie Thang" Condioliesia Rice never "jack up" such an idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kill 'm All !
" is the order of the day .
" Health Care " has morphed into Gitmo .
When you 're sick -- you 're sent to " Health Camp .
" At " Health Camp " yor 're introduced to " Water Boarding with instructor Dick Cheney " ! Everyone enter , no one leaves ! Perfect ! The " enterants " signed a document that gives all their wealth to .... the bank account of President Barak Hussian Obama.How economical ! How convienent ! Why did not the Genius George Warlker Bush or his " Condie Thang " Condioliesia Rice never " jack up " such an idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kill'm All!
" is the order of the day.
"Health Care" has morphed into Gitmo.
When you're sick -- you're sent to "Health Camp.
"At "Health Camp" yor're introduced to "Water Boarding with instructor Dick Cheney"!Everyone enter, no one leaves!Perfect!The "enterants" signed a document that gives all their wealth to .... the bank account of President Barak Hussian Obama.How economical!How convienent!Why did not the Genius George Warlker Bush or his "Condie Thang" Condioliesia Rice never "jack up" such an idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405385</id>
	<title>Re:852-page draft bill</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1245500280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That reminds me, there ought to be a law that congress (and the president) must actually read what they vote on/sign into law.
<br>
<br>
That ought to slow things down a bit, which is a good thing, when talking about bureaucracies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me , there ought to be a law that congress ( and the president ) must actually read what they vote on/sign into law .
That ought to slow things down a bit , which is a good thing , when talking about bureaucracies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me, there ought to be a law that congress (and the president) must actually read what they vote on/sign into law.
That ought to slow things down a bit, which is a good thing, when talking about bureaucracies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408261</id>
	<title>Re:Then its not insurance...</title>
	<author>Riachu\_11</author>
	<datestamp>1245525180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that people can opt out right now: if you are a young, healthy, nonsmoker, it's probably a better deal for you to skip the health insurance and just have a decent emergency savings account.  If you move this to taxing everybody, then the person who is always healthy and never seeks medical care is supporting the hypochondriac who goes to the emergency room every month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that people can opt out right now : if you are a young , healthy , nonsmoker , it 's probably a better deal for you to skip the health insurance and just have a decent emergency savings account .
If you move this to taxing everybody , then the person who is always healthy and never seeks medical care is supporting the hypochondriac who goes to the emergency room every month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that people can opt out right now: if you are a young, healthy, nonsmoker, it's probably a better deal for you to skip the health insurance and just have a decent emergency savings account.
If you move this to taxing everybody, then the person who is always healthy and never seeks medical care is supporting the hypochondriac who goes to the emergency room every month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>liposuction</author>
	<datestamp>1245510300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd also like to see them come up with a country that has socialized medicine, that produces as many new cures and drugs as the USA.  Hmmm...  So long longevity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also like to see them come up with a country that has socialized medicine , that produces as many new cures and drugs as the USA .
Hmmm... So long longevity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also like to see them come up with a country that has socialized medicine, that produces as many new cures and drugs as the USA.
Hmmm...  So long longevity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406229</id>
	<title>According to George Will, its only 13 million...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...w/out health insurance.</p><p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html</p><p>"Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured....About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance."</p><p>rounding...<br>46 million<br>- 14 million (qualify but don't act)<br>- 9 million (income &gt; 75k w/out insurance)<br>- 10 million (illegals)<br>------------<br>13 million</p><p>Why not just increase the minimums to qualify for govt health insurance and instead focus on making the current system more efficient? If I had a way of "carrying" my medial history w/me, I wouldn't have to fill out endless paperwork everytime I see a new Dr / dentist / optometrist. Less paper work = less paper pushers = cheaper insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...w/out health insurance.http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html " Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent , radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured....About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens .
As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare , Medicaid , SCHIP , veterans ' benefits , etc .
-- but have not enrolled .
And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $ 75,000 and could purchase insurance .
" rounding...46 million- 14 million ( qualify but do n't act ) - 9 million ( income &gt; 75k w/out insurance ) - 10 million ( illegals ) ------------13 millionWhy not just increase the minimums to qualify for govt health insurance and instead focus on making the current system more efficient ?
If I had a way of " carrying " my medial history w/me , I would n't have to fill out endless paperwork everytime I see a new Dr / dentist / optometrist .
Less paper work = less paper pushers = cheaper insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...w/out health insurance.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html"Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured....About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens.
As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc.
-- but have not enrolled.
And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance.
"rounding...46 million- 14 million (qualify but don't act)- 9 million (income &gt; 75k w/out insurance)- 10 million (illegals)------------13 millionWhy not just increase the minimums to qualify for govt health insurance and instead focus on making the current system more efficient?
If I had a way of "carrying" my medial history w/me, I wouldn't have to fill out endless paperwork everytime I see a new Dr / dentist / optometrist.
Less paper work = less paper pushers = cheaper insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405395</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1245500340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."</p></div><p>Actually, the real lesson is that a socialist government will fail when you let a tinpot dictator practice collective punishment to advance his own political agenda as happened in the USSR under Stalin but didn't happen in Sweden under a democratic government.  This is really more of a fable about college professors pushing an agenda and punishing students' grades when they disagree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then he sent all of them this note : " A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great , the effort to succeed is great , but when government takes all the reward away , no one will try or want to succeed .
" Actually , the real lesson is that a socialist government will fail when you let a tinpot dictator practice collective punishment to advance his own political agenda as happened in the USSR under Stalin but did n't happen in Sweden under a democratic government .
This is really more of a fable about college professors pushing an agenda and punishing students ' grades when they disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
"Actually, the real lesson is that a socialist government will fail when you let a tinpot dictator practice collective punishment to advance his own political agenda as happened in the USSR under Stalin but didn't happen in Sweden under a democratic government.
This is really more of a fable about college professors pushing an agenda and punishing students' grades when they disagree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410853</id>
	<title>Medical malpractice in Quebec</title>
	<author>Ivlis2</author>
	<datestamp>1245600720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot readers will remember that I was victim of medical malpractice in Quebec. If anyone wants to read my story, I posted it on <a href="http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/36736" title="ratemds.com" rel="nofollow">ratemds.com</a> [ratemds.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot readers will remember that I was victim of medical malpractice in Quebec .
If anyone wants to read my story , I posted it on ratemds.com [ ratemds.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot readers will remember that I was victim of medical malpractice in Quebec.
If anyone wants to read my story, I posted it on ratemds.com [ratemds.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406989</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's require that whatever bill they propose, that all of the US government, especially congress &amp; house, have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us. </i></p><p>And the District of Columbia, since that's under federal jurisdiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's require that whatever bill they propose , that all of the US government , especially congress &amp; house , have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us .
And the District of Columbia , since that 's under federal jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's require that whatever bill they propose, that all of the US government, especially congress &amp; house, have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us.
And the District of Columbia, since that's under federal jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405495</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale</p></div> </blockquote><p>Massachusetts alone may not be large enough of an area for that.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale Massachusetts alone may not be large enough of an area for that .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale Massachusetts alone may not be large enough of an area for that.
       
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406691</id>
	<title>Re:So let's see....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The state of schools alone should be enough to have everyone, even the people that follow the elephants and donkeys, running for the hills now that they want to do health care too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The state of schools alone should be enough to have everyone , even the people that follow the elephants and donkeys , running for the hills now that they want to do health care too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state of schools alone should be enough to have everyone, even the people that follow the elephants and donkeys, running for the hills now that they want to do health care too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406881</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other issue with this model is that it also forces every tax filer to spend time filling out those extra two pages of tax forms and sending in the letter documenting that they were insured...</p><p>So even apart from the direct measurable costs there are productivity costs.  I know it took me about a working day or two back in March to actually hunt down the relevant letters from my insurance providers.  Yes, they're supposed to send it to you.  No, it doesn't necessarily work out that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other issue with this model is that it also forces every tax filer to spend time filling out those extra two pages of tax forms and sending in the letter documenting that they were insured...So even apart from the direct measurable costs there are productivity costs .
I know it took me about a working day or two back in March to actually hunt down the relevant letters from my insurance providers .
Yes , they 're supposed to send it to you .
No , it does n't necessarily work out that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other issue with this model is that it also forces every tax filer to spend time filling out those extra two pages of tax forms and sending in the letter documenting that they were insured...So even apart from the direct measurable costs there are productivity costs.
I know it took me about a working day or two back in March to actually hunt down the relevant letters from my insurance providers.
Yes, they're supposed to send it to you.
No, it doesn't necessarily work out that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28418853</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>TarrVetus</author>
	<datestamp>1245667440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Or, as mentioned, we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary, the worst in the developed world.</p></div><p> <i>For the record, I'm here to fix a false statement.  I don't care if this was posted yesterday, and I don't care what this argument is about--the parent is modded 5, and a statement this misleading about something so ethically charged I just have to fix it.  I also really hate when numbers are skewed.</i> <br> <br>When I saw this quote, I absolutely had to see this for myself.  One part of the statement is true, and even then, the point of the comment is splitting statistical hairs to prop up an argument.  If there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, this is certainly a "statistic."  Quick breakdown for perspective, and I'll even use the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_infant\_mortality\_rate" title="wikipedia.org">UN's numbers</a> [wikipedia.org]:<br> <br>The UN says that 6.3 is the infant mortality rate in the United States.  That's not a percentage, though.<br> <b>The US rate is 6.3 deaths per 1,000 (.0063\%).</b> <br> <b>Cuba?  5.1 deaths per 1,000 (.0051\%).</b> <br> <b>Hungary is 6.8 deaths per 1,000 (you guessed it:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0068\%)</b>, making it 'worse.'<br> <br>Let's put this into perspective.  <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09\_fig2.gif" title="cdc.gov">This is the chart the CDC provides.</a> [cdc.gov]  That looks ugly, doesn't it?  That's "statistics" for you.  <a href="http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9427/ldlandstatistics.jpg" title="imageshack.us">Let's look at the real picture.  (Don't mind my notes.)</a> [imageshack.us] <br> <br>As a final note, even though the differences are equally minimal as the ones stated above, Greece (.0067\%), Russia (.0167\%), and Kuwait (.0081\%) will be surprised to learn that though the UN considers them to be on the short list of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed\_Country#Human\_Development\_Index" title="wikipedia.org">part of the developed world</a> [wikipedia.org], they are apparently ommited from the quoted 'fact' above.<br> <br> <br> <b> <i>This myth is BUSTED.</i> </b>  (Always wanted to have a good reason to say that.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , as mentioned , we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary , the worst in the developed world .
For the record , I 'm here to fix a false statement .
I do n't care if this was posted yesterday , and I do n't care what this argument is about--the parent is modded 5 , and a statement this misleading about something so ethically charged I just have to fix it .
I also really hate when numbers are skewed .
When I saw this quote , I absolutely had to see this for myself .
One part of the statement is true , and even then , the point of the comment is splitting statistical hairs to prop up an argument .
If there are lies , damned lies , and statistics , this is certainly a " statistic .
" Quick breakdown for perspective , and I 'll even use the UN 's numbers [ wikipedia.org ] : The UN says that 6.3 is the infant mortality rate in the United States .
That 's not a percentage , though .
The US rate is 6.3 deaths per 1,000 ( .0063 \ % ) .
Cuba ? 5.1 deaths per 1,000 ( .0051 \ % ) .
Hungary is 6.8 deaths per 1,000 ( you guessed it : .0068 \ % ) , making it 'worse .
' Let 's put this into perspective .
This is the chart the CDC provides .
[ cdc.gov ] That looks ugly , does n't it ?
That 's " statistics " for you .
Let 's look at the real picture .
( Do n't mind my notes .
) [ imageshack.us ] As a final note , even though the differences are equally minimal as the ones stated above , Greece ( .0067 \ % ) , Russia ( .0167 \ % ) , and Kuwait ( .0081 \ % ) will be surprised to learn that though the UN considers them to be on the short list of part of the developed world [ wikipedia.org ] , they are apparently ommited from the quoted 'fact ' above .
This myth is BUSTED .
( Always wanted to have a good reason to say that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Or, as mentioned, we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary, the worst in the developed world.
For the record, I'm here to fix a false statement.
I don't care if this was posted yesterday, and I don't care what this argument is about--the parent is modded 5, and a statement this misleading about something so ethically charged I just have to fix it.
I also really hate when numbers are skewed.
When I saw this quote, I absolutely had to see this for myself.
One part of the statement is true, and even then, the point of the comment is splitting statistical hairs to prop up an argument.
If there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, this is certainly a "statistic.
"  Quick breakdown for perspective, and I'll even use the UN's numbers [wikipedia.org]: The UN says that 6.3 is the infant mortality rate in the United States.
That's not a percentage, though.
The US rate is 6.3 deaths per 1,000 (.0063\%).
Cuba?  5.1 deaths per 1,000 (.0051\%).
Hungary is 6.8 deaths per 1,000 (you guessed it: .0068\%), making it 'worse.
' Let's put this into perspective.
This is the chart the CDC provides.
[cdc.gov]  That looks ugly, doesn't it?
That's "statistics" for you.
Let's look at the real picture.
(Don't mind my notes.
) [imageshack.us]  As a final note, even though the differences are equally minimal as the ones stated above, Greece (.0067\%), Russia (.0167\%), and Kuwait (.0081\%) will be surprised to learn that though the UN considers them to be on the short list of part of the developed world [wikipedia.org], they are apparently ommited from the quoted 'fact' above.
This myth is BUSTED.
(Always wanted to have a good reason to say that.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405939</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245503640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, health care would actually cost less if people used insurance to only pay for the treatment of major illness, a safety net of sorts, while paying for routine care out-of-pocket. If we did this, then the cost of health care would drop dramatically over time.</p><p>Instead we have the government telling us that health care costs can be reduced through better management. That's about the funniest thing I've EVER heard. When has the government every managed anything well??? Our ever-so-intelligent "leaders" tell us they can pay for health care by finding ways to save on Medicare &amp; Medicaid, why now? Why weren't they looking for ways to save from the start of those programs. The bottom line is health care programs will be consolidated under one government plan, the cost of running the program will increase, taxes will increase and everyday, average Americans will have to wait longer for progressively poorer health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , health care would actually cost less if people used insurance to only pay for the treatment of major illness , a safety net of sorts , while paying for routine care out-of-pocket .
If we did this , then the cost of health care would drop dramatically over time.Instead we have the government telling us that health care costs can be reduced through better management .
That 's about the funniest thing I 've EVER heard .
When has the government every managed anything well ? ? ?
Our ever-so-intelligent " leaders " tell us they can pay for health care by finding ways to save on Medicare &amp; Medicaid , why now ?
Why were n't they looking for ways to save from the start of those programs .
The bottom line is health care programs will be consolidated under one government plan , the cost of running the program will increase , taxes will increase and everyday , average Americans will have to wait longer for progressively poorer health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, health care would actually cost less if people used insurance to only pay for the treatment of major illness, a safety net of sorts, while paying for routine care out-of-pocket.
If we did this, then the cost of health care would drop dramatically over time.Instead we have the government telling us that health care costs can be reduced through better management.
That's about the funniest thing I've EVER heard.
When has the government every managed anything well???
Our ever-so-intelligent "leaders" tell us they can pay for health care by finding ways to save on Medicare &amp; Medicaid, why now?
Why weren't they looking for ways to save from the start of those programs.
The bottom line is health care programs will be consolidated under one government plan, the cost of running the program will increase, taxes will increase and everyday, average Americans will have to wait longer for progressively poorer health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28436919</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure the US is ready for public healthcare</title>
	<author>Some Bitch</author>
	<datestamp>1245759360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will <b>not</b> solve everyone's problems.</p></div><p>I'm in the UK and have private healthcare cover as part of my job package.  If I have a heart attack I get top quality free emergency care from the NHS.  If I get cancer I get top quality expensive cancer drugs from my private cover.  There is nothing stopping you from also taking out private healthcare cover for the things the NHS can't afford, anyone pretending otherwise is trying to fudge the argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone 's problems.I 'm in the UK and have private healthcare cover as part of my job package .
If I have a heart attack I get top quality free emergency care from the NHS .
If I get cancer I get top quality expensive cancer drugs from my private cover .
There is nothing stopping you from also taking out private healthcare cover for the things the NHS ca n't afford , anyone pretending otherwise is trying to fudge the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone's problems.I'm in the UK and have private healthcare cover as part of my job package.
If I have a heart attack I get top quality free emergency care from the NHS.
If I get cancer I get top quality expensive cancer drugs from my private cover.
There is nothing stopping you from also taking out private healthcare cover for the things the NHS can't afford, anyone pretending otherwise is trying to fudge the argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411971</id>
	<title>Alternate proposal: Open healthcare</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1245609660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose an alternate system I call "open healthcare" which basically amounts to "make health care like every other industry"  There are 4 parts:</p><p>1. Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.</p><p>2. Eliminate enrollment periods</p><p>3. Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent</p><p>4. Require accurate labeling</p><p>5. Reasonable scope of coverage</p><p>Let me explain:</p><p>1) Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.</p><p>Employers don't sponsor cell phones, cable bills, car insurance,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so why health insurance?  It gives large companies a competitive advantage, and puts individuals at a disadvantage.  People who switch jobs frequently, such as younger people, students, contractors, or low-skill/wage workers are penalized when the only affordable health care is via their employer.  Employees are told that they will pay $100/month for health insurance -- but then when they switch jobs they find it was $500/month, with the employer paying $400 of it, and now they are stuck with really expensive health care that they didn't need.  Part of that is caused by enrollment periods when they switch jobs.  </p><p>It also makes it difficult to compare jobs.  I just met a new hire who switched jobs for the benefits -- only to realize that in reality, he will be paying more.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>2) Eliminate enrollment periods</p><p>- Businesses often only offer health insurance benefits if the employee has been there for a month, 6 months, or a year.  This means that if someone switches jobs, they are stuck with their old plan, but without the employer paying for part of it.  So they either pay a fortune (under a system like COBRA), go uninsured, or get their own private insurance</p><p>- Individuals often can't get insurance without waiting for an enrollment period.  Some people don't even realize that you CAN get individual insurance.  But insurance companies are setup to work with groups, so they are often reluctant to offer it.  Imagine for a moment if you went to a store and took a can of peas up to the register, and then were told that unless you were already signed-up, you would have to wait until the enrollment period (3 months from now) before you could sign-up to buy the peas.  That's silly, and that supermarket would go out of business.  But this is how health insurance works, and they get away with it because there are very few alternatives, and all the companies do it.</p><p>3) Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent</p><p>- Employers get tax breaks for providing employee health care.  Yet individuals do not.  That's not fair to individuals and small businesses.</p><p>4) Require labeling</p><p>- Imagine a grocery store with no prices anywhere.  You must go to the counter, then give them $100 per item.  Then, at the end of the month, they return the difference between what you paid, and the actual price.</p><p>- Capitalism only works if the consumer can compare products and services accurately.  Labeling laws achieve this in other sectors, and those should be extended to health insurance companies.  They must be required to provide accurate, detailed, pricing information in a form that can be comparatively shopped.  They need to provide enough information that someone can put together a scenario and know the cost.  "Suppose I join today, then get XXXX performed next week, then YYY performed the next month, then I come down with ZZZZ and need AAA medication -- what will that cost?"</p><p>- Scott Adams calls health insurance a confuse-opoly.  Health insurance companies do not disclose their costs accurately -- even to doctors!  For example, they say they will pay 75\% of covered services - but not tell you what services are covered.  And 75\% of what?  The insurance company has a fee schedule, and a doctor must adhere to that fee schedule, but even the doctors aren't given a copy of it!  They have to bill a higher amount, then see how much the insurance company provides!</p><p>5) Reasonable scope of coverage</p><p>- Insurance companies should be required to provide</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose an alternate system I call " open healthcare " which basically amounts to " make health care like every other industry " There are 4 parts : 1 .
Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.2 .
Eliminate enrollment periods3 .
Eliminate tax breaks , or make them consistent4 .
Require accurate labeling5 .
Reasonable scope of coverageLet me explain : 1 ) Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.Employers do n't sponsor cell phones , cable bills , car insurance , ... so why health insurance ?
It gives large companies a competitive advantage , and puts individuals at a disadvantage .
People who switch jobs frequently , such as younger people , students , contractors , or low-skill/wage workers are penalized when the only affordable health care is via their employer .
Employees are told that they will pay $ 100/month for health insurance -- but then when they switch jobs they find it was $ 500/month , with the employer paying $ 400 of it , and now they are stuck with really expensive health care that they did n't need .
Part of that is caused by enrollment periods when they switch jobs .
It also makes it difficult to compare jobs .
I just met a new hire who switched jobs for the benefits -- only to realize that in reality , he will be paying more .
: - ( 2 ) Eliminate enrollment periods- Businesses often only offer health insurance benefits if the employee has been there for a month , 6 months , or a year .
This means that if someone switches jobs , they are stuck with their old plan , but without the employer paying for part of it .
So they either pay a fortune ( under a system like COBRA ) , go uninsured , or get their own private insurance- Individuals often ca n't get insurance without waiting for an enrollment period .
Some people do n't even realize that you CAN get individual insurance .
But insurance companies are setup to work with groups , so they are often reluctant to offer it .
Imagine for a moment if you went to a store and took a can of peas up to the register , and then were told that unless you were already signed-up , you would have to wait until the enrollment period ( 3 months from now ) before you could sign-up to buy the peas .
That 's silly , and that supermarket would go out of business .
But this is how health insurance works , and they get away with it because there are very few alternatives , and all the companies do it.3 ) Eliminate tax breaks , or make them consistent- Employers get tax breaks for providing employee health care .
Yet individuals do not .
That 's not fair to individuals and small businesses.4 ) Require labeling- Imagine a grocery store with no prices anywhere .
You must go to the counter , then give them $ 100 per item .
Then , at the end of the month , they return the difference between what you paid , and the actual price.- Capitalism only works if the consumer can compare products and services accurately .
Labeling laws achieve this in other sectors , and those should be extended to health insurance companies .
They must be required to provide accurate , detailed , pricing information in a form that can be comparatively shopped .
They need to provide enough information that someone can put together a scenario and know the cost .
" Suppose I join today , then get XXXX performed next week , then YYY performed the next month , then I come down with ZZZZ and need AAA medication -- what will that cost ?
" - Scott Adams calls health insurance a confuse-opoly .
Health insurance companies do not disclose their costs accurately -- even to doctors !
For example , they say they will pay 75 \ % of covered services - but not tell you what services are covered .
And 75 \ % of what ?
The insurance company has a fee schedule , and a doctor must adhere to that fee schedule , but even the doctors are n't given a copy of it !
They have to bill a higher amount , then see how much the insurance company provides ! 5 ) Reasonable scope of coverage- Insurance companies should be required to provide</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose an alternate system I call "open healthcare" which basically amounts to "make health care like every other industry"  There are 4 parts:1.
Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.2.
Eliminate enrollment periods3.
Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent4.
Require accurate labeling5.
Reasonable scope of coverageLet me explain:1) Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.Employers don't sponsor cell phones, cable bills, car insurance, ... so why health insurance?
It gives large companies a competitive advantage, and puts individuals at a disadvantage.
People who switch jobs frequently, such as younger people, students, contractors, or low-skill/wage workers are penalized when the only affordable health care is via their employer.
Employees are told that they will pay $100/month for health insurance -- but then when they switch jobs they find it was $500/month, with the employer paying $400 of it, and now they are stuck with really expensive health care that they didn't need.
Part of that is caused by enrollment periods when they switch jobs.
It also makes it difficult to compare jobs.
I just met a new hire who switched jobs for the benefits -- only to realize that in reality, he will be paying more.
:-(2) Eliminate enrollment periods- Businesses often only offer health insurance benefits if the employee has been there for a month, 6 months, or a year.
This means that if someone switches jobs, they are stuck with their old plan, but without the employer paying for part of it.
So they either pay a fortune (under a system like COBRA), go uninsured, or get their own private insurance- Individuals often can't get insurance without waiting for an enrollment period.
Some people don't even realize that you CAN get individual insurance.
But insurance companies are setup to work with groups, so they are often reluctant to offer it.
Imagine for a moment if you went to a store and took a can of peas up to the register, and then were told that unless you were already signed-up, you would have to wait until the enrollment period (3 months from now) before you could sign-up to buy the peas.
That's silly, and that supermarket would go out of business.
But this is how health insurance works, and they get away with it because there are very few alternatives, and all the companies do it.3) Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent- Employers get tax breaks for providing employee health care.
Yet individuals do not.
That's not fair to individuals and small businesses.4) Require labeling- Imagine a grocery store with no prices anywhere.
You must go to the counter, then give them $100 per item.
Then, at the end of the month, they return the difference between what you paid, and the actual price.- Capitalism only works if the consumer can compare products and services accurately.
Labeling laws achieve this in other sectors, and those should be extended to health insurance companies.
They must be required to provide accurate, detailed, pricing information in a form that can be comparatively shopped.
They need to provide enough information that someone can put together a scenario and know the cost.
"Suppose I join today, then get XXXX performed next week, then YYY performed the next month, then I come down with ZZZZ and need AAA medication -- what will that cost?
"- Scott Adams calls health insurance a confuse-opoly.
Health insurance companies do not disclose their costs accurately -- even to doctors!
For example, they say they will pay 75\% of covered services - but not tell you what services are covered.
And 75\% of what?
The insurance company has a fee schedule, and a doctor must adhere to that fee schedule, but even the doctors aren't given a copy of it!
They have to bill a higher amount, then see how much the insurance company provides!5) Reasonable scope of coverage- Insurance companies should be required to provide</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405835</id>
	<title>Re:How about this idea</title>
	<author>artor3</author>
	<datestamp>1245502980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, considering part of the plan is to let people keep their current providers, I'm sure that'd work just fine.  Nice of you to assume the plan is stupid though.</p><p>The rest of the first world has national health care.  They are healthier than us, live longer than us, and pay less than us.  Stop believing the FUD that the Republicans are pumping out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering part of the plan is to let people keep their current providers , I 'm sure that 'd work just fine .
Nice of you to assume the plan is stupid though.The rest of the first world has national health care .
They are healthier than us , live longer than us , and pay less than us .
Stop believing the FUD that the Republicans are pumping out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering part of the plan is to let people keep their current providers, I'm sure that'd work just fine.
Nice of you to assume the plan is stupid though.The rest of the first world has national health care.
They are healthier than us, live longer than us, and pay less than us.
Stop believing the FUD that the Republicans are pumping out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405369</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the timing of the announcment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why I'll steer far clear of government run health care.</p></div><p>You have nothing to worry about, since nobody in power is proposing more government run health care. Even the more liberal politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders tend to advocate at most a single payer system, in which the providers of health care would be the same as they are now, but the role of private insurance companies would be substantially reduced.</p><p>Of the main plans being developed, the House Democrats' plan is the only one that even calls for a government run health insurance provider, but aside from start-up costs, even their plan's "public option" would be funded by insurance premiums and not a progressive taxation scheme (except for the financial aid to the poor, but that could also be spent on private insurance plans).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I 'll steer far clear of government run health care.You have nothing to worry about , since nobody in power is proposing more government run health care .
Even the more liberal politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders tend to advocate at most a single payer system , in which the providers of health care would be the same as they are now , but the role of private insurance companies would be substantially reduced.Of the main plans being developed , the House Democrats ' plan is the only one that even calls for a government run health insurance provider , but aside from start-up costs , even their plan 's " public option " would be funded by insurance premiums and not a progressive taxation scheme ( except for the financial aid to the poor , but that could also be spent on private insurance plans ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I'll steer far clear of government run health care.You have nothing to worry about, since nobody in power is proposing more government run health care.
Even the more liberal politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders tend to advocate at most a single payer system, in which the providers of health care would be the same as they are now, but the role of private insurance companies would be substantially reduced.Of the main plans being developed, the House Democrats' plan is the only one that even calls for a government run health insurance provider, but aside from start-up costs, even their plan's "public option" would be funded by insurance premiums and not a progressive taxation scheme (except for the financial aid to the poor, but that could also be spent on private insurance plans).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28451665</id>
	<title>DC still isn't listening to Obama, is it?</title>
	<author>WindShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1245854400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between Obama and Clinton in the primaries was that he wanted to be sure every American has the <i>chance</i> to buy health insurance at an affordable price, and she wanted to <i>force</i> every American to buy health insurance whether they could afford it or not. Clinton wanted to fine employers who didn't provide insurance, and individuals who chose not to have it.</p><p>Clearly the Democrats favor the Clinton approach, and are intent on forcing another mandated lack of choice on the citizens, and if the cost of health care means you can't afford food or housing, at least you can get medical treatment.</p><p>The thing everyone seems to ignore is that even if you have insurance now, <i>in many places you can't get health care!</i> With great coverage and the means to pay cash if needed, an expensive trip to another part of the country may be needed to get care in a timely fashion. <i>Any plan which doesn't include a means to increase the supply will only make thing worse.</i> A plan must have funding to train doctors (not import them), stop closing hospitals in the name of cost control, and some incentive for people to participate in preventative care, like increased co-pay for those who don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between Obama and Clinton in the primaries was that he wanted to be sure every American has the chance to buy health insurance at an affordable price , and she wanted to force every American to buy health insurance whether they could afford it or not .
Clinton wanted to fine employers who did n't provide insurance , and individuals who chose not to have it.Clearly the Democrats favor the Clinton approach , and are intent on forcing another mandated lack of choice on the citizens , and if the cost of health care means you ca n't afford food or housing , at least you can get medical treatment.The thing everyone seems to ignore is that even if you have insurance now , in many places you ca n't get health care !
With great coverage and the means to pay cash if needed , an expensive trip to another part of the country may be needed to get care in a timely fashion .
Any plan which does n't include a means to increase the supply will only make thing worse .
A plan must have funding to train doctors ( not import them ) , stop closing hospitals in the name of cost control , and some incentive for people to participate in preventative care , like increased co-pay for those who do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between Obama and Clinton in the primaries was that he wanted to be sure every American has the chance to buy health insurance at an affordable price, and she wanted to force every American to buy health insurance whether they could afford it or not.
Clinton wanted to fine employers who didn't provide insurance, and individuals who chose not to have it.Clearly the Democrats favor the Clinton approach, and are intent on forcing another mandated lack of choice on the citizens, and if the cost of health care means you can't afford food or housing, at least you can get medical treatment.The thing everyone seems to ignore is that even if you have insurance now, in many places you can't get health care!
With great coverage and the means to pay cash if needed, an expensive trip to another part of the country may be needed to get care in a timely fashion.
Any plan which doesn't include a means to increase the supply will only make thing worse.
A plan must have funding to train doctors (not import them), stop closing hospitals in the name of cost control, and some incentive for people to participate in preventative care, like increased co-pay for those who don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404985</id>
	<title>Look at the timing of the announcment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe this was released in the same week where the government sponsored VA hospitals were sticking dirty anal scopes up veteran's asses and giving them hepatitis and AIDS.</p><p>I guess cleaning the ass scope isn't that fun so they decided to only do it once at the end of the day.</p><p>This is why I'll steer far clear of government run health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe this was released in the same week where the government sponsored VA hospitals were sticking dirty anal scopes up veteran 's asses and giving them hepatitis and AIDS.I guess cleaning the ass scope is n't that fun so they decided to only do it once at the end of the day.This is why I 'll steer far clear of government run health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe this was released in the same week where the government sponsored VA hospitals were sticking dirty anal scopes up veteran's asses and giving them hepatitis and AIDS.I guess cleaning the ass scope isn't that fun so they decided to only do it once at the end of the day.This is why I'll steer far clear of government run health care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</id>
	<title>If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the goal is truly to do some good for the country, then the place to start is the FDA.  They need to seriously rethink their views on health and nutrition and what should be allowed in the foods sold in the U.S.  There are nations with a fraction of the health issues (per capita) of the U.S. and they also have better policies regarding the contents of food.  The corn syrup has GOT to go for starters and they should take with it all of the aspartame and any of the dozens of other things that do not belong in our food.  And let's not get into farming, dairy and livestock practices or we'd go on for days.  Monsanto has GOT to go.  Hormones and antibiotics on "healthy animals" have also got to go.</p><p>There is so much wrong going on in with U.S. food system that it just makes me sick... it makes us all sick.  Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goal is truly to do some good for the country , then the place to start is the FDA .
They need to seriously rethink their views on health and nutrition and what should be allowed in the foods sold in the U.S. There are nations with a fraction of the health issues ( per capita ) of the U.S. and they also have better policies regarding the contents of food .
The corn syrup has GOT to go for starters and they should take with it all of the aspartame and any of the dozens of other things that do not belong in our food .
And let 's not get into farming , dairy and livestock practices or we 'd go on for days .
Monsanto has GOT to go .
Hormones and antibiotics on " healthy animals " have also got to go.There is so much wrong going on in with U.S. food system that it just makes me sick... it makes us all sick .
Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goal is truly to do some good for the country, then the place to start is the FDA.
They need to seriously rethink their views on health and nutrition and what should be allowed in the foods sold in the U.S.  There are nations with a fraction of the health issues (per capita) of the U.S. and they also have better policies regarding the contents of food.
The corn syrup has GOT to go for starters and they should take with it all of the aspartame and any of the dozens of other things that do not belong in our food.
And let's not get into farming, dairy and livestock practices or we'd go on for days.
Monsanto has GOT to go.
Hormones and antibiotics on "healthy animals" have also got to go.There is so much wrong going on in with U.S. food system that it just makes me sick... it makes us all sick.
Get rid of that stuff and we will see a LOT less need for healthcare and a lot less obesity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404901</id>
	<title>Great quote...</title>
	<author>dtmancom</author>
	<datestamp>1245497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you think health care is expensive now , just wait until it 's free .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28420479</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure the US is ready for public healthcare</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245679560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Public healthcare, while seemingly free (most people do pay for it in the end) but I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective. </i></p><p>Sphincter says what?  Private insurance companies delay and deny care as standard operating procedure.  This distopian future you describe is already here, only it's worse now.  You have company bureaucrats getting paid bonuses for denying care, and for-profit hospitals "reducing excess capacity" - closing emergency rooms and laying off nurses to make another buck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Public healthcare , while seemingly free ( most people do pay for it in the end ) but I 'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you ca n't have a certain treatment because it 's not cost effective .
Sphincter says what ?
Private insurance companies delay and deny care as standard operating procedure .
This distopian future you describe is already here , only it 's worse now .
You have company bureaucrats getting paid bonuses for denying care , and for-profit hospitals " reducing excess capacity " - closing emergency rooms and laying off nurses to make another buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public healthcare, while seemingly free (most people do pay for it in the end) but I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective.
Sphincter says what?
Private insurance companies delay and deny care as standard operating procedure.
This distopian future you describe is already here, only it's worse now.
You have company bureaucrats getting paid bonuses for denying care, and for-profit hospitals "reducing excess capacity" - closing emergency rooms and laying off nurses to make another buck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407739</id>
	<title>Love the quality of VA hospitals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245519840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Love the quality and dedication of any govt run bureaucracy?  The stellar care you get at a VA hospital?  Newsflash, when the govt runs things, they inherently create inefficiency and indifference.

Most govt employees in these huge bureaucracies dont give a shit.  They draw a paycheck, often are unionized (and hence difficult to fire without some sort of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing), and basically just want to hang on, do minimal work, and get public retirement.

And you people want to turn over the healthcare system to CONGRESS???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Love the quality and dedication of any govt run bureaucracy ?
The stellar care you get at a VA hospital ?
Newsflash , when the govt runs things , they inherently create inefficiency and indifference .
Most govt employees in these huge bureaucracies dont give a shit .
They draw a paycheck , often are unionized ( and hence difficult to fire without some sort of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing ) , and basically just want to hang on , do minimal work , and get public retirement .
And you people want to turn over the healthcare system to CONGRESS ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love the quality and dedication of any govt run bureaucracy?
The stellar care you get at a VA hospital?
Newsflash, when the govt runs things, they inherently create inefficiency and indifference.
Most govt employees in these huge bureaucracies dont give a shit.
They draw a paycheck, often are unionized (and hence difficult to fire without some sort of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing), and basically just want to hang on, do minimal work, and get public retirement.
And you people want to turn over the healthcare system to CONGRESS??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28414991</id>
	<title>Re:Orwellian language, as usual</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1245591060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We see what you are doing here. Government provision of services, by definition, is the exact opposite of free market competition. When you take money from people by force and give it to others, that is NOT competition. Please stop saying that it is.</i></p><p>It seems you don't understand the situation. Let's use an analogy. The United States Postal Service has overnight service, 3-day, and ground service. So do UPS, FedEx, and others. USPS is a quasi-government firm, and yet, mysteriously, UPS and FedEx both compete very well with USPS in the areas they compete in (obviously, only USPS is allowed to do the first-class access-your-mailbox thing). I see the universal health care plan in a similar light. Competition comes when you have options for service. If HMOs, etc. have to compete on quality of care for the first time with someone who DOES absolutely guarantee service (rather than denying claims, dumping clients who actually file claims, refusing service to potential clients with preexisting conditions), then they are likely to get better - one of the tenets of competition. Without such competition, they will continue on like they have been, which only an absolute FOOL would argue FOR.</p><p>IMO, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We see what you are doing here .
Government provision of services , by definition , is the exact opposite of free market competition .
When you take money from people by force and give it to others , that is NOT competition .
Please stop saying that it is.It seems you do n't understand the situation .
Let 's use an analogy .
The United States Postal Service has overnight service , 3-day , and ground service .
So do UPS , FedEx , and others .
USPS is a quasi-government firm , and yet , mysteriously , UPS and FedEx both compete very well with USPS in the areas they compete in ( obviously , only USPS is allowed to do the first-class access-your-mailbox thing ) .
I see the universal health care plan in a similar light .
Competition comes when you have options for service .
If HMOs , etc .
have to compete on quality of care for the first time with someone who DOES absolutely guarantee service ( rather than denying claims , dumping clients who actually file claims , refusing service to potential clients with preexisting conditions ) , then they are likely to get better - one of the tenets of competition .
Without such competition , they will continue on like they have been , which only an absolute FOOL would argue FOR.IMO , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We see what you are doing here.
Government provision of services, by definition, is the exact opposite of free market competition.
When you take money from people by force and give it to others, that is NOT competition.
Please stop saying that it is.It seems you don't understand the situation.
Let's use an analogy.
The United States Postal Service has overnight service, 3-day, and ground service.
So do UPS, FedEx, and others.
USPS is a quasi-government firm, and yet, mysteriously, UPS and FedEx both compete very well with USPS in the areas they compete in (obviously, only USPS is allowed to do the first-class access-your-mailbox thing).
I see the universal health care plan in a similar light.
Competition comes when you have options for service.
If HMOs, etc.
have to compete on quality of care for the first time with someone who DOES absolutely guarantee service (rather than denying claims, dumping clients who actually file claims, refusing service to potential clients with preexisting conditions), then they are likely to get better - one of the tenets of competition.
Without such competition, they will continue on like they have been, which only an absolute FOOL would argue FOR.IMO, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28424441</id>
	<title>Captain Obvious</title>
	<author>hacksoncode</author>
	<datestamp>1245693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US spends so much more on healthcare than the rest of the world because Americans are (on average) vastly less healthy in their lifestyles and choices than the rest of the world.
<p>
That, and we don't just let the idiots die. It's really expensive to keep an idiot alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US spends so much more on healthcare than the rest of the world because Americans are ( on average ) vastly less healthy in their lifestyles and choices than the rest of the world .
That , and we do n't just let the idiots die .
It 's really expensive to keep an idiot alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US spends so much more on healthcare than the rest of the world because Americans are (on average) vastly less healthy in their lifestyles and choices than the rest of the world.
That, and we don't just let the idiots die.
It's really expensive to keep an idiot alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407749</id>
	<title>Re:If the plan doesn't involve the FDA, it's usele</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1245519960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, we should force people to stop doing something because a forwarded email written by some woo-woo kool-aid drinker said that, facts be damned, it's bad?  Brilliant health care plan you've got there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , we should force people to stop doing something because a forwarded email written by some woo-woo kool-aid drinker said that , facts be damned , it 's bad ?
Brilliant health care plan you 've got there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, we should force people to stop doing something because a forwarded email written by some woo-woo kool-aid drinker said that, facts be damned, it's bad?
Brilliant health care plan you've got there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</id>
	<title>Fundamental difference.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think access to health care is a right or do you think that it is just another commodity to be bought and sold. If you say health care is a right then you have to be willing to pay for everyone to have it, it will be expensive, very expensive. If you think it's a commodity then you need to admit that poor people don't deserve to see doctors, or deserve a substantially lower quality of care from understaffed and overwhelmed free clinics.</p><p>I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally. I know where the money can come from without raising taxes too. I have my eye set on the bloated defense budget. Cut the military fully in half (by dollars spent) and we'd still have the best armed forces in the world for DEFENSE of the nation and we'd have the money to take care of every sick and injured man woman and child.</p><p>There are other things we can do to reduce costs as well such as approve the use of drugs that are already available in Europe and Canada and have been proven safe, and reform the liability insurance system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question you have to ask yourself is , do you think access to health care is a right or do you think that it is just another commodity to be bought and sold .
If you say health care is a right then you have to be willing to pay for everyone to have it , it will be expensive , very expensive .
If you think it 's a commodity then you need to admit that poor people do n't deserve to see doctors , or deserve a substantially lower quality of care from understaffed and overwhelmed free clinics.I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally .
I know where the money can come from without raising taxes too .
I have my eye set on the bloated defense budget .
Cut the military fully in half ( by dollars spent ) and we 'd still have the best armed forces in the world for DEFENSE of the nation and we 'd have the money to take care of every sick and injured man woman and child.There are other things we can do to reduce costs as well such as approve the use of drugs that are already available in Europe and Canada and have been proven safe , and reform the liability insurance system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think access to health care is a right or do you think that it is just another commodity to be bought and sold.
If you say health care is a right then you have to be willing to pay for everyone to have it, it will be expensive, very expensive.
If you think it's a commodity then you need to admit that poor people don't deserve to see doctors, or deserve a substantially lower quality of care from understaffed and overwhelmed free clinics.I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally.
I know where the money can come from without raising taxes too.
I have my eye set on the bloated defense budget.
Cut the military fully in half (by dollars spent) and we'd still have the best armed forces in the world for DEFENSE of the nation and we'd have the money to take care of every sick and injured man woman and child.There are other things we can do to reduce costs as well such as approve the use of drugs that are already available in Europe and Canada and have been proven safe, and reform the liability insurance system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405175</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because under a socialist government everyone gets paid the exact same averaged dollar amount per year regardless of what job they do and how good/efficient they are at it right? No one is advocating that kind of system, not even the <a href="http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/" title="cpusa.org">real socialists nutcases</a> [cpusa.org].</p><p>What you described is not socialism or socialist policy and it's intellectually dishonest to call it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because under a socialist government everyone gets paid the exact same averaged dollar amount per year regardless of what job they do and how good/efficient they are at it right ?
No one is advocating that kind of system , not even the real socialists nutcases [ cpusa.org ] .What you described is not socialism or socialist policy and it 's intellectually dishonest to call it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because under a socialist government everyone gets paid the exact same averaged dollar amount per year regardless of what job they do and how good/efficient they are at it right?
No one is advocating that kind of system, not even the real socialists nutcases [cpusa.org].What you described is not socialism or socialist policy and it's intellectually dishonest to call it so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408345</id>
	<title>Now we all wait for NO healthcare.  Thanks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had a relative in another country die, waiting for their national healthcare program to call and say they had space/resources available to help them.</p><p>National Healthcare is NOT the job of our Federal Govt!</p><p>WAKE UP AMERICA!  Obama is NOT your friend and can hardly be called an American!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a relative in another country die , waiting for their national healthcare program to call and say they had space/resources available to help them.National Healthcare is NOT the job of our Federal Govt ! WAKE UP AMERICA !
Obama is NOT your friend and can hardly be called an American !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a relative in another country die, waiting for their national healthcare program to call and say they had space/resources available to help them.National Healthcare is NOT the job of our Federal Govt!WAKE UP AMERICA!
Obama is NOT your friend and can hardly be called an American!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406093</id>
	<title>Re:The irony, of course...</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1245504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not irony.  That's just being open minded.  If MA's plan worked in MA, then why not try it out on a bigger scale?  Who cares about who started it or came up with the idea?  Ego getting in the way of results is a problem in business, politics, or any project worth doing.  In fact, I respect politicians more when they are willing to compromise and go beyond ideology and party line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not irony .
That 's just being open minded .
If MA 's plan worked in MA , then why not try it out on a bigger scale ?
Who cares about who started it or came up with the idea ?
Ego getting in the way of results is a problem in business , politics , or any project worth doing .
In fact , I respect politicians more when they are willing to compromise and go beyond ideology and party line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not irony.
That's just being open minded.
If MA's plan worked in MA, then why not try it out on a bigger scale?
Who cares about who started it or came up with the idea?
Ego getting in the way of results is a problem in business, politics, or any project worth doing.
In fact, I respect politicians more when they are willing to compromise and go beyond ideology and party line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407811</id>
	<title>US disgrace</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1245520380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Face it the reason the US doesn't have public health care is because the political system is corrupt and panders to every big corporate group in existence. The will to make a profit over rides the health of the population. It is a model for a pandemic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Face it the reason the US does n't have public health care is because the political system is corrupt and panders to every big corporate group in existence .
The will to make a profit over rides the health of the population .
It is a model for a pandemic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Face it the reason the US doesn't have public health care is because the political system is corrupt and panders to every big corporate group in existence.
The will to make a profit over rides the health of the population.
It is a model for a pandemic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28421723</id>
	<title>burn, karma, burn</title>
	<author>viridari</author>
	<datestamp>1245684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where in the Constitution does the Federal government derive the authority to require &amp; provide universal health care for citizens of the 50 states?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where in the Constitution does the Federal government derive the authority to require &amp; provide universal health care for citizens of the 50 states ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where in the Constitution does the Federal government derive the authority to require &amp; provide universal health care for citizens of the 50 states?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406357</id>
	<title>Re:So let's see....</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1245506580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roads - should be privatized ($x/mile driven)<br>Water supply - should be privatized ($x/gallon taken into the house)<br>Sewage treatment - should be privatized ($x/gallon taken out of the house)<br>Police - should be privatized ($x/call to 911 etc)<br>Fire department - should be privatized ($x upfront to have your fire put out, but the neighbors can chip in so their houses won't be next)<br>Army - should be privatized (don't want that <a href="http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-06/missile-shield-sent-guard-hawaii-still-development?page=" title="popsci.com">North Korean missile</a> [popsci.com] landing in your backyard? I hope you have the money to pay for it)<br>Schools - should be privatized ($x/day of school, and of course for missing school, turning in homework, missing homework etc)<br>Power (including lease of the lines that feed your house) - should be privatized<br>Street lighting - should be privatized (why not charge neighborhoods for the privilege of light?)<br>Garbage collection - should be privatized ($x/lbs of garbage, extra charges if you don't sort everything perfectly)<br>Ambulance - should be privatized (got mugged, wallet and ID stolen, head smashed in? Too bad - if you don't have the cash or picture ID to show that you're covered, the EMTs won't help you)</p><p>I wonder what other publicly provided services I left out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roads - should be privatized ( $ x/mile driven ) Water supply - should be privatized ( $ x/gallon taken into the house ) Sewage treatment - should be privatized ( $ x/gallon taken out of the house ) Police - should be privatized ( $ x/call to 911 etc ) Fire department - should be privatized ( $ x upfront to have your fire put out , but the neighbors can chip in so their houses wo n't be next ) Army - should be privatized ( do n't want that North Korean missile [ popsci.com ] landing in your backyard ?
I hope you have the money to pay for it ) Schools - should be privatized ( $ x/day of school , and of course for missing school , turning in homework , missing homework etc ) Power ( including lease of the lines that feed your house ) - should be privatizedStreet lighting - should be privatized ( why not charge neighborhoods for the privilege of light ?
) Garbage collection - should be privatized ( $ x/lbs of garbage , extra charges if you do n't sort everything perfectly ) Ambulance - should be privatized ( got mugged , wallet and ID stolen , head smashed in ?
Too bad - if you do n't have the cash or picture ID to show that you 're covered , the EMTs wo n't help you ) I wonder what other publicly provided services I left out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roads - should be privatized ($x/mile driven)Water supply - should be privatized ($x/gallon taken into the house)Sewage treatment - should be privatized ($x/gallon taken out of the house)Police - should be privatized ($x/call to 911 etc)Fire department - should be privatized ($x upfront to have your fire put out, but the neighbors can chip in so their houses won't be next)Army - should be privatized (don't want that North Korean missile [popsci.com] landing in your backyard?
I hope you have the money to pay for it)Schools - should be privatized ($x/day of school, and of course for missing school, turning in homework, missing homework etc)Power (including lease of the lines that feed your house) - should be privatizedStreet lighting - should be privatized (why not charge neighborhoods for the privilege of light?
)Garbage collection - should be privatized ($x/lbs of garbage, extra charges if you don't sort everything perfectly)Ambulance - should be privatized (got mugged, wallet and ID stolen, head smashed in?
Too bad - if you don't have the cash or picture ID to show that you're covered, the EMTs won't help you)I wonder what other publicly provided services I left out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407673</id>
	<title>why we need healthcare reform, the cynical view</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>under the current us system, if you are poor, there are plenty of robust failsafes like medicare, medicaid, state programs, etc, that guarantee your health at no or very little cost</p><p>if you are rich, well, you're rich: you can pay for your healthcarte</p><p>but, and here's the big one: if you are middle class, and you get a major health problem, you have to declare bankruptcy. and even if you are well, you have nothing but grief: cobra has a time limit, preexisting conditions deny your healthcare, horrible deductibles, bureaucrats denying your claims (i love the argument that govt run healthcare will mean your healthcare will be decided by bureaucrats: HEY MORONS, WHO DECIDES YOUR HEALTHCARE DECISIONS RIGHT NOW? CORPORATE BUREAUCRATS!)</p><p>from a completely cynical point of view, healthcare reform makes simple political sense because the american middle class are being shafted in the current system, and they hate the current system. it makes simple obvious political common sense to address how much the american middle class hates their current healthcare system. that's really the bottom line here. the current system is politically indefensible... unless some lobbyist lines your pockets of course</p><p>represent the people, washington dc assholes, not the lobbyists. and the people's desires are loud and clear: govt run healthcare, a vast improvement over our current system</p><p>no matter how many problems you can find with govt run healthcare, our current system SUCKS FAR WORSE</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>under the current us system , if you are poor , there are plenty of robust failsafes like medicare , medicaid , state programs , etc , that guarantee your health at no or very little costif you are rich , well , you 're rich : you can pay for your healthcartebut , and here 's the big one : if you are middle class , and you get a major health problem , you have to declare bankruptcy .
and even if you are well , you have nothing but grief : cobra has a time limit , preexisting conditions deny your healthcare , horrible deductibles , bureaucrats denying your claims ( i love the argument that govt run healthcare will mean your healthcare will be decided by bureaucrats : HEY MORONS , WHO DECIDES YOUR HEALTHCARE DECISIONS RIGHT NOW ?
CORPORATE BUREAUCRATS !
) from a completely cynical point of view , healthcare reform makes simple political sense because the american middle class are being shafted in the current system , and they hate the current system .
it makes simple obvious political common sense to address how much the american middle class hates their current healthcare system .
that 's really the bottom line here .
the current system is politically indefensible... unless some lobbyist lines your pockets of courserepresent the people , washington dc assholes , not the lobbyists .
and the people 's desires are loud and clear : govt run healthcare , a vast improvement over our current systemno matter how many problems you can find with govt run healthcare , our current system SUCKS FAR WORSEhttp : //www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>under the current us system, if you are poor, there are plenty of robust failsafes like medicare, medicaid, state programs, etc, that guarantee your health at no or very little costif you are rich, well, you're rich: you can pay for your healthcartebut, and here's the big one: if you are middle class, and you get a major health problem, you have to declare bankruptcy.
and even if you are well, you have nothing but grief: cobra has a time limit, preexisting conditions deny your healthcare, horrible deductibles, bureaucrats denying your claims (i love the argument that govt run healthcare will mean your healthcare will be decided by bureaucrats: HEY MORONS, WHO DECIDES YOUR HEALTHCARE DECISIONS RIGHT NOW?
CORPORATE BUREAUCRATS!
)from a completely cynical point of view, healthcare reform makes simple political sense because the american middle class are being shafted in the current system, and they hate the current system.
it makes simple obvious political common sense to address how much the american middle class hates their current healthcare system.
that's really the bottom line here.
the current system is politically indefensible... unless some lobbyist lines your pockets of courserepresent the people, washington dc assholes, not the lobbyists.
and the people's desires are loud and clear: govt run healthcare, a vast improvement over our current systemno matter how many problems you can find with govt run healthcare, our current system SUCKS FAR WORSEhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407433</id>
	<title>Re:Do not be afraid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245517080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Old irresponsible people" have done something right to be alive to receive the care that has helped them, or at least not killed them.</p><p>Medicine should go back to giving care, and real medical diagnosis and treatment.  But this plan says nothing about regulating the cost of medical care, as in prohibiting exhorbitant prices.  Without that, we can't have a solution.  Universal health care is completely affordable when the costs are regulated, and using it as an excuse to further tax us is simply BS to extract more money from working people for *them* to waste/pocket.</p><p>American medicine, in cahoots with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, is a huge business - not the scientific healing profession it once was.  It is full of gimmicks that can cost you your life, not science, not care, and often not even a (fake) diagnosis.</p><p>I don't like the idea of employers paying for this at all.  This is bad for employees, and for the economy.  My family will not pay for this plan willingly, and if we are forced to, we will use it only if we find it necessary to go to ER.  This is our option now, though we have rarely used it over the last 15 years.  We will not pay inflated prices for inappropriate care, period.  And if exploited by such a bill, we will pay nothing at all.</p><p>You mentioned auto insurance, which doesn't compare, in my opinion.  We purchase insurance beyond the minimum required by law, and against advice, we pay to have the lowest possible deductible.  And I still think it's a value.  Having insurance means I don't want to pay anything more beyond that, and with our auto insurance, it is very close.  We've gotten excellent service, quick and easy (rare) claims, and relatively low rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Old irresponsible people " have done something right to be alive to receive the care that has helped them , or at least not killed them.Medicine should go back to giving care , and real medical diagnosis and treatment .
But this plan says nothing about regulating the cost of medical care , as in prohibiting exhorbitant prices .
Without that , we ca n't have a solution .
Universal health care is completely affordable when the costs are regulated , and using it as an excuse to further tax us is simply BS to extract more money from working people for * them * to waste/pocket.American medicine , in cahoots with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies , is a huge business - not the scientific healing profession it once was .
It is full of gimmicks that can cost you your life , not science , not care , and often not even a ( fake ) diagnosis.I do n't like the idea of employers paying for this at all .
This is bad for employees , and for the economy .
My family will not pay for this plan willingly , and if we are forced to , we will use it only if we find it necessary to go to ER .
This is our option now , though we have rarely used it over the last 15 years .
We will not pay inflated prices for inappropriate care , period .
And if exploited by such a bill , we will pay nothing at all.You mentioned auto insurance , which does n't compare , in my opinion .
We purchase insurance beyond the minimum required by law , and against advice , we pay to have the lowest possible deductible .
And I still think it 's a value .
Having insurance means I do n't want to pay anything more beyond that , and with our auto insurance , it is very close .
We 've gotten excellent service , quick and easy ( rare ) claims , and relatively low rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Old irresponsible people" have done something right to be alive to receive the care that has helped them, or at least not killed them.Medicine should go back to giving care, and real medical diagnosis and treatment.
But this plan says nothing about regulating the cost of medical care, as in prohibiting exhorbitant prices.
Without that, we can't have a solution.
Universal health care is completely affordable when the costs are regulated, and using it as an excuse to further tax us is simply BS to extract more money from working people for *them* to waste/pocket.American medicine, in cahoots with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, is a huge business - not the scientific healing profession it once was.
It is full of gimmicks that can cost you your life, not science, not care, and often not even a (fake) diagnosis.I don't like the idea of employers paying for this at all.
This is bad for employees, and for the economy.
My family will not pay for this plan willingly, and if we are forced to, we will use it only if we find it necessary to go to ER.
This is our option now, though we have rarely used it over the last 15 years.
We will not pay inflated prices for inappropriate care, period.
And if exploited by such a bill, we will pay nothing at all.You mentioned auto insurance, which doesn't compare, in my opinion.
We purchase insurance beyond the minimum required by law, and against advice, we pay to have the lowest possible deductible.
And I still think it's a value.
Having insurance means I don't want to pay anything more beyond that, and with our auto insurance, it is very close.
We've gotten excellent service, quick and easy (rare) claims, and relatively low rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405711</id>
	<title>Yes - less health care for the poor.</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1245502140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, there has to be some disadvantage to being poor, right?
<br>
<br>
Even Obama says we can save money in health care, for example, "by reducing excess medical tests".
That's brilliant - we can save money on something by purchasing less of it! So there you go.
<br>
<br>
Look, "medical care" is a scarce resource. (When you call your doctor for an appointment, does he say, come on in, I'm not doing anything right now! No, it's "see you 3 weeks from next Tuesday".)
<br>
<br>
The time honored way of allocating scarce resources is by putting a price on them. Those who can pay for them get them.
<br>
<br>
The definition of being poor is having little money. Ergo, they will have less of anything that costs money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , there has to be some disadvantage to being poor , right ?
Even Obama says we can save money in health care , for example , " by reducing excess medical tests " .
That 's brilliant - we can save money on something by purchasing less of it !
So there you go .
Look , " medical care " is a scarce resource .
( When you call your doctor for an appointment , does he say , come on in , I 'm not doing anything right now !
No , it 's " see you 3 weeks from next Tuesday " .
) The time honored way of allocating scarce resources is by putting a price on them .
Those who can pay for them get them .
The definition of being poor is having little money .
Ergo , they will have less of anything that costs money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, there has to be some disadvantage to being poor, right?
Even Obama says we can save money in health care, for example, "by reducing excess medical tests".
That's brilliant - we can save money on something by purchasing less of it!
So there you go.
Look, "medical care" is a scarce resource.
(When you call your doctor for an appointment, does he say, come on in, I'm not doing anything right now!
No, it's "see you 3 weeks from next Tuesday".
)


The time honored way of allocating scarce resources is by putting a price on them.
Those who can pay for them get them.
The definition of being poor is having little money.
Ergo, they will have less of anything that costs money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406603</id>
	<title>a breakdown of attitude by political leanings:</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1245508800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li> <b>Party-line Democrats</b> - scared shitless of losing their contributions and having to live off the "meager" salaries provided them</li>
<li> <b>Party-line Republicans</b> - busy having building an army of peasants to wage a crusade against the blasphemers who dare speak against "The Free Market"</li><li> <b>Libertarians</b> - quivering in their pants over the upcoming circle jerk session</li><li> <b>Socialists</b> - praying to their agnostic, vague concept of god that this will happen and the country will have a modern health care system within our lifetimes</li><li> <b>Christian conservatives</b> - bitching that the money should be spent on abstinance-only education and overturning Roe vs. Wade instead</li><li> <b>Labour democrats</b> - freaked out that nobody will care about the unions if we have socialized health care</li><li> <b>Communists</b> - In Soviet Russia, healthcare gets you!</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Party-line Democrats - scared shitless of losing their contributions and having to live off the " meager " salaries provided them Party-line Republicans - busy having building an army of peasants to wage a crusade against the blasphemers who dare speak against " The Free Market " Libertarians - quivering in their pants over the upcoming circle jerk session Socialists - praying to their agnostic , vague concept of god that this will happen and the country will have a modern health care system within our lifetimes Christian conservatives - bitching that the money should be spent on abstinance-only education and overturning Roe vs. Wade instead Labour democrats - freaked out that nobody will care about the unions if we have socialized health care Communists - In Soviet Russia , healthcare gets you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 Party-line Democrats - scared shitless of losing their contributions and having to live off the "meager" salaries provided them
 Party-line Republicans - busy having building an army of peasants to wage a crusade against the blasphemers who dare speak against "The Free Market" Libertarians - quivering in their pants over the upcoming circle jerk session Socialists - praying to their agnostic, vague concept of god that this will happen and the country will have a modern health care system within our lifetimes Christian conservatives - bitching that the money should be spent on abstinance-only education and overturning Roe vs. Wade instead Labour democrats - freaked out that nobody will care about the unions if we have socialized health care Communists - In Soviet Russia, healthcare gets you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408479</id>
	<title>The fact = pay more tax</title>
	<author>darqit</author>
	<datestamp>1245527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason for future in increase in health care spending is not the uninsured. It is the ageing population. In coming decades a smaller workforce has to pay for everything. Spending will increase significantly. For some info see I.O.U USA.</p><p>However there is a way to combat this. A shift in attitude is needed and it won't be easy. Here is my two cents:</p><p>People in the US need to pay more taxes. Don't kill me yet, I will explain.</p><p>Ever since the Reagan era election slogans have revolved around cutting taxes. This has made paying tax a larger mental burden than it is in most other countries. As the US used to be the land of milk and honey everybody believed that the US should have all basic social commodities usually associated with a industrialized state. The feeling however was that this could be realized without footing the bill. Now it is abundantly clear that nobody picked up the check and instead a needlessly money draining system is in place.</p><p>Looking to other industrialized countries with lower or similar GDP spending on health care and a more comprehensive health care system, the difference is obvious. These countries have higher tax rates. In these countries the notion that if you want to enjoy certain benefits like (infrastructure, health care, pensions etc.) they have to be paid for. I'm not saying people like paying tax, but it is not such red flag in front of peoples eyes.</p><p>In addition to paying more taxes a major overhaul of the system is needed. The free market principle doesn't have a humanitarian earmark. For services as health care this is sorely needed. As most would agree it is insane if in the US people would die in the streets just because they couldn't afford health care. This does not constitute a wealthy industrialized nation which upholds basic human rights. No sense in preaching freedom as a basic right when other basic rights are neglected.</p><p>Enough ranting. For a more eloquent discussion look up some of Jeffrey Sachs's views on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason for future in increase in health care spending is not the uninsured .
It is the ageing population .
In coming decades a smaller workforce has to pay for everything .
Spending will increase significantly .
For some info see I.O.U USA.However there is a way to combat this .
A shift in attitude is needed and it wo n't be easy .
Here is my two cents : People in the US need to pay more taxes .
Do n't kill me yet , I will explain.Ever since the Reagan era election slogans have revolved around cutting taxes .
This has made paying tax a larger mental burden than it is in most other countries .
As the US used to be the land of milk and honey everybody believed that the US should have all basic social commodities usually associated with a industrialized state .
The feeling however was that this could be realized without footing the bill .
Now it is abundantly clear that nobody picked up the check and instead a needlessly money draining system is in place.Looking to other industrialized countries with lower or similar GDP spending on health care and a more comprehensive health care system , the difference is obvious .
These countries have higher tax rates .
In these countries the notion that if you want to enjoy certain benefits like ( infrastructure , health care , pensions etc .
) they have to be paid for .
I 'm not saying people like paying tax , but it is not such red flag in front of peoples eyes.In addition to paying more taxes a major overhaul of the system is needed .
The free market principle does n't have a humanitarian earmark .
For services as health care this is sorely needed .
As most would agree it is insane if in the US people would die in the streets just because they could n't afford health care .
This does not constitute a wealthy industrialized nation which upholds basic human rights .
No sense in preaching freedom as a basic right when other basic rights are neglected.Enough ranting .
For a more eloquent discussion look up some of Jeffrey Sachs 's views on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason for future in increase in health care spending is not the uninsured.
It is the ageing population.
In coming decades a smaller workforce has to pay for everything.
Spending will increase significantly.
For some info see I.O.U USA.However there is a way to combat this.
A shift in attitude is needed and it won't be easy.
Here is my two cents:People in the US need to pay more taxes.
Don't kill me yet, I will explain.Ever since the Reagan era election slogans have revolved around cutting taxes.
This has made paying tax a larger mental burden than it is in most other countries.
As the US used to be the land of milk and honey everybody believed that the US should have all basic social commodities usually associated with a industrialized state.
The feeling however was that this could be realized without footing the bill.
Now it is abundantly clear that nobody picked up the check and instead a needlessly money draining system is in place.Looking to other industrialized countries with lower or similar GDP spending on health care and a more comprehensive health care system, the difference is obvious.
These countries have higher tax rates.
In these countries the notion that if you want to enjoy certain benefits like (infrastructure, health care, pensions etc.
) they have to be paid for.
I'm not saying people like paying tax, but it is not such red flag in front of peoples eyes.In addition to paying more taxes a major overhaul of the system is needed.
The free market principle doesn't have a humanitarian earmark.
For services as health care this is sorely needed.
As most would agree it is insane if in the US people would die in the streets just because they couldn't afford health care.
This does not constitute a wealthy industrialized nation which upholds basic human rights.
No sense in preaching freedom as a basic right when other basic rights are neglected.Enough ranting.
For a more eloquent discussion look up some of Jeffrey Sachs's views on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408545</id>
	<title>Pass... not that it matters.</title>
	<author>oatworm</author>
	<datestamp>1245614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest problem that I have with nationalized health care is that it effectively guarantees that we're stuck with paying for health care using the insurance model for the rest of our days. The trouble with insurance is that, in theory, less money is supposed to be spent than is put in. This guarantees that there will <em>always</em> be profiteering and "waste" - <em>that's why insurance works</em>. If we didn't already legislate the insurance model so thoroughly already, market-based innovations like interest-bearing health savings accounts might be able to take a better hold.<br> <br>

In an ideal world, I'd like to see all health care spending be tax deductible. If my employer wants to spend money on insurance for me, great. If my employer wants to put money in an interest-bearing health account, like a 401k or something similar, so much the better, provided it's portable from job to job. Heck, if my employer just pays my bills directly - sweet! Let them earn their tax credit either way, and if I choose to do the same, well, let's encourage that, too.  It'll never happen, though, especially if this bill gets passed. Besides, all of the market-based innovation in payment methods in the world isn't going to change one basic, simple fact:<br> <br>

<strong>Health care is <em>scarce</em>.</strong> <br> <br>

There is a finite supply of people willing and capable of being doctors and, due to generational constraints (fewer people in the younger generations than during the Boomer generations), there are fewer and fewer of them than there used to be. Meanwhile, more and more people are consuming more and more health care. This isn't just a case of the Baby Boomers getting older, though that's a big part of it. The other part is that the health care industry can do <em>far</em> more than it could in, say, 1950. In 1930, if you had an infection, they gave you sulfates and told you to start praying. Nowadays, we have books that list nothing but types of antibiotics. We can transplant organs, cure most kinds of cancer if we catch it soon enough, cure nearly any imaginable infection, and on and on and on. If I get an ingrown toenail now, I see a doctor (possibly even a podiatrist - specialist rates!). If I got an ingrown toenail in 1930, I probably would have grabbed a bottle of whiskey and a pocketknife. Simply put, the health care industry can provide far more services than it could years ago, increasing demand, while also seeing fewer and fewer people willing to provide the services. As long as that dynamic is true, it won't matter how we pay for health care. If we try to make it cheap, there will be increased scarcity, which means longer waits for procedures. If we try to make it plentiful, such that nobody has to wait, it will be expensive. That's just the way it is.<br> <br>

If you really want to make health care affordable, you need to loosen up who provides non-emergency health care. This might involve getting nurses involved, but they're nearly as scarce as doctors right now. This might involve robots - heck, Japan's been playing with them in health care for years. This might involve computerized quizzes - fill in some blanks (I have the sniffles but I don't have a fever) and receive a diagnosis (You have a cold or mild allergies). In short, think of it sort of like IT. You don't need to throw a CCNA or MCITP/MCSE at every infected workstation - why should you throw a doctor at every minor ailment? Yeah, I know - when you're holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, but there's some wisdom here.<br> <br>

In the end, no matter how you shuffle the cards around, it will never change the fact that, as long as health care is as scarce as it is (and there's no reason to suggest it won't be anytime soon), it will be expensive, one way or another. There isn't a Republican or Democrat sponsored piece of legislation in the world that will ever change that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem that I have with nationalized health care is that it effectively guarantees that we 're stuck with paying for health care using the insurance model for the rest of our days .
The trouble with insurance is that , in theory , less money is supposed to be spent than is put in .
This guarantees that there will always be profiteering and " waste " - that 's why insurance works .
If we did n't already legislate the insurance model so thoroughly already , market-based innovations like interest-bearing health savings accounts might be able to take a better hold .
In an ideal world , I 'd like to see all health care spending be tax deductible .
If my employer wants to spend money on insurance for me , great .
If my employer wants to put money in an interest-bearing health account , like a 401k or something similar , so much the better , provided it 's portable from job to job .
Heck , if my employer just pays my bills directly - sweet !
Let them earn their tax credit either way , and if I choose to do the same , well , let 's encourage that , too .
It 'll never happen , though , especially if this bill gets passed .
Besides , all of the market-based innovation in payment methods in the world is n't going to change one basic , simple fact : Health care is scarce .
There is a finite supply of people willing and capable of being doctors and , due to generational constraints ( fewer people in the younger generations than during the Boomer generations ) , there are fewer and fewer of them than there used to be .
Meanwhile , more and more people are consuming more and more health care .
This is n't just a case of the Baby Boomers getting older , though that 's a big part of it .
The other part is that the health care industry can do far more than it could in , say , 1950 .
In 1930 , if you had an infection , they gave you sulfates and told you to start praying .
Nowadays , we have books that list nothing but types of antibiotics .
We can transplant organs , cure most kinds of cancer if we catch it soon enough , cure nearly any imaginable infection , and on and on and on .
If I get an ingrown toenail now , I see a doctor ( possibly even a podiatrist - specialist rates ! ) .
If I got an ingrown toenail in 1930 , I probably would have grabbed a bottle of whiskey and a pocketknife .
Simply put , the health care industry can provide far more services than it could years ago , increasing demand , while also seeing fewer and fewer people willing to provide the services .
As long as that dynamic is true , it wo n't matter how we pay for health care .
If we try to make it cheap , there will be increased scarcity , which means longer waits for procedures .
If we try to make it plentiful , such that nobody has to wait , it will be expensive .
That 's just the way it is .
If you really want to make health care affordable , you need to loosen up who provides non-emergency health care .
This might involve getting nurses involved , but they 're nearly as scarce as doctors right now .
This might involve robots - heck , Japan 's been playing with them in health care for years .
This might involve computerized quizzes - fill in some blanks ( I have the sniffles but I do n't have a fever ) and receive a diagnosis ( You have a cold or mild allergies ) .
In short , think of it sort of like IT .
You do n't need to throw a CCNA or MCITP/MCSE at every infected workstation - why should you throw a doctor at every minor ailment ?
Yeah , I know - when you 're holding a hammer , every problem looks like a nail , but there 's some wisdom here .
In the end , no matter how you shuffle the cards around , it will never change the fact that , as long as health care is as scarce as it is ( and there 's no reason to suggest it wo n't be anytime soon ) , it will be expensive , one way or another .
There is n't a Republican or Democrat sponsored piece of legislation in the world that will ever change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem that I have with nationalized health care is that it effectively guarantees that we're stuck with paying for health care using the insurance model for the rest of our days.
The trouble with insurance is that, in theory, less money is supposed to be spent than is put in.
This guarantees that there will always be profiteering and "waste" - that's why insurance works.
If we didn't already legislate the insurance model so thoroughly already, market-based innovations like interest-bearing health savings accounts might be able to take a better hold.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see all health care spending be tax deductible.
If my employer wants to spend money on insurance for me, great.
If my employer wants to put money in an interest-bearing health account, like a 401k or something similar, so much the better, provided it's portable from job to job.
Heck, if my employer just pays my bills directly - sweet!
Let them earn their tax credit either way, and if I choose to do the same, well, let's encourage that, too.
It'll never happen, though, especially if this bill gets passed.
Besides, all of the market-based innovation in payment methods in the world isn't going to change one basic, simple fact: 

Health care is scarce.
There is a finite supply of people willing and capable of being doctors and, due to generational constraints (fewer people in the younger generations than during the Boomer generations), there are fewer and fewer of them than there used to be.
Meanwhile, more and more people are consuming more and more health care.
This isn't just a case of the Baby Boomers getting older, though that's a big part of it.
The other part is that the health care industry can do far more than it could in, say, 1950.
In 1930, if you had an infection, they gave you sulfates and told you to start praying.
Nowadays, we have books that list nothing but types of antibiotics.
We can transplant organs, cure most kinds of cancer if we catch it soon enough, cure nearly any imaginable infection, and on and on and on.
If I get an ingrown toenail now, I see a doctor (possibly even a podiatrist - specialist rates!).
If I got an ingrown toenail in 1930, I probably would have grabbed a bottle of whiskey and a pocketknife.
Simply put, the health care industry can provide far more services than it could years ago, increasing demand, while also seeing fewer and fewer people willing to provide the services.
As long as that dynamic is true, it won't matter how we pay for health care.
If we try to make it cheap, there will be increased scarcity, which means longer waits for procedures.
If we try to make it plentiful, such that nobody has to wait, it will be expensive.
That's just the way it is.
If you really want to make health care affordable, you need to loosen up who provides non-emergency health care.
This might involve getting nurses involved, but they're nearly as scarce as doctors right now.
This might involve robots - heck, Japan's been playing with them in health care for years.
This might involve computerized quizzes - fill in some blanks (I have the sniffles but I don't have a fever) and receive a diagnosis (You have a cold or mild allergies).
In short, think of it sort of like IT.
You don't need to throw a CCNA or MCITP/MCSE at every infected workstation - why should you throw a doctor at every minor ailment?
Yeah, I know - when you're holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, but there's some wisdom here.
In the end, no matter how you shuffle the cards around, it will never change the fact that, as long as health care is as scarce as it is (and there's no reason to suggest it won't be anytime soon), it will be expensive, one way or another.
There isn't a Republican or Democrat sponsored piece of legislation in the world that will ever change that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410411</id>
	<title>Re:public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Myrmidon10</author>
	<datestamp>1245597060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got some of that right but you left out a couple of things....</p><p>&gt; Under the government plan you can't CHOOSE to leave it no matter how shitty it gets.  You get what you get.  Under a private plan, if you are dissatisfied you can choose one of the other 1,300 insurance providers in the US.</p><p>&gt; Under the government plan you will get all the great service you currently get under the DMV, IRS, Medicare/Medicade, Veterans Administration, DHS, Social Security, Dept of Education, Welfare, etc, oh and lets not forget how great they treat abused children at the various "human" services departments around the country.  Those institutions are so well run, efficient, effective, inexpensive to the tax payer and always keep you as the most important thing you do!  What?  You think you'll get super service because it's healthcare related and "free"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got some of that right but you left out a couple of things.... &gt; Under the government plan you ca n't CHOOSE to leave it no matter how shitty it gets .
You get what you get .
Under a private plan , if you are dissatisfied you can choose one of the other 1,300 insurance providers in the US. &gt; Under the government plan you will get all the great service you currently get under the DMV , IRS , Medicare/Medicade , Veterans Administration , DHS , Social Security , Dept of Education , Welfare , etc , oh and lets not forget how great they treat abused children at the various " human " services departments around the country .
Those institutions are so well run , efficient , effective , inexpensive to the tax payer and always keep you as the most important thing you do !
What ? You think you 'll get super service because it 's healthcare related and " free " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got some of that right but you left out a couple of things....&gt; Under the government plan you can't CHOOSE to leave it no matter how shitty it gets.
You get what you get.
Under a private plan, if you are dissatisfied you can choose one of the other 1,300 insurance providers in the US.&gt; Under the government plan you will get all the great service you currently get under the DMV, IRS, Medicare/Medicade, Veterans Administration, DHS, Social Security, Dept of Education, Welfare, etc, oh and lets not forget how great they treat abused children at the various "human" services departments around the country.
Those institutions are so well run, efficient, effective, inexpensive to the tax payer and always keep you as the most important thing you do!
What?  You think you'll get super service because it's healthcare related and "free"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735</id>
	<title>public vs private health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245502260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are the real differences between a single payer public health care provider plan and the hodgepodge private health care/insurance system we have now:</p><p>1) under a public plan, your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office. While in a private system, you health care is decided by  corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.</p><p>2) under a government plan you, or your employer would send hundreds of dollars in tax money each month to the health a agency to cover care. Under private plans, you or your employer must send hundreds of dollars each month to insurance companies each month to get coverage.</p><p>3) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage. You are not under private plans.</p><p>4) Under a government plans you are essentially covered for life. Under private plans you are limited in the number of claims you can make.</p><p>5) From what I have seen, government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example. Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.</p><p>6) Under a government plan, you and your doctor would have to fill out government paperwork to get benefits paid. Under the private system, each insurance company has it's own form to fill out which requires staff, meaning non-medical overhead, to proper fill out and file the forms in the proper manner.</p><p>There, those are are the real differences.</p><p>Basically, there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve. Medical care is one of them. Medical care is less of a free market choice and should be thought of more as an essential public utility. Market forces do not work very well do to the complexity of medical care and the urgency of catastrophic cases making comparison shopping impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are the real differences between a single payer public health care provider plan and the hodgepodge private health care/insurance system we have now : 1 ) under a public plan , your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office .
While in a private system , you health care is decided by corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.2 ) under a government plan you , or your employer would send hundreds of dollars in tax money each month to the health a agency to cover care .
Under private plans , you or your employer must send hundreds of dollars each month to insurance companies each month to get coverage.3 ) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage .
You are not under private plans.4 ) Under a government plans you are essentially covered for life .
Under private plans you are limited in the number of claims you can make.5 ) From what I have seen , government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example .
Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.6 ) Under a government plan , you and your doctor would have to fill out government paperwork to get benefits paid .
Under the private system , each insurance company has it 's own form to fill out which requires staff , meaning non-medical overhead , to proper fill out and file the forms in the proper manner.There , those are are the real differences.Basically , there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve .
Medical care is one of them .
Medical care is less of a free market choice and should be thought of more as an essential public utility .
Market forces do not work very well do to the complexity of medical care and the urgency of catastrophic cases making comparison shopping impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are the real differences between a single payer public health care provider plan and the hodgepodge private health care/insurance system we have now:1) under a public plan, your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office.
While in a private system, you health care is decided by  corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.2) under a government plan you, or your employer would send hundreds of dollars in tax money each month to the health a agency to cover care.
Under private plans, you or your employer must send hundreds of dollars each month to insurance companies each month to get coverage.3) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage.
You are not under private plans.4) Under a government plans you are essentially covered for life.
Under private plans you are limited in the number of claims you can make.5) From what I have seen, government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example.
Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.6) Under a government plan, you and your doctor would have to fill out government paperwork to get benefits paid.
Under the private system, each insurance company has it's own form to fill out which requires staff, meaning non-medical overhead, to proper fill out and file the forms in the proper manner.There, those are are the real differences.Basically, there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve.
Medical care is one of them.
Medical care is less of a free market choice and should be thought of more as an essential public utility.
Market forces do not work very well do to the complexity of medical care and the urgency of catastrophic cases making comparison shopping impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408779</id>
	<title>Re:Orwellian language, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245575460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said they were taking money by force?  Isn't this an opt-in program?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said they were taking money by force ?
Is n't this an opt-in program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said they were taking money by force?
Isn't this an opt-in program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415949</id>
	<title>RE: Some people who CAN afford it, can't get it!</title>
	<author>jdehnert</author>
	<datestamp>1245600540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe me, if I had the chance to immigrate to Europe, I would do it.  The years of GW Bush were ugly enough (and many of us are still freaked out about things), and then I still have US health care to deal with.  This situation with healthcare goes back way before GW Bush, and its something you hear about from time to time.  It can take a normally prosperous family and strip them of literally everything they have before any kind of government assistance kicks in.   By then its financial ruin and all of the emotional trauma that can cause heaped on top of unplayable medical bills.</p><p>An effective system should not allow that to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe me , if I had the chance to immigrate to Europe , I would do it .
The years of GW Bush were ugly enough ( and many of us are still freaked out about things ) , and then I still have US health care to deal with .
This situation with healthcare goes back way before GW Bush , and its something you hear about from time to time .
It can take a normally prosperous family and strip them of literally everything they have before any kind of government assistance kicks in .
By then its financial ruin and all of the emotional trauma that can cause heaped on top of unplayable medical bills.An effective system should not allow that to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe me, if I had the chance to immigrate to Europe, I would do it.
The years of GW Bush were ugly enough (and many of us are still freaked out about things), and then I still have US health care to deal with.
This situation with healthcare goes back way before GW Bush, and its something you hear about from time to time.
It can take a normally prosperous family and strip them of literally everything they have before any kind of government assistance kicks in.
By then its financial ruin and all of the emotional trauma that can cause heaped on top of unplayable medical bills.An effective system should not allow that to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405413</id>
	<title>Re:they did not know how much the plan would cost</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1245500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the alien mind-control rays, unmarked helicopters, mention of 'jack-booted thugs,' and blaming the U.N. But otherwise, nice conspiracy rant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the alien mind-control rays , unmarked helicopters , mention of 'jack-booted thugs, ' and blaming the U.N. But otherwise , nice conspiracy rant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the alien mind-control rays, unmarked helicopters, mention of 'jack-booted thugs,' and blaming the U.N. But otherwise, nice conspiracy rant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407019</id>
	<title>Supporting Single Payer Health Insurance</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone has to make compromises in life.  For me, I had a big compromise when I said "I do."  I'm a staunch Republican.  My wife is a staunch Democrat.  We glower at each other in line at the DMV, which has motor-votor registration.  And sometimes we try and rip up each other's voter cards.  One year we found out that we were donating equal amounts of money to George Bush and Al Gore, then, after swearing that we'd never do it again, expressed great surprise that we were donating to George Bush and John Kerry...</p><p>Anyway, I have to say that this is the finest thing I have ever done.  I have enjoyed so much being married to a liberal wife, and having that hard difference of opinion.  I am not only happy but I am grateful to the stars above that I've had the opportunity to meet all her liberal friends, and she my conservative ones.  It's a great life, to discover your liberal wife is a better shot with an assault rifle than you are!  I've gotten hammered with all of her nutty liberal friends and I have to say that I am better for it.  When you leave politics out the window, we're all pretty much the same, and yes, that includes gay couples too.</p><p>Now, the great compromise we have, of course, politically, is over single payer health care. Our deal is thus: My wife will always buy American products, but I will have to come around and support single payer health insurance.  SO here goes.</p><p>It is utterly foolish for Democrats to support the kind of health care reform they are proposing.  Single payer is completely the way to go.</p><p>1) People prefer simplicity. No longer will people believe that health insurance companies will somehow give a better service than government.  After the last twenty years, they cannot give a better service than anybody.  With single payer, I don't have to do a damned thing, but see a doctor when I want.  That's pretty powerful.</p><p>2) It makes American companies more competitive.  One of the chief reasons that GM went belly up is because their interiors of their cars were not as good as their foreign counterparts.  Why the difference? Well, GM had to pick up a $1000 difference per car and that translates to health care costs.  IF we had single payer, corporations would not have to pay for health insurance.  There would be no need for corporate plan administrators, and so forth.</p><p>3) More privacy.  There's no need for your corporate boss to know about your health care.</p><p>4) Better risk management.  We've watched insurers merge one after the other, to get better economies of scale and also to have a better risk pool.  Size matters in insurance and the chief complaint against any federal plan is that health insurance won't be competitive.  Geez, that's some argument.  Its one thing to say that government sucks and isn't as good, but its quite another to say that private people have some right to not compete against the government when the delivery of a service is at issue.  If UPS can win against the Post Office, then Aetna needs to quit whining about an expanded Medicare.</p><p>5) Rationing should be democratic.  We all know that ultimately we, me, you and I, are driving health care into the ground. We're Americans and when one of our loved ones is dying, we don't say, gee, that's too bad. WE grab the doctor by the throat and say "save him!"  Our desire to save everyone we know, regardless of the cost, is what makes us a great people.  Even if we cannot, we are better for having tried, because, as we try, we learn, and some day, we will.  In the meantime though, there are sometimes that we must say no, and it is more fare that such times should be held to a vote among all of us, rich and poor, citizens all, than, some stuffy boardroom with insurance doctors picking random things that stuff the balance sheet.</p><p>6) Government is not evil.  You cannot say that you think Government is evil when you support our military.  Our Army is socialized weaponry, and they kick ass.  We got 4300 empty helmets on rifles in Iraq, of people working for the US Government.  Show me the p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has to make compromises in life .
For me , I had a big compromise when I said " I do .
" I 'm a staunch Republican .
My wife is a staunch Democrat .
We glower at each other in line at the DMV , which has motor-votor registration .
And sometimes we try and rip up each other 's voter cards .
One year we found out that we were donating equal amounts of money to George Bush and Al Gore , then , after swearing that we 'd never do it again , expressed great surprise that we were donating to George Bush and John Kerry...Anyway , I have to say that this is the finest thing I have ever done .
I have enjoyed so much being married to a liberal wife , and having that hard difference of opinion .
I am not only happy but I am grateful to the stars above that I 've had the opportunity to meet all her liberal friends , and she my conservative ones .
It 's a great life , to discover your liberal wife is a better shot with an assault rifle than you are !
I 've gotten hammered with all of her nutty liberal friends and I have to say that I am better for it .
When you leave politics out the window , we 're all pretty much the same , and yes , that includes gay couples too.Now , the great compromise we have , of course , politically , is over single payer health care .
Our deal is thus : My wife will always buy American products , but I will have to come around and support single payer health insurance .
SO here goes.It is utterly foolish for Democrats to support the kind of health care reform they are proposing .
Single payer is completely the way to go.1 ) People prefer simplicity .
No longer will people believe that health insurance companies will somehow give a better service than government .
After the last twenty years , they can not give a better service than anybody .
With single payer , I do n't have to do a damned thing , but see a doctor when I want .
That 's pretty powerful.2 ) It makes American companies more competitive .
One of the chief reasons that GM went belly up is because their interiors of their cars were not as good as their foreign counterparts .
Why the difference ?
Well , GM had to pick up a $ 1000 difference per car and that translates to health care costs .
IF we had single payer , corporations would not have to pay for health insurance .
There would be no need for corporate plan administrators , and so forth.3 ) More privacy .
There 's no need for your corporate boss to know about your health care.4 ) Better risk management .
We 've watched insurers merge one after the other , to get better economies of scale and also to have a better risk pool .
Size matters in insurance and the chief complaint against any federal plan is that health insurance wo n't be competitive .
Geez , that 's some argument .
Its one thing to say that government sucks and is n't as good , but its quite another to say that private people have some right to not compete against the government when the delivery of a service is at issue .
If UPS can win against the Post Office , then Aetna needs to quit whining about an expanded Medicare.5 ) Rationing should be democratic .
We all know that ultimately we , me , you and I , are driving health care into the ground .
We 're Americans and when one of our loved ones is dying , we do n't say , gee , that 's too bad .
WE grab the doctor by the throat and say " save him !
" Our desire to save everyone we know , regardless of the cost , is what makes us a great people .
Even if we can not , we are better for having tried , because , as we try , we learn , and some day , we will .
In the meantime though , there are sometimes that we must say no , and it is more fare that such times should be held to a vote among all of us , rich and poor , citizens all , than , some stuffy boardroom with insurance doctors picking random things that stuff the balance sheet.6 ) Government is not evil .
You can not say that you think Government is evil when you support our military .
Our Army is socialized weaponry , and they kick ass .
We got 4300 empty helmets on rifles in Iraq , of people working for the US Government .
Show me the p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has to make compromises in life.
For me, I had a big compromise when I said "I do.
"  I'm a staunch Republican.
My wife is a staunch Democrat.
We glower at each other in line at the DMV, which has motor-votor registration.
And sometimes we try and rip up each other's voter cards.
One year we found out that we were donating equal amounts of money to George Bush and Al Gore, then, after swearing that we'd never do it again, expressed great surprise that we were donating to George Bush and John Kerry...Anyway, I have to say that this is the finest thing I have ever done.
I have enjoyed so much being married to a liberal wife, and having that hard difference of opinion.
I am not only happy but I am grateful to the stars above that I've had the opportunity to meet all her liberal friends, and she my conservative ones.
It's a great life, to discover your liberal wife is a better shot with an assault rifle than you are!
I've gotten hammered with all of her nutty liberal friends and I have to say that I am better for it.
When you leave politics out the window, we're all pretty much the same, and yes, that includes gay couples too.Now, the great compromise we have, of course, politically, is over single payer health care.
Our deal is thus: My wife will always buy American products, but I will have to come around and support single payer health insurance.
SO here goes.It is utterly foolish for Democrats to support the kind of health care reform they are proposing.
Single payer is completely the way to go.1) People prefer simplicity.
No longer will people believe that health insurance companies will somehow give a better service than government.
After the last twenty years, they cannot give a better service than anybody.
With single payer, I don't have to do a damned thing, but see a doctor when I want.
That's pretty powerful.2) It makes American companies more competitive.
One of the chief reasons that GM went belly up is because their interiors of their cars were not as good as their foreign counterparts.
Why the difference?
Well, GM had to pick up a $1000 difference per car and that translates to health care costs.
IF we had single payer, corporations would not have to pay for health insurance.
There would be no need for corporate plan administrators, and so forth.3) More privacy.
There's no need for your corporate boss to know about your health care.4) Better risk management.
We've watched insurers merge one after the other, to get better economies of scale and also to have a better risk pool.
Size matters in insurance and the chief complaint against any federal plan is that health insurance won't be competitive.
Geez, that's some argument.
Its one thing to say that government sucks and isn't as good, but its quite another to say that private people have some right to not compete against the government when the delivery of a service is at issue.
If UPS can win against the Post Office, then Aetna needs to quit whining about an expanded Medicare.5) Rationing should be democratic.
We all know that ultimately we, me, you and I, are driving health care into the ground.
We're Americans and when one of our loved ones is dying, we don't say, gee, that's too bad.
WE grab the doctor by the throat and say "save him!
"  Our desire to save everyone we know, regardless of the cost, is what makes us a great people.
Even if we cannot, we are better for having tried, because, as we try, we learn, and some day, we will.
In the meantime though, there are sometimes that we must say no, and it is more fare that such times should be held to a vote among all of us, rich and poor, citizens all, than, some stuffy boardroom with insurance doctors picking random things that stuff the balance sheet.6) Government is not evil.
You cannot say that you think Government is evil when you support our military.
Our Army is socialized weaponry, and they kick ass.
We got 4300 empty helmets on rifles in Iraq, of people working for the US Government.
Show me the p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28437169</id>
	<title>Re:Some people who CAN afford it, can't get it!</title>
	<author>Some Bitch</author>
	<datestamp>1245762300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all those against socialised health care, this guy's experience is why you're wrong and will always be wrong.  No civilised country would permit this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all those against socialised health care , this guy 's experience is why you 're wrong and will always be wrong .
No civilised country would permit this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all those against socialised health care, this guy's experience is why you're wrong and will always be wrong.
No civilised country would permit this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410199</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>PeeAitchPee</author>
	<datestamp>1245595020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit being so blind.  There are plenty of Democrats who toss healthcare CEOs' salads, too -- most notably <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Daschle#Post-Senate\_career" title="wikipedia.org">Tom Daschle</a> [wikipedia.org], who is married to <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/11/daschles\_lobbyist\_wife\_might\_c.html" title="washingtonpost.com">one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists</a> [washingtonpost.com] and who was Obama's pick to run healthcare until his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Daschle#Withdrawal" title="wikipedia.org">tax problems</a> [wikipedia.org] came out.</p><p>This is <i>not</i> a partisan issue -- it's a lobbyist / special interest issue, but apparently you've been successfully conditioned and duped to wrongly believe that one side is more willing and able to "fix" things than the other.  News flash: neither side wants a fix because they're both in the pocket of those who benefit from the current fucked-up system.  So things will remain as they are, and our healthcare system will continue to get worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit being so blind .
There are plenty of Democrats who toss healthcare CEOs ' salads , too -- most notably Tom Daschle [ wikipedia.org ] , who is married to one of Washington 's most powerful lobbyists [ washingtonpost.com ] and who was Obama 's pick to run healthcare until his tax problems [ wikipedia.org ] came out.This is not a partisan issue -- it 's a lobbyist / special interest issue , but apparently you 've been successfully conditioned and duped to wrongly believe that one side is more willing and able to " fix " things than the other .
News flash : neither side wants a fix because they 're both in the pocket of those who benefit from the current fucked-up system .
So things will remain as they are , and our healthcare system will continue to get worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit being so blind.
There are plenty of Democrats who toss healthcare CEOs' salads, too -- most notably Tom Daschle [wikipedia.org], who is married to one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists [washingtonpost.com] and who was Obama's pick to run healthcare until his tax problems [wikipedia.org] came out.This is not a partisan issue -- it's a lobbyist / special interest issue, but apparently you've been successfully conditioned and duped to wrongly believe that one side is more willing and able to "fix" things than the other.
News flash: neither side wants a fix because they're both in the pocket of those who benefit from the current fucked-up system.
So things will remain as they are, and our healthcare system will continue to get worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405247</id>
	<title>Required Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone point out for me the mechanism that is going to require ALL citizens to buy health care coverage?  I can't seem to find it.  What happens under this plan of someone does not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone point out for me the mechanism that is going to require ALL citizens to buy health care coverage ?
I ca n't seem to find it .
What happens under this plan of someone does not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone point out for me the mechanism that is going to require ALL citizens to buy health care coverage?
I can't seem to find it.
What happens under this plan of someone does not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406477</id>
	<title>Rewrite the Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245507540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever hear of the Economy Act? It's meant to prevent just this sort of government takeover of free country.</p><p>Nationalize the car companies.<br>How can Ford possibly compete with US Govt Cars when they just write off their losses?</p><p>Nationalize financial insurers.<br>How can an insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses?</p><p>Nationalize banks.<br>How can a bank compete with US Govt Bank when they just print what they need?</p><p>Nationalize healthcare insurance.<br>How can an independent insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses?</p><p>Nationalize healthcare.<br>How can a private hospital compete when the US Govt Hospital is paid for by the taxpayer?</p><p>For those that say "people will stay pay for premium service", I disagree. They won't be permitted to because very quickly US Govt regulation will prevent care by non-US Govt entities.</p><p>If you want a "government of the people, by the government, for the government", then rewrite the Constitution.<br>Otherwise back the hell up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever hear of the Economy Act ?
It 's meant to prevent just this sort of government takeover of free country.Nationalize the car companies.How can Ford possibly compete with US Govt Cars when they just write off their losses ? Nationalize financial insurers.How can an insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses ? Nationalize banks.How can a bank compete with US Govt Bank when they just print what they need ? Nationalize healthcare insurance.How can an independent insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses ? Nationalize healthcare.How can a private hospital compete when the US Govt Hospital is paid for by the taxpayer ? For those that say " people will stay pay for premium service " , I disagree .
They wo n't be permitted to because very quickly US Govt regulation will prevent care by non-US Govt entities.If you want a " government of the people , by the government , for the government " , then rewrite the Constitution.Otherwise back the hell up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever hear of the Economy Act?
It's meant to prevent just this sort of government takeover of free country.Nationalize the car companies.How can Ford possibly compete with US Govt Cars when they just write off their losses?Nationalize financial insurers.How can an insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses?Nationalize banks.How can a bank compete with US Govt Bank when they just print what they need?Nationalize healthcare insurance.How can an independent insurer compete with US Govt Insurance when they just write off their losses?Nationalize healthcare.How can a private hospital compete when the US Govt Hospital is paid for by the taxpayer?For those that say "people will stay pay for premium service", I disagree.
They won't be permitted to because very quickly US Govt regulation will prevent care by non-US Govt entities.If you want a "government of the people, by the government, for the government", then rewrite the Constitution.Otherwise back the hell up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405673</id>
	<title>Cant wait for the sound bites.</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1245501960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cant wait to hear from people with government provided, free health care, how government provided health care is bad and no one should want it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant wait to hear from people with government provided , free health care , how government provided health care is bad and no one should want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant wait to hear from people with government provided, free health care, how government provided health care is bad and no one should want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413099</id>
	<title>Re:It seems obvious from this</title>
	<author>berbo</author>
	<datestamp>1245575100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...

Of course, what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem, i don't know.</p></div><p>use perl;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. . Of course , what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem , i do n't know.use perl ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...

Of course, what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem, i don't know.use perl;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406169</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure the US is ready for public healthcare</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1245505260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective.</p></div></blockquote><p>You seem to think that people aren't denied costly treatments under our current system. You would be mistaken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you ca n't have a certain treatment because it 's not cost effective.You seem to think that people are n't denied costly treatments under our current system .
You would be mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure such a lawsuit friendly country can handle being told you have to wait months for treatment or that you can't have a certain treatment because it's not cost effective.You seem to think that people aren't denied costly treatments under our current system.
You would be mistaken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28437169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28416219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28418853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28422071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28425277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28420479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28427567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28436919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28414991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28421407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1844214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28425277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28427567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28418853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28412013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28421407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28420479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28436919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28422071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28411629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28437169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28413099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28415849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28407395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28414991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28404991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28410083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28416219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28409179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28408919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28405495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1844214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1844214.28406545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
